James versus Paul? Works of the law vs. works of faith

[DPMartin]

Precious friend, there is NO Difference IF, as Most assume, there is only one gospel,
the TWELVE and Paul said Exactly THE SAME thing, and "prophecy/law" are Exactly
THE SAME THING as "The Revelation Of The MYSTERY," and GRACE!

What IF humble and Diligent Bible students have found Scriptural Evidence
to the contrary? Would you take a few moments to investigate?
God's Approval/TWO Gospels In Prophecy vs Mystery
"Distinctions" of Prophecy vs MYSTERY

Precious friend, Please:
be Richly Encouraged, enlightened, exhorted, and edified!
God's Simple Will

the law says what must be fulfilled, and so does prophecy, what's your point? that's not a Paul v James concept at all.

 

[DPMartin]

bottom line on James v Paul

if you think there is a controversy between the two then you're saying James was aganst the works of Peter and Paul because the law says according to Peter :

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.


and the Truth is the Lord doesn't have a problem with what either man said or done. but people in this thread do. therefore they ether are ignorant of the Truth or seek to disagree with the Lord generating controversy and confusion.

therefore both men are correct and you are not, because there is no evidence that ether man disagrees with the Lord Jesus Christ who is the agreement, or biblically worded, everlasting covenant.

 

[prism]

Once for any particular point.
But one piece of scripture doesn't cover multiple points.

Fine, which particular point do you want me to address?

 

[FHII]

just because the Lord established the church to accommodate the Ministry of Grace doesn't mean the message is limited to the confines of the church. you forget Paul was independent of the ministry and preaching the gospel years before he was invited to join the Ministry of grace.

and in the Kingdom of God there is no independence from God so, you may want to rethink your views on that, ask Elijah if he was independent of his people, but you can be sure he wasn't independent of the Lord.

a relationship with the Lord doesn't require a relationship with the church. the church should be more concerned with its own relationship with the Lord God then accusing others of falling short for not having a relationship with them. the church is supposed to accommodate and edify its member's relationship with the Lord, not insists it is entitled to stand between its members and the Lord.

Neither Paul or Elijah were independent of the ministry: they WERE they ministry! God called them to preach to the people because God wanted the people to hear what he had to say. In that day, if you didn't hear them, you weren't hearing the Lord.

DP, I understand the notion of not wanting to join to a "church". Its a tough thing to get right when so many sway from the Word. I get it... But Romans 10:14 is just as true as all those verses that say we don't need to be in a Church, don't need a preacher, and that we can be independent contractors (what were those verses again?)

 

[FHII]

bottom line on James v Paul

if you think there is a controversy between the two then you're saying James was aganst the works of Peter and Paul because the law says according to Peter :

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.


and the Truth is the Lord doesn't have a problem with what either man said or done. but people in this thread do. therefore they ether are ignorant of the Truth or seek to disagree with the Lord generating controversy and confusion.

therefore both men are correct and you are not, because there is no evidence that ether man disagrees with the Lord Jesus Christ who is the agreement, or biblically worded, everlasting covenant.

Well I certaintly think there WAS a controversy between them because the Bible details it. Read Acts 15 and Acts 21. How can you read these chapters and say there wasn't? Furthermore, I suggest through studying what happened that it was never settled.

Even furthermore, Paul had controversy with Peter (Gal 2:11) and John/Mark, and Barnabas (Acts 15:39). I mean... Who didn't Paul upset?

The gospel is pretty important. They had to get it right. Kind of like the US Declaration and Constitution... If tou know the history, the formation of these documents was not smooth. They nonetheless got it done. Just as things weren't all hunky dory between the US founding fathers, getting the gospel right wasn't easy either. Unlike the US founding fathers, I dont believe the Apostles and Church leaders hated each other, but to say there wasn't controversy is false. I am just happy they finally got it right.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

Well I certaintly think there WAS a controversy between them because the Bible details it. Read Acts 15 and Acts 21. How can you read these chapters and say there wasn't? Furthermore, I suggest through studying what happened that it was never settled.

Even furthermore, Paul had controversy with Peter (Gal 2:11) and John/Mark, and Barnabas (Acts 15:39). I mean... Who didn't Paul upset?

The gospel is pretty important. They had to get it right. Kind of like the US Declaration and Constitution... If tou know the history, the formation of these documents was not smooth. They nonetheless got it done. Just as things weren't all hunky dory between the US founding fathers, getting the gospel right wasn't easy either. Unlike the US founding fathers, I dont believe the Apostles and Church leaders hated each other, but to say there wasn't controversy is false. I am just happy they finally got it right.

There was never any doctrinal competition or disagreement between James and Paul.

Paul: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." - Eph. 2:8-10

James: "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." - Jas. 2:17

Both men clearly agreed that obedience to God must accompany the belief in God in order for one's faith in Him to be real and complete.

Paul: "(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;" - Rom. 2:13

James: "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." - Jas. 2:24

Both men clearly agreed that a Christian must obey God's commandments if they are to remain righteous in God's eyes.

Paul: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."- Gal. 5:1

James: But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does. - Jas. 1:25

Both men clearly agreed that Christian freedom comes from living by God's commandments.

So i have to ask you, how is it false to say there weren't any controversies between them? The both of them clearly taught the same exact thing Christ did, even though they phrased the theology differently than He did.

 

[FHII]

So i have to ask you, how is it false to say there weren't any controversies between them? The both of them clearly taught the same exact thing Christ did, even though they phrased the theology differently than He did.

Did you read Acts 15 and Acts 21?

 

[marks]

bottom line on James v Paul

if you think there is a controversy between the two then you're saying James was aganst the works of Peter and Paul because the law says according to Peter :

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.


and the Truth is the Lord doesn't have a problem with what either man said or done. but people in this thread do. therefore they ether are ignorant of the Truth or seek to disagree with the Lord generating controversy and confusion.

therefore both men are correct and you are not, because there is no evidence that ether man disagrees with the Lord Jesus Christ who is the agreement, or biblically worded, everlasting covenant.

Well said!

 

[DPMartin]

Well I certaintly think there WAS a controversy between them because the Bible details it. Read Acts 15 and Acts 21. How can you read these chapters and say there wasn't? Furthermore, I suggest through studying what happened that it was never settled.

Even furthermore, Paul had controversy with Peter (Gal 2:11) and John/Mark, and Barnabas (Acts 15:39). I mean... Who didn't Paul upset?

The gospel is pretty important. They had to get it right. Kind of like the US Declaration and Constitution... If tou know the history, the formation of these documents was not smooth. They nonetheless got it done. Just as things weren't all hunky dory between the US founding fathers, getting the gospel right wasn't easy either. Unlike the US founding fathers, I dont believe the Apostles and Church leaders hated each other, but to say there wasn't controversy is false. I am just happy they finally got it right.

Paul may have upset but never disagreed besides it was Paul who was the scholar when it came to scripture. and it wouldn't take much for Paul to upset seeing sometime before he was persecuting their brothers in Christ. ruffling a few feathers is a natural occurrence with any group, so what, again, that's not proof there was discrepancies in doctrine.

 

[FHII]

Paul may have upset but never disagreed besides it was Paul who was the scholar when it came to scripture. and it wouldn't take much for Paul to upset seeing sometime before he was persecuting their brothers in Christ. ruffling a few feathers is a natural occurrence with any group, so what, again, that's not proof there was discrepancies in doctrine.

I take it after you have reviewed Acts 15 and 21? Let me make some points:

1. In Acts 1519-20 James delivers his sentence, which is not to trouble the gentiles with the law (especially circumcision, but in reality, the whole law.
2. Nowhere does James free Jewish Christians from the Law. This will become a big problem and will be shown to be true later.
3. Paul never agreed. I say that because there is no indication that he ever preached all those 4 points. The ones he did, he was already preaching. Later in Galatians he said they seemed to be pillars, but they added nothing to him. This is NOT a compliment.
4. To say there wasn't a difference in doctrine while there was a council to debate doctrine is a contradiction.

Next, lets review Acts 21:

1. Lest anyone think I believe they were enemies, I acknowledge 21:17-20.5. Paul is received with joy.
2. In verse 20-22 James mentions a big problem: appearently Paul had been teaching that Jewish Christians weren't under the Law either. That they should forsake Moses. Mind you, these were believers (Christians) who were still zealous for the Law and Paul was teaching differently.
3. Verse 25 is where James reminds Paul that he excused the gentiles, but if you had any doubt that James didn't excuse Jewish Christians in Acts 15, this chapter is absolute proof otherwise.
4. The fallout is that Paul and 4 others must perform a ritual to purify themselves and James says it will show that Paul himself-- a Jew, of the stock of Benjamin-- was willing to keep the law! Thats in verse 24. James was asking Paul to go against his own preaching!
5. Those are all facts. They are undeniable unless you can show me I missed something. Its happened before, so let me know if I did. Now, THIS is my opinion: I have no idea why he agreed to do it! I certainly don't believe he thought it was necessary nor do I believe he thought he was wrong. 1 Cor 9:20 is the only possible explanation. Now I submit myself to Paul as he was the Apostle and I will not say he was wrong. I am just saying I dont fully comprehend his decision.

Let me ask some concluding questions:

1. Before the Jerusalem Council, did James believe that all Christians should keep the Law while Paul did not?
2. During their meeting in Acts 21 did James believe that Jewish Christians should still keep the Law (Including Paul himself) while Paul did not?
3. While Paul preaches against fornication and was against idols, do you ever see him strictly enforce the rules James set forth for the gentiles?

The answers to these questions is yes, yes and no. So the final question:

4. Was there a difference in doctrine between the two when one believes that Jewish Christians are still under the law, and that the gentiles have some rules in place, while the other does not?

I'm going to ask a question for reflection... No need to answer. They are for anyone looking at this thread: do you believe that Jewish Christians still must follow the law? Because that is what James was teaching and that is what Paul taught against.

 

[DPMartin]

I take it after you have reviewed Acts 15 and 21? Let me make some points:

1. In Acts 1519-20 James delivers his sentence, which is not to trouble the gentiles with the law (especially circumcision, but in reality, the whole law.
2. Nowhere does James free Jewish Christians from the Law. This will become a big problem and will be shown to be true later.
3. Paul never agreed. I say that because there is no indication that he ever preached all those 4 points. The ones he did, he was already preaching. Later in Galatians he said they seemed to be pillars, but they added nothing to him. This is NOT a compliment.
4. To say there wasn't a difference in doctrine while there was a council to debate doctrine is a contradiction.

Next, lets review Acts 21:

1. Lest anyone think I believe they were enemies, I acknowledge 21:17-20.5. Paul is received with joy.
2. In verse 20-22 James mentions a big problem: appearently Paul had been teaching that Jewish Christians weren't under the Law either. That they should forsake Moses. Mind you, these were believers (Christians) who were still zealous for the Law and Paul was teaching differently.
3. Verse 25 is where James reminds Paul that he excused the gentiles, but if you had any doubt that James didn't excuse Jewish Christians in Acts 15, this chapter is absolute proof otherwise.
4. The fallout is that Paul and 4 others must perform a ritual to purify themselves and James says it will show that Paul himself-- a Jew, of the stock of Benjamin-- was willing to keep the law! Thats in verse 24. James was asking Paul to go against his own preaching!
5. Those are all facts. They are undeniable unless you can show me I missed something. Its happened before, so let me know if I did. Now, THIS is my opinion: I have no idea why he agreed to do it! I certainly don't believe he thought it was necessary nor do I believe he thought he was wrong. 1 Cor 9:20 is the only possible explanation. Now I submit myself to Paul as he was the Apostle and I will not say he was wrong. I am just saying I dont fully comprehend his decision.

Let me ask some concluding questions:

1. Before the Jerusalem Council, did James believe that all Christians should keep the Law while Paul did not?
2. During their meeting in Acts 21 did James believe that Jewish Christians should still keep the Law (Including Paul himself) while Paul did not?
3. While Paul preaches against fornication and was against idols, do you ever see him strictly enforce the rules James set forth for the gentiles?

The answers to these questions is yes, yes and no. So the final question:

4. Was there a difference in doctrine between the two when one believes that Jewish Christians are still under the law, and that the gentiles have some rules in place, while the other does not?

I'm going to ask a question for reflection... No need to answer. They are for anyone looking at this thread: do you believe that Jewish Christians still must follow the law? Because that is what James was teaching and that is what Paul taught against.

you really don't understand what these guys knew, do you?

when born again the Lord God sees you through His Son, His Beloved Son which would seem that one could do no wrong. but what is written in the heart is the law. and one cannot escape the desires of the heart. therefore the heart is replaced with what is in the Lord's heart and the desire for fulfillment of what is in the heart. hence statements like:
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

or statements that James made.

the desire to do the Lord commandments is there, but your salvation isn't dependent on your success to fulfill the law as Jesus did.

hence John's statement:

1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

all these guys are explaining the same thing on one hand don't sweat if you can't do as weel as Jesus repent move on. but if you do care for the law, and doing well according to it, then that which is of the Lord is not in you.

simple.

 

[FHII]

you really don't understand what these guys knew, do you?

when born again the Lord God sees you through His Son, His Beloved Son which would seem that one could do no wrong. but what is written in the heart is the law. and one cannot escape the desires of the heart. therefore the heart is replaced with what is in the Lord's heart and the desire for fulfillment of what is in the heart. hence statements like:
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

or statements that James made.

the desire to do the Lord commandments is there, but your salvation isn't dependent on your success to fulfill the law as Jesus did.

hence John's statement:

1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

all these guys are explaining the same thing on one hand don't sweat if you can't do as weel as Jesus repent move on. but if you do care for the law, and doing well according to it, then that which is of the Lord is not in you.

simple.

DP if you are going to address my post you should address what I said in it. Through the account given in Acts we see that James still sought to keep the Law and Paul didn't. The is clearly a doctrinal difference there and if you aren't going to acknowledge that, so be it. In that case, however, you have NO business telling me I don't understand what these guys knew.

 

[Wrangler]

We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone.

My favorite quote from John Wesley.

Jas 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone

My church defines faith = belief + action. Real faith has action. However, 'works' in the Bible refer to self-aggrandizement, working not for the glory of God. Scripture says no man can brag in being saved. So, I see harmony between Paul and James. Real faith has action and once saved through this real faith, one acts on the will of God, good works. Good works is not what saves us.

Just like our father in the faith, we are made right with God through good works, not simply by what we believe or think.
James 2:24 (Voice)

 

[Wrangler]

Wow, you have no idea in the world what the facts are.

PAUL: Abraham was justified APART FROM WORKS

JAMES: Abraham WAS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS as are all men.

That seeming contradiction is explained, along with the kind of works each apostle wrote about.

I couldn't help but notice you did not actually quote Scripture. I recall Abraham being known as the Father of Faith, not belief. Faith has action. Belief does not. Abraham acted in faith by going to the promised land. We are not made right by God by believing lip service style. Real faith has action.

 

[amigo de christo]

Seems the Lord knew exactly who to send on that mission, and gave him almost 1/3 of New Testament scripture to explain it. He surly wasn't a weakling like myself. He was a man's man if there has ever has been one!

THE LORD was HIS STRENGTH . I never seen that man ever once point to himself .
The LORD is the strength of his lambs . And as paul once said , so say i now again , I shall cut the legs of any who desire Lordship
over the flock . Be encouraged my friend .

 

[Curtis]

I couldn't help but notice you did not actually quote Scripture. I recall Abraham being known as the Father of Faith, not belief. Faith has action. Belief does not. Abraham acted in faith by going to the promised land. We are not made right by God by believing lip service style. Real faith has action.

I quoted scripture

Faith and belief are synonymous in scripture.

James refutes your claim of faith being belief acted upon, by saying faith WITHOUT WORKS is a dead faith - he didn’t say faith without works is mere belief.

So there’s two kinds of faith, the one absent works, i e actions, is dead.

And faith is biblically defined as: the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Shalom

 

[Curtis]

My favorite quote from John Wesley.



My church defines faith = belief + action. Real faith has action. However, 'works' in the Bible refer to self-aggrandizement, working not for the glory of God. Scripture says no man can brag in being saved. So, I see harmony between Paul and James. Real faith has action and once saved through this real faith, one acts on the will of God, good works. Good works is not what saves us.

Just like our father in the faith, we are made right with God through good works, not simply by what we believe or think.
James 2:24 (Voice)

Two completely different kinds of works are in James and Paul’s writings.

I explained in detail in the OP.

And it’s not faith followed by works. It’s faith and works together, simultaneously. James said Abraham’s works PERFECTED his faith, so works are involved in having saving faith, not something that follows separately.

Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?

Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;

KJV:

Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

 

[FHII]

And it’s not faith followed by works. It’s faith and works together, simultaneously. James said Abraham’s works PERFECTED his faith, so works are involved in having saving faith, not something that follows separately.

Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?

Curtis, keep those two James quotes queued up while I bring up another few from Hebrews:

Hebrews 11:17-19 KJV
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, [18] Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: [19] Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Did Abraham do a work? Yes he did. He offered up Isaac. But the faith WAS NOT attached to his work; it was attached to the faith he had that although Isaac was about to die, God was STILL going to keep his promise that the linage would continue through a dead man (Isaac).

God wasn't looking directly at whether Abraham would fo through with it (though yes, it did have to happen in intent); he was looking to see whether Abraham would still believe the promise that Isaac would continue the linage.

In other words, he was not justified by offering up Isaac; he was justified by the faith that God was going to keep his promise. Yes, he had to offer him up, but that wasn't what God called faithful.

Abraham figured he was going to kill Isaac, and that God would resurrect him. It didn't happen that way, but that's what he believed was going to happen.

This is the 11th chapter of Hebrews which begins with a verse you yourself quoted: that faith is the evidence of things NOT seen. There was only Abraham, Isaac, the ram and God there, so no one saw it go down. But THEY saw it go down. Isaac saw it go down! Thus that was seen.

No one saw what Abraham had faith in: that God would continue the line even if Isaac was dead.

So no... Abraham was not justified by the work even though it had to happen. He was justified by a fairhful belief that if it did happen, God would keep his promise.

 

[Wrangler]

So no... Abraham was not justified by the work even though it had to happen.

The action Abraham took to demonstrate his faith took place much earlier when he was left his land and went to the Promised Land.

No one is justified by their work. IMO, we are confusing our 21st century engineering definition of work with the Biblical term ‘works.’

‘Works’ serve your glory. Acting on the will of God serves His glory.

 

[prism]

Real faith has action and once saved through this real faith, one acts on the will of God, good works.

I have a bit of difficulty with what I placed in bold letters above. (although I agree with the 2nd part)
My favorite question to this point..."If saving faith has action, how much action must we do to be justified?"