Who is the Book of James writen to

[H. Richard]

I do not believe that there is any part of the Bible that is not intended for everyone who will read it.

The Apostles and Paul have the very same message for all of us. I do not understand how it is that some folks seem to get the idea that "under grace" means that we need not obey God's commandments. Jesus never taught such a thing, nor did His Apostles...nor did Paul.

I can see how, if one wants to believe that the rule book has been tossed out, it would be necessary to somehow get rid of James...but this idea that James wrote it only to the Jews just doesn't work.

You say "all sins have been done away with in Jesus shed blood." Good news for serial killers, rapists, child molesters, etc! Carry on doing what you do, because there is no such thing as "sin" any more. Everything from ripping off that necklace at WalMart, all the way up to murder, is permissible, because all sin has been done away.

Uh...no. You might want to think about that a little bit.....itures are

Quote from above, "I do not believe that there is any part of the Bible that is not intended for everyone who will read it." --- Neither do I but I can certainly know what parts of it are written to me as a Gentile and which parts are specifically written to the Jews and which parts are specifically written to Gentiles and Jews after the setting aside of the Jewish nation of Israel.

Tell me which sins Jesus' shed blood paid for and which one were not paid for. Do some think the shed blood on the cross is worthless?

Quote from above; "I can see how, if one wants to believe that the rule book has been tossed out, it would be necessary to somehow get rid of James...but this idea that James wrote it only to the Jews just doesn't work.

OK then reconcile the following verses:

James 2:18
18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
NKJV --- under the Law of Moses a person had to do the works of the law and if they didn't then they had no faith in the law. Therefore to the Jew their works show their faith.

Gal 2:16
16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
NKJV

Some will rationalize that the works James is writing about is not the same works Paul is wring about.

If a person can not see the difference in works and grace they will never be able to reconcile the scriptures.

I was going to quote some scripture from the book of Galatians but somehow I don't think it will matter to those that are dead set on trying to get works as a bases for salvation.

 

[mjrhealth]

You say "all sins have been done away with in Jesus shed blood." Good news for serial killers, rapists, child molesters, etc! Carry on doing what you do, because there is no such thing as "sin" any more. Everything from ripping off that necklace at WalMart, all the way up to murder, is permissible, because all sin has been done away.

Such a pity, you really missed the mark, Jesus never died to do away with sin, He came so there would be no condemnation, teh only way Jesus could do away with sin would be to make us all perfect, than. guess what we wouldnt need Him any more and His death would be pointless, but those who strive to perfect themselves by the law have already made a mockery of all he has done, because in the end you dont "please" Him by keeping teh law for teh law is in complete oposition to grace, and we are justified by His death and resurection. In the hend it is grace that saves us, no matter how hard you work at the law, which as it says is just that a work.

In all His Love

 

[Barrd]

Some of Paul's thoughts on the Law of God:

Paul kept the law himself:

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

Act 18:21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


Paul says that doers of the law shall be justified:

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.


Here Paul says, not once, but twice, that we learn what sin is from the law:

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Here is a key scripture where Paul states that our faith does not make the law void, as some seem to think. Rather, our faith establishes the law.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

And again:

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

C'mon, Paul! Tell us what you really think of the Law!

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

I've heard some folks say that the law is carnal...but Paul says no.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Once more, Paul...what do you really think of the Law of God? We need to know!

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

Does this sound as if Paul were teaching that the law had been abolished?

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

 

[Barrd]

If there were no more law, we would have no need of grace.
Doesn't that seem obvious?
God would never have needed to manifest in flesh, or die a horrible death on the cross....He could have stayed at Home, and just said, "Hey, guess what, guys? I am abolishing the law. Y'all kids have fun now!"
Of course, put right out there that way, it sounds ridiculous.
Doesn't it?

 

[mjrhealth]

God would never have needed to manifest in flesh, or die a horrible death on the cross....He could have stayed at Home, and just said, "Hey, guess what, guys? I am abolishing the law. Y'all kids have fun now!"
Of course, put right out there that way, it sounds ridiculous.
Doesn't it?

Jesus didnt die because of the law He died because of Sin, Sin was manifest in the world long before teh law, teh law proved to man that he could not earn his righteousness by his works simply because he couldnt keep teh law, for him it is impossible. The law was given to te hJews not the gentiles, te hgentiles came to Jesus under grace so that by this God could show the Jews teh better way. yet still some choose to try prove themselves and put themselves under the law,,how does it go,

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

You cant be married to two husbands. it is Jesus or the law. Take your pick.

 

[Barrd]

Jesus didnt die because of the law He died because of Sin, Sin was manifest in the world long before teh law, teh law proved to man that he could not earn his righteousness by his works simply because he couldnt keep teh law, for him it is impossible. The law was given to te hJews not the gentiles, te hgentiles came to Jesus under grace so that by this God could show the Jews teh better way. yet still some choose to try prove themselves and put themselves under the law,,how does it go,

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

You cant be married to two husbands. it is Jesus or the law. Take your pick.

Do you know what sin is, Mj?

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

As you say, Jesus died because of sin....Jesus died for transgression of the law.

What is sin?
Is it a sin to worship any other gods?
Is it a sin to make and worship idols?
Is it a sin to take the Lord's name in vain?
Is it a sin to disrespect your parents?
Is it a sin to murder?
Is it a sin to commit adultery?
Is it a sin to steal?
It is a sin to spread false rumors about someone?
Is it a sin to long for that which belongs to someone else?

A certain pattern emerges rather quickly...doesn't it?

(I left out the fourth commandment on purpose, not because I do not think it is valid, but because I do not wish to get involved in a foolish argument about the Sabbath.)

 

[mjrhealth]

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Amen, and why are you trangressing the law, because you have put yourself under it. Do you know why there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ and who walk after the spirit, its because for those who are in christ there is only one law. "Love", and since they are not under the law "OT", they cant trangress it, whaty do you thinks they said the gentiles where "lawless", because the law was not given to us.

(I left out the fourth commandment on purpose, not because I do not think it is valid, but because I do not wish to get involved in a foolish argument about the Sabbath.)

Amen, it is,

Heb 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

As long as you insist on working you are not resting.

 

[Wormwood]

Some people take the opinions of others to form their own. I always know, after the fact, that when someone uses the "WE" word on a forums it is meant to indicate that they are in the majority and the person addressed is in the minority I remember that Jesus said only a few find it and that excludes the many. I also know that there are those who will call something black when it is white and no matter how much is told or shown to them they will not change their minds.

Some reject the teaching of teachers, history and those gifted in the Church to help them learn the truth and, in arrogance, think their own opinion is more valid than billions of Christians, teachers and 2,000 years of Church history.

 

[H. Richard]

Some reject the teaching of teachers, history and those gifted in the Church to help them learn the truth and, in arrogance, think their own opinion is more valid than billions of Christians, teachers and 2,000 years of Church history.

Who decides who those men are? Isn't it just men?

I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit (God) is in this world and He is the one that teaches the individual child of God. To me, if it isn't found in the scriptures it is not from God.

Acts 17:11
11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
NKJV

For these the scriptures are the final authority and that is what I believe also. God did not leave me in the hands of sinful men.

The Church is a spiritual entity, made by the will of God and built without human hands of flesh, and the head of the Church is Jesus Christ who gave his life for it. I, personally feel that no man is to be considered as head of the Church. The Church's visibility in the world is shown through Christians that profess that faith in Jesus‘ work on the cross has saved them, individually and as groups. It is not a religious organization, or building, or certain place established by men. Read LUKE, 17:20 "The Kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, here it is, or there it is, because the kingdom of God "is" within you.

 

[H. Richard]

Jesus didnt die because of the law He died because of Sin, Sin was manifest in the world long before teh law, teh law proved to man that he could not earn his righteousness by his works simply because he couldnt keep teh law, for him it is impossible. The law was given to te hJews not the gentiles, te hgentiles came to Jesus under grace so that by this God could show the Jews teh better way. yet still some choose to try prove themselves and put themselves under the law,,how does it go,

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

You cant be married to two husbands. it is Jesus or the law. Take your pick.

Absolutely the truth. A very good post.

 

[H. Richard]

It should be obvious that when Jesus gave Paul the gospel of grace; (that all of mankind's sins have been paid for on the cross), the only way Satan could get a person is to make them "not believe it." --- And that is just what Satan has done, and Satan has done it through the churches that men have organized and claim have the right works for a person to earn salvation.

 

[Barrd]

2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Paul did not teach anything contrary to Jesus. Yes, he said that we are under grace, but he very quickly corrected any idea that this meant that we could ignore the law.

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Paul's gospel of grace is not a gospel of lawlessness. He would be appalled at the very notion. Paul never taught that the law had been abolished. He kept the law himself.

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

And he taught that the law is good.

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

It is Satan that teaches that, since Christ paid for all your sins on the cross, you may as well get His money's worth....

 

[H. Richard]

2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Paul did not teach anything contrary to Jesus. Yes, he said that we are under grace, but he very quickly corrected any idea that this meant that we could ignore the law.

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Paul's gospel of grace is not a gospel of lawlessness. He would be appalled at the very notion. Paul never taught that the law had been abolished. He kept the law himself.

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

And he taught that the law is good.

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

It is Satan that teaches that, since Christ paid for all your sins on the cross, you may as well get His money's worth....

Yes the law is good but the law has never saved anyone because no man/woman can keep it. The law can only convict and condemn a person. Only grace can save a person and it is found in what Jesus did for mankind when He, Jesus, shed His blood to paid for our sins of the flesh.

 

[Barrd]

Yes the law is good but the law has never saved anyone because no man/woman can keep it. The law can only convict and condemn a person. Only grace can save a person and it is found in what Jesus did for mankind when He, Jesus, shed His blood to paid for our sins of the flesh.

Amen.
We are in agreement on that point, Richard. No man, or no woman either, can keep the law perfectly.
That is what grace is for.
But grace does not mean that the law has been abolished.
Jesus died for our sins, that it true, but He did not die in order that we might continue in our sins.
The Law is just, and holy, and good. And we are to strive to keep it. Grace is for those times when we fall on our...erm...pride.
And when we do sin...which is to transgress the Law...we are to repent, and pray for forgiveness, which God has promised.

 

[H. Richard]

Amen.
We are in agreement on that point, Richard. No man, or no woman either, can keep the law perfectly.
That is what grace is for.
But grace does not mean that the law has been abolished.
Jesus died for our sins, that it true, but He did not die in order that we might continue in our sins.
The Law is just, and holy, and good. And we are to strive to keep it. Grace is for those times when we fall on our...erm...pride.
And when we do sin...which is to transgress the Law...we are to repent, and pray for forgiveness, which God has promised.

The fallacy in your argument is that you are indicating that the child of God CAN NOT continue to sin any longer, and yet everyone continues to sin as long as they live in this sinful flesh.
According to the scriptures the law (with it penalty) has been "nailed to the cross". It, the law, can no longer condemn those "in Christ".

A person can't say "we can't continue to sin" and then say if that person sins that person can repent. One contradicts the other. The scriptures tell me that I have been set free of the law. But some say I am not free from the law. They can't both be right.

The "License to Sin" argument says a child of God who believes their sin are all paid for can go out and sin all they want too. That is a lie in that no child of God will WANT, WANT, to sin. But they know they do. To say they WANT to sin is building a straw man that does not exist. As for me I will be glad when I am not living in this body of sin.

As I see it, if a religious person is honest they would see that committing sin and then pulling out their get out of sin “repentance” card is the same thing, their license to sin all they want to.

You said > "And when we do sin...which is to transgress the Law...we are to repent, and pray for forgiveness, which God has promised." This indicates that I am not free from the law. Sorry but I am not going to go back under the law. I have been set free. What I see is that what you are saying is exactly what the Jews were telling the Gentiles that were save by the gospel Paul taught. Paul spent a lot of his writing warning the children of God not to go back under the law. Read Galatians, that is what the whole book is about.

I, personally, think that the reason many are leaving the church is that they know they still sin in the flesh and the churches are indicating that they have to stop sinning and everyone of them know they can't do it. The church no longer sets people free.

Think about it.

 

[Barrd]

The fallacy in your argument is that you are indicating that the child of God CAN NOT continue to sin any longer, and yet everyone continues to sin as long as they live in this sinful flesh.
According to the scriptures the law (with it penalty) has been "nailed to the cross". It, the law, can no longer condemn those "in Christ".

A person can't say "we can't continue to sin" and then say if that person sins that person can repent. One contradicts the other. The scriptures tell me that I have been set free of the law. But some say I am not free from the law. They can't both be right.

The "License to Sin" argument says a child of God who believes their sin are all paid for can go out and sin all they want too. That is a lie in that no child of God will WANT, WANT, to sin. But they know they do. To say they WANT to sin is building a straw man that does not exist. As for me I will be glad when I am not living in this body of sin.

As I see it, if a religious person is honest they would see that committing sin and then pulling out their get out of sin “repentance” card is the same thing, their license to sin all they want to.

You said > "And when we do sin...which is to transgress the Law...we are to repent, and pray for forgiveness, which God has promised." This indicates that I am not free from the law. Sorry but I am not going to go back under the law. I have been set free. What I see is that what you are saying is exactly what the Jews were telling the Gentiles that were save by the gospel Paul taught. Paul spent a lot of his writing warning the children of God not to go back under the law. Read Galatians, that is what the whole book is about.

I, personally, think that the reason many are leaving the church is that they know they still sin in the flesh and the churches are indicating that they have to stop sinning and everyone of them know they can't do it. The church no longer sets people free.

Think about it.

Oh, the tangled webs we weave...

The one you are deceiving is yourself. But don't feel too badly about it...so many have fallen for this convoluted bunch of bovine excrement...
This idea that the law has been abolished is some of Satan's very best work...almost as good as the notion that he is no longer active in the world...

Okay...I never once suggested that a child of God can no longer sin. YOU are the one saying that, my friend...or do you not realize that sin is transgression of the law? If there is no law, how can you possibly transgress the law? If there is no law, there is no sin.

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

You say that no child of God will WANT to sin. Really? No child of God will ever be tempted to sin? Being tempted is to want to do something. I am tempted by that lovely pie sitting out to cool...I want to eat that pie. That is what being tempted is. Even Jesus was tempted...do you think we are any better than Jesus? For just a moment, Jesus wanted to turn those stones into bread. He was hungry. He was tempted, but He did not sin.

When you say that there is no law, you say that there is nothing keeping you from lying, stealing, cheating on your spouse...even murder. There is no law, right? So, there is no reason not to do whatever you are tempted to do. Eat the pie...spread the vicious gossip...steal that thing that has caught your eye...go ahead and seduce that new girl at work...do whatever you want to do...why not? There is no law, right? So how can it be a sin? Sin is transgression of the law, and you have been set free from the law...

Again:
1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

I do see your point...but repentance is not a "get out of hell free card." Rather, it is a contrite heart. It is God's heart reaching out to your heart, convicting you of the truth about yourself. You are a sinner, and you deserve hell. The only reason you are not twisting in the flames at this moment is because of God's love for you.

Remember the Pharisee and the Publican? The Pharisee thought he was a good guy...he had it goin' on with God. The Publican would not even raise his eyes. He beat on his chest and cried for mercy. "God be merciful to me, a sinner." Which one went down justified before God?

It's been 2000 years. We say "Jesus was crucified for our sins" as if it were nothing. We have forgotten, I think, just how horrifying crucifixion really is. I can't think of many ways humans have invented to torture and kill one another that is as cruel as crucifixion. Oh, there may be one or two...we humans are very good at cruelty...but crucifixion stands out as one of the nastiest of human inventions. Yet our Lord submitted Himself to human cruelty...for us. I don't know about you, but I cringe inside whenever I think of it...God, Himself, nailed to a cruel Roman cross, for my sins...

But how could we have any sins that need to be forgiven? After all, there is no law, right?

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

 

[H. Richard]

Oh, the tangled webs we weave...

The one you are deceiving is yourself. But don't feel too badly about it...so many have fallen for this convoluted bunch of bovine excrement...
This idea that the law has been abolished is some of Satan's very best work...almost as good as the notion that he is no longer active in the world...

Okay...I never once suggested that a child of God can no longer sin. YOU are the one saying that, my friend...or do you not realize that sin is transgression of the law? If there is no law, how can you possibly transgress the law? If there is no law, there is no sin.

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

You say that no child of God will WANT to sin. Really? No child of God will ever be tempted to sin? Being tempted is to want to do something. I am tempted by that lovely pie sitting out to cool...I want to eat that pie. That is what being tempted is. Even Jesus was tempted...do you think we are any better than Jesus? For just a moment, Jesus wanted to turn those stones into bread. He was hungry. He was tempted, but He did not sin.

When you say that there is no law, you say that there is nothing keeping you from lying, stealing, cheating on your spouse...even murder. There is no law, right? So, there is no reason not to do whatever you are tempted to do. Eat the pie...spread the vicious gossip...steal that thing that has caught your eye...go ahead and seduce that new girl at work...do whatever you want to do...why not? There is no law, right? So how can it be a sin? Sin is transgression of the law, and you have been set free from the law...

Again:
1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

I do see your point...but repentance is not a "get out of hell free card." Rather, it is a contrite heart. It is God's heart reaching out to your heart, convicting you of the truth about yourself. You are a sinner, and you deserve hell. The only reason you are not twisting in the flames at this moment is because of God's love for you.

Remember the Pharisee and the Publican? The Pharisee thought he was a good guy...he had it goin' on with God. The Publican would not even raise his eyes. He beat on his chest and cried for mercy. "God be merciful to me, a sinner." Which one went down justified before God?

It's been 2000 years. We say "Jesus was crucified for our sins" as if it were nothing. We have forgotten, I think, just how horrifying crucifixion really is. I can't think of many ways humans have invented to torture and kill one another that is as cruel as crucifixion. Oh, there may be one or two...we humans are very good at cruelty...but crucifixion stands out as one of the nastiest of human inventions. Yet our Lord submitted Himself to human cruelty...for us. I don't know about you, but I cringe inside whenever I think of it...God, Himself, nailed to a cruel Roman cross, for my sins...

But how could we have any sins that need to be forgiven? After all, there is no law, right?

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

So I am deceiving myself. Or can it be that you are deceiving yourself. Don't you think we should leave you and me out of the discussion and not throw around accusations.? I certainly have not said Jesus' shed blood on the cross is nothing. I have been saying it is everything required. I have said, and the scriptures agree with me, that the shed blood on the cross is the power of God to save the UNGODLY. That is exactly what I have been saying. But you seem to disagree. As I see it those that do not understand that Jesus' shed blood has paid for all their sins of the flesh are saying that His Blood just doesn't quite get us saved.

Got to run.

 

[Wormwood]

Who decides who those men are? Isn't it just men?
I firmly believe that the Holy Spirit (God) is in this world and He is the one that teaches the individual child of God. To me, if it isn't found in the scriptures it is not from God.

It is clear that the Holy Spirit guides His Church and gives gifts and guides believers throughout history. To examine all of Church history and some of the most godly and significant teachers and their thoughts on texts of the Bible as completely irrelevant to your own opinion on the matter just comes across as arrogance. Now its fine if you dont agree with church tradition and most Christian scholars. I know there are areas in which I do not agree with the majority view on a particular issue. However, to dismiss their view as "just men" and suggest that your opinion is of greater value than thousands or millions of other godly people is just ridiculous. So I agree that it is fine to dissent from majority opinion on a topic, however we should never act as if all those believers and their educated and scholarly opinions are worthless.

Also, this has nothing to do with something found in the Bible vs. something unbiblical. We are talking about how to understand a phrase in a biblical passage. We are all looking at the Bible and are coming to different conclusions about the individuals that make up a particular phrase. I have shown you quotes and texts that make it very clear that this phrase used in James is also used in Acts to refer to the church, not Israel. So the question here is whether or not this is referring to literal Israel or is a term reflective of the scattered and persecuted new Israel. Church tradition says the latter. Biblical texts suggest the latter. Modern scholars suggest the latter. If you disagree, its not because you believe the Bible and others dont. That is a false dichotomy you are erecting to make your position sound more persuasive.

Finally, I think you have an errant view of what it means to be "taught" by the Holy Spirit. According to your rationale, no one can ever teach or disagree with you because you learn directly from God. That is not what John is talking about in his letter about us being "taught" by the Spirit and needing no one to teach you anything. Of course we need teachers or else the Holy Spirit wouldnt gift individuals with the gift of teaching!! John is referring to Gnostics who taught they had secret knowledge by which someone could enter heaven and these believers needed to join them and be taught this "gnosis" or knowledge that was passed down by Christ. John is simply telling them, "You have the Holy Spirit and you do not need to be taught this secret "gnosis" to go to heaven." The very point of gifts of the Spirit is so that we, as Christians, will exist in loving community and allow one another's gifts to build each other up. If your theological framework takes root, then basically one says that I dont need you or anyone else, I have the Holy Spirit and He gives me all I need and if you disagree with me, then you are going against the Spirit. Not at all what is being taught here and a very anti-biblical and divisive approach to the teaching of the NT, IMO.

 

[H. Richard]

It is clear that the Holy Spirit guides His Church and gives gifts and guides believers throughout history. To examine all of Church history and some of the most godly and significant teachers and their thoughts on texts of the Bible as completely irrelevant to your own opinion on the matter just comes across as arrogance. Now its fine if you dont agree with church tradition and most Christian scholars. I know there are areas in which I do not agree with the majority view on a particular issue. However, to dismiss their view as "just men" and suggest that your opinion is of greater value than thousands or millions of other godly people is just ridiculous. So I agree that it is fine to dissent from majority opinion on a topic, however we should never act as if all those believers and their educated and scholarly opinions are worthless.

Also, this has nothing to do with something found in the Bible vs. something unbiblical. We are talking about how to understand a phrase in a biblical passage. We are all looking at the Bible and are coming to different conclusions about the individuals that make up a particular phrase. I have shown you quotes and texts that make it very clear that this phrase used in James is also used in Acts to refer to the church, not Israel. So the question here is whether or not this is referring to literal Israel or is a term reflective of the scattered and persecuted new Israel. Church tradition says the latter. Biblical texts suggest the latter. Modern scholars suggest the latter. If you disagree, its not because you believe the Bible and others dont. That is a false dichotomy you are erecting to make your position sound more persuasive.

Finally, I think you have an errant view of what it means to be "taught" by the Holy Spirit. According to your rationale, no one can ever teach or disagree with you because you learn directly from God. That is not what John is talking about in his letter about us being "taught" by the Spirit and needing no one to teach you anything. Of course we need teachers or else the Holy Spirit wouldnt gift individuals with the gift of teaching!! John is referring to Gnostics who taught they had secret knowledge by which someone could enter heaven and these believers needed to join them and be taught this "gnosis" or knowledge that was passed down by Christ. John is simply telling them, "You have the Holy Spirit and you do not need to be taught this secret "gnosis" to go to heaven." The very point of gifts of the Spirit is so that we, as Christians, will exist in loving community and allow one another's gifts to build each other up. If your theological framework takes root, then basically one says that I dont need you or anyone else, I have the Holy Spirit and He gives me all I need and if you disagree with me, then you are going against the Spirit. Not at all what is being taught here and a very anti-biblical and divisive approach to the teaching of the NT, IMO.

What I know about the RCC is not that it is not so great. You must be a RCC member and you know their doctrines. But I disagree with that doctrine and will not waste my time.

1 Cor 2:12-13
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
NKJV

 

[H. Richard]

Oh, the tangled webs we weave...

Let me talk about repentance.\

In my opinion true repentance is necessary for the child of God. But that repentance is not a ritual that is done when they think they have sinned. I believe in a repentant attitude, an attitude of continually acknowledging, to God, that the sins of the flesh are always present in the mind. It is this reason that a person embraces the gospel of grace because it is the only gospel that can save a sinful person. And let us not try to deceive ourselves, we all sin in the flesh.

Having said the above I must state that, to some, repentance seems to means that they perform a ritual of repentance. I do not believe that knowing you have committed a sin and then pulling down your get out of sin repentance card is true repentance. It ignores the fact that they sin in their minds all the time.

IMHO (In my honest opinion), to the religious mind, repenting of sins is something that a person does, at some time or other, to ask for forgiveness for a sin they think they have committed. I say it this way because, for them, they must pick a time and go to God in a prayer of words and ask for forgiveness for that sin. They do it only when they think they have done something wrong. For the rest of their time they rationalize that they do not sin and therefore do not have to repent.

To me, true repentance "IS" a "CONSTANT ATTITUDE" of the heart and is not an action that is done at some place or time. --- It is constantly acknowledging (admitting to God) that you are a sinful person in the flesh and that you need His forgiveness, the need for God, who paid for sins, to save a person from their sinful nature in the flesh. -- It is a constant humble walk with God (the Holy Spirit that lives in your heart) in honesty, without deceit. -- To be exact it is and attitude of the heart and it is not a ritual that you do at some place or time.

1. A repenting; penitent state; feeling of sorrow, etc. especially for wrongdoing; compunction, contrition; remorse. A child of God feels remorseful that he/she sins but since they live in a body of sinful flesh there is no way they can stop from sinning in the flesh. Paul couldn’t in Romans 7 and neither can we.