Featured What does ETERNAL mean?

He didn't say "eternal"; that's an incorrect rendering of the word. The correct rendering would be "fire of the ages" or "eons".

 

Protestants have a problem with James. They wish it wasn't a part of scripture, but since it is, they either deny it's plain words or try to explain and rationalize it away.

I'm not Catholic, but I what I've said is the truth.

 

I was quoting Scripture like you were quoting Scripture--without context; as you did with James 2. If you say that is the way that Satan uses Scripture then apply it to yourself. I was using Scripture as you use Scripture--same methodology.

 

I know that; I'm just saying that is the English rendering of the word. It doesn't matter whether the words are adjective or nouns; that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Whether adjective or noun, the Greek original does not mean "eternal". That is a false and incorrect rendering of the meaning of the word in the original. Anyone interpreting it as "eternal" is forcing a meaning onto the original which it did not have.

 

What you say is not true. Anyone can read your ridiculous example of using scripture to go against a whole passage that I gave.

 

I'm very glad this discussion is civil -- hope we can keep it that way!

 

Good! I'm glad to know that.

 

I gave you my example from Psalm 14:1. Here is yours. It is the same thing.

You ripped that Scripture right out of its context. Abraham was not considered righteous for what he did. And that is not what James was teaching. What you are teaching is a deceitful use of Scripture--just like Psalms teaches "there is no God," you are doing the same thing.

 

The Calvinists and Lutherans do not understand that there is the Law in the Old Testament the Law that consists of sins not to do and of good to do and then there is the works of the law both together called The Law.

The works of the law is a written code with regulations, for worship, and an earthly sanctuary. Gifts and sacrifices were required for worship and the earthly sanctuary. They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washing---external regulations.
God forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

We are no longer saved by those kinds of works, but we still have to have Jesus’ teachings and obey them. Jesus’ teachings are not works of the law. Calvinists and Lutherans think that doing anything is called a work,and thus they teach for Christians we do not have to do anything to be saved. What a confusing mess they teach.

 

That is not what it means.

In classical and in secular Greek, aionios is an adjective formed from the noun aion. In classical Greek this word aion has three main meanings.

(i) It means a life-time.

(ii) Then it comes to mean an age, a generation, or an epoch. So the Greeks could speak of this present aion, and of the aion which is to come, this present age and the age which is to come.

(iii) But then the word comes to mean a very long space of time.

"Aion" is the English word "eon". It does not mean "eternal".

 

No, I did not rip anything out of the scriptures, you did. You quoted one little sentence. Any fool can see that the Bible is not saying there is no God, in fact, THAT IS WHAT THAT SCRIPTURE IS ABOUT, SOMETHING A FOOL SAYS.
You say James was not teaching what I said he was. ALL I DID WAS QUOTE JAMES! Now, since you say Abraham was NOT considered righteous for what he did, tell me, if Abraham had refused to take Isaac to be offered, what do YOU THINK WOULD BE THE MESSAGE IN THAT? You are someone who goes terribly against God’s Word.

 

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Who is confused?

 

Yes, indeed.

Since the scriptures teach that works are an evidence that a person has come to faith, and James teaches that we are not saved by faith alone, how do you suppose faith alone advocates would view a person who claimed to have faith but never exhibited any good works?

I ask this, being basically a faith alone advocate. Meaning, that I don't see that the thief on the cross did any good works and yet was saved. But of course he didn't really have time or opportunity to put his faith into action.

 

How do you think it is okay to tell the servants that they do not have to do anything that the Master says to do?