More often one takes the stand that the words "will" and or "shall" are definite - something that is accomplished.
We can read the words of Romans 10:9 or Romans 10:13 and attach great authority that what is stated does in fact happen. The "shall" is taken as fact that is accomplished.
However, why is that same authority not seen carried out just as reliable when reading James 5:15. The Greek word is the same (sozo), yet more often folks with terminal illness were not healed and the promise unrealized.
Perhaps James' statement given in the Scriptures may be considered in the following ways:
So, what is your answer?
How do you hold to Romans being so authoritative and absolute in fulfillment, yet when it comes to practical application in the physical realm, as given in James, there is no reliability. Perhaps Martin Luther was correct in stating that James doesn't belong in the cannon not because of doctrinal errors, but in factual reliable physical proof.
Perhaps someone on the BB has a Scriptural response.
I'd like to read your thinking on this matter of reliability expressed in Romans but seemingly not completely reliable in practical ways in James.
We can read the words of Romans 10:9 or Romans 10:13 and attach great authority that what is stated does in fact happen. The "shall" is taken as fact that is accomplished.
However, why is that same authority not seen carried out just as reliable when reading James 5:15. The Greek word is the same (sozo), yet more often folks with terminal illness were not healed and the promise unrealized.
Perhaps James' statement given in the Scriptures may be considered in the following ways:
1) The promises is conditional and the faith of the modern believers is does not attain to the standard to activate the promise.
2) Perhaps it isn't a failure, but a promise only to the earliest church that no longer applies.
3) The promise is a "pie in the sky" hope given to the ignorant.
4) The promise is to be taken as allegory and not literal.
5) The promise is a miss applied in the translations.
6) The promise is just another of God's big jokes to expose doubters to those who are real believers.
7) The promise cannot be considered because the oil isn't mineral or vegetable but spiritual.
2) Perhaps it isn't a failure, but a promise only to the earliest church that no longer applies.
3) The promise is a "pie in the sky" hope given to the ignorant.
4) The promise is to be taken as allegory and not literal.
5) The promise is a miss applied in the translations.
6) The promise is just another of God's big jokes to expose doubters to those who are real believers.
7) The promise cannot be considered because the oil isn't mineral or vegetable but spiritual.
So, what is your answer?
How do you hold to Romans being so authoritative and absolute in fulfillment, yet when it comes to practical application in the physical realm, as given in James, there is no reliability. Perhaps Martin Luther was correct in stating that James doesn't belong in the cannon not because of doctrinal errors, but in factual reliable physical proof.
Perhaps someone on the BB has a Scriptural response.
I'd like to read your thinking on this matter of reliability expressed in Romans but seemingly not completely reliable in practical ways in James.
