James 2:14

I don't believe that the fiduciary faith promulagated by the Reformers suffices; only a faith that is formed by charity saves. This faith is the "obedience of Christ", which we are given in baptism and assimilate throughout our lives by cooperating with God's life operating in us, to heal and elevate our nature with the divine nature.

 

Tuor, frankly, I don't care what you like or don't like about my posts. My purpose for posting is not to satisfy your personal desires.

 

Stating one's own belief negatively by comparison is hardly a method of attacking. It's a method of rhetoric that contrasts positions to further elucidate your own. And, at the same time, it challenges others to think of their own position.

 

Well perhaps the article by which the Church stands or falls is of such importance that the nature of the faith act should be analyzed closer. Remember, in the Protestant paradigm, works occur after faith, and only faith justifies. What is this faith? Is it simply trust in Christ's vicarious atonement (i.e. the fiduciary faith of Calvin and Luther that entails the sinner's prayer) or is it something more?

So, to incorporate works into the faith act is, in a certain sense, running dangerously close to the Catholic definiton of faith formata. My comments are to bring this to light, to bring everyone to a closer analysis of what kind of faith we're really speaking of. Is justification a singular momentous event that comes through a trust in Christ's promise and is an irrevocable, forensic declaration (the foremost pillar of the Protestant movement)?

Or is faith a disposition that adheres to both the object of faith and the Person of God by which justification then becomes a process (Catholic) that involves works, namely those actions that express faith?

To deny fiduciary faith and defend forensic justification seems, to me, to be an irreconcilable paradox.

 

Tuor:
I have read your original post on James 2:14 and find your position to be in harmony with the scriptures. The Bible teaches us that one must have an obedient active faith to please God. Romans 16:26, Hebrews 11:6. Therefore, because Calvin's T.U.L.I.P. fails to meet the litmus of scripture, It is to be opposed. Moreover, it is for the same reason, I oppose Roman Catholicism. It simply cannot pass the litmus of scripture in many areas. One, Catholicism stands against Biblical Authority. Mat. 28:18-20. Two, Catholicism stands opposed to the New Testament organization of the church. I Tim. 3:1-11, Titus 1:4-9. Three, Catholicism stands opposed to the biblical teaching to marriage and bishops, I Tim. 3:2, I Tim.4:3. Four, Catholicism stands in error in unlawful designation or glorifying of men. Mat. 23:8,9. Five, Catholicism opposes the teaching of I Tim.4:3 as it pertains to what one can eat.
Tuor, I have just touched the hem of the garment on the false teachings of Catholicism. Carson should remove the beam out of his own eye before trying to remove the mote out of the eyes of others. Mat. 7:3-6.

 

http://www.emmanuel-baptist.org/sermons/James/james11.htm

 

Hi Frank,

I understand your difficulties with the Catholic Church, and I sympathize with you. Have you read any Patristics or Patrologies?

God bless,

Carson

 

If someone is going to have to write a book on 'reconciling' views on Paul's writings with James' writing, then there is definitely a problem. The Bible clearly reconciles it itself.

It is a simple fact. Those who claim to have faith in Jesus Christ, but don't bear out that fruit with works are not going to heaven.

Amen Ben.</font>[/QUOTE]This also could be said for those people that say "We believe exactly what the bible says" But when faced with the real issue they have to reach over their shoulders to wipe thier tail end.

God bless

 

Carson:
No, I have not read those works. While I appreciate extra-biblical works, they are not the standard for truth.
The word of God is the essence of truth. John 17:17. Truth is absolutely attainable. John 8:32. It is essential that men know it. Eph. 5:17.
Your question to me chronicles a major problem for the religious world. The lack of a consistent standard for teaching and practice. If all men went back to the word of God as their standard, this peudo intellectualism and false scholarship would end. God has said he provided all. Men should believe it! II Pet. 1:3.
I am not attacking you personally no more than I attack the denominationalist of the world. I believe you call them protestants. I believe you are a very intelligient man and zealous at that. Those character traits are admirable. However, I cannot support any person or group that stands in opposition to the divine truth of God.
Your question to me about the extrabiblical writings enumerates the vast differences in hermeneutics that we have. Carson, I will say that at least you acknowledge you use things outside the New Testament in your doctrine. The denominationalist use their man made councils and creeds to seperate themselves from one another. Then, when questioned about what they believe there is an echoing of the " Bible Only " sentiment. Yet, compare it to the Bible and they do not harmonize at all.
It is an amazing thing to me, we can obey the laws of the land, file our taxes correctly, yet we refuse to use the same " common sense principles" in knowing the will of God. In short, language works in three and only three ways. One declares, provides and example or infers by the totality of what one can read.
Personally, I think you are a very interesting person. You have an insight to some biblical truths that are excellent. It requires me to study and ponder them. I actually agree with a number of your posts on faith and obedience. These two simple concepts are much abused in the denominational ( protestant) world.
Finally, I am a very blunt and straight forward in presenting the word of God. I actually host a T.V. program called " Let the Bible Speak." Perhaps, the title will help you to empathize with me in my continuing effort to know and practice the will of God. Have a good day.

 

If someone is going to have to write a book on 'reconciling' views on Paul's writings with James' writing, then there is definitely a problem. The Bible clearly reconciles it itself.

It is a simple fact. Those who claim to have faith in Jesus Christ, but don't bear out that fruit with works are not going to heaven.

Amen Ben.</font>[/QUOTE]I agree. Perhaps you have misunderstood what I mean by reconcile.

There are many that would attempt to draw a false dichotomy by saying that Paul teaches salvation by grace alone while James adds works.

MacArthur, if you don't know, has been embroiled with other conservatives over his teachings on Lordship salvation. Basically, he concludes that the Bible teaches that if Jesus is not Lord then He is not Saviour.

I would point to one of my favorite passages to support this view (although I would probably make more of an allowance for backsliding than does MacArthur). Romans 8 tells us that the chosen of God WILL be conformed to the image of Christ. It is not vague nor iffy. We will be conformed.

The elect of God are predestined not only to be saved but to give outward evidence of that salvation and to grow in the faith.

[ October 21, 2002, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Works are the necessary and natural result of genuine saving faith.

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

[ October 21, 2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

What does this statement have to do with anything? Other than demonstrating a hateful attitude...

For the record, everyone who says they "believe exactly what the Bible says" will eventually have to interpret the scripture to formulate coherent beliefs. To be "oneness" for instance, you have to explain some passages that seem to deny your beliefs. To believe in the Trinity, you have to do the same. To be Calvinist, the same. Catholic, the same.

The rub is who is being more true to the overall context and message with their doctrinal interpretations.

 

Hi Frank,

You wrote, "No, I have not read those works. While I appreciate extra-biblical works, they are not the standard for truth."

Of course they aren't. God's word is. I'm in complete agreement with you. Cf. Fitzmyer's "Scripture, the Soul of Theology".

Your question to me chronicles a major problem for the religious world. The lack of a consistent standard for teaching and practice.

I would vie for a lack of authority.

If all men went back to the word of God as their standard, this peudo intellectualism and false scholarship would end.

Yes, that's a nice opinion, but the Protestant experiment has already failed, of which you are a child (you inherit Sola Scriptura from the 16th c. Reformers, viz. Martin Luther). Just look around and see the continuing division among those who seek God's Word and God's Word alone.

I am not attacking you personally no more than I attack the denominationalist of the world. I believe you call them protestants. I believe you are a very intelligient man and zealous at that. Those character traits are admirable. However, I cannot support any person or group that stands in opposition to the divine truth of God.

You mean, the divine truth of God stated by Frank. Simply because you are Frank does not make you God's mouthpiece, and Frank doesn't come without lenses of his own.

Your question to me about the extrabiblical writings enumerates the vast differences in hermeneutics that we have.

No, it simply is a question as to whether you have read about the history of early Christianity and how the churches that the Apostles built continued into history. It's a fascinating study.

Carson, I will say that at least you acknowledge you use things outside the New Testament in your doctrine.

Just as you do. I'm just being honest. You should too.

The denominationalist use their man made councils and creeds to seperate themselves from one another.

Like Nicea separated the true believers from the Arians? Considering that you are a child of Nicea, the above is an easy statement for you to make. But, without knowledge of history, speaking to one who has read history, your statement is entirely foolish.

Then, when questioned about what they believe there is an echoing of the " Bible Only " sentiment. Yet, compare it to the Bible and they do not harmonize at all.

You mean, compare it to the Bible as seen by Frank and spoken by Frank. You see, Frank, you can't separate the Bible from your own view. You are prejudiced just as I am. Everyone comes to the text with preconceived notions. Everyone. You didn't formulate the doctrine of the Trinity that we have today. The Capadocian Fathers in the 4th century did. Any honest Christian well-read in history will admit that (e.g. Christian historians and scholars whom you don't read).

Personally, I think you are a very interesting person. You have an insight to some biblical truths that are excellent. It requires me to study and ponder them. I actually agree with a number of your posts on faith and obedience. These two simple concepts are much abused in the denominational ( protestant) world.

Thank you. I'm glad that you can glean truth from my posts.

Finally, I am a very blunt and straight forward in presenting the word of God. I actually host a T.V. program called " Let the Bible Speak."

You mean, you are blunt in presenting your view of the Word of God. Everyone has a paradigm through which the Bible is proclaimed, Frank. Everyone.

Where does the program air at what time and on what channel?

Several of my professors have programs on Television, specifically EWTN. These include Scott Hahn, PhD; Alan Schreck, PhD; and Regis Martin, STD. The first two are converts and well published.

God bless,

Carson

[ October 21, 2002, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Carson:
If you agree about extrabilical writings why do you use them to make your positions. Why have the Catachism and the papla bulls. Now as i said, if you claim theyare inspired of God,Prove by the divine recird and credentials givenas PROOF of this power. II Cor. 12:12 Mk. 16:20.

2. There is no lack of authority. Jesus has all of it. Mat. 28;18-20. Some refuse to submit to it. These men and women will be eternally lost. Rev 20:10.

3. Jesus said one could know the truth. John 8:32. You are debating christ over what he said I could do. That is an interesting concept. I already know who wins that debate. John 12:48.

4.Again , if you do not believe extrabiblical writings have authorityfor dcotrine or practice why use them to make your case. men maybe right but also may be worng. The inspired message and messenger was always right. You are being inconsistent with your first statement and thus flaws your hemeneutical principle.

5. I am a product of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a child of God. I ama Christian as per Isaiah 62;2 and acts 11:26, no more no less. Yuo have once agaoin made an unsubstantiated assertionwithout any evidence whatsoever. You site secular history that does chronicle denominatioanlism, but not pristine New Testament Chrisitianity which I practice. My friedn that may only be found in the last will and testament of Christ.Hebrews 10:15-17. You can search your history books and all the other writngs you wish to study today, tomorrow, for a thousand years with the mind of einstein and you will never frind Christianity in any book other tahtn the Gospel of Christ. If you are claiming I am a denominationalist or protestant. Prove it! Icall you a Catholic because that is waht you claim to be. I have claimed only to be a Christian, no more no less and you seem to have difficulty with the concept. You have been reading to many extra biblical opinions from those who could not spell Christian, much less be able to find it in the New Testament. I Pet. 4: 16, Acts 11:26;26:28.

6. I do not preach opinion. I leave that up to the ist and isms of the world. I preach only those things authorized by the Lord Jesus Christ. Mat. 28;18-20. Carson, you have asserted otherwise. PROVE IT! I assure you I can preach and teach only those truths as God would have me too. It amazes me that you would say a foolish thing like "I think I am God's mouthpiece" as that is precisely what God demands from all preachers or ministers. I Pet. 4:11. If any man speak,let him speak, as the oracles of God: if any man minsiter,let him do it as of the ability which God giveth;that God in all things amy be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be dominion for ever and ever. Amen. You should spend more time with the word of God and less listening to the unsubstantiated opinions of men. As the ole preacher once said if there ain't no scripture fer it I do not preach it!
And I have not preached my opinion cause there ain't no scripture fer it.
If you think, as you say my, paridigm is wrong.
Prove It! I Thes. 5: 21.

 

What does this statement have to do with anything? Other than demonstrating a hateful attitude...

For the record, everyone who says they "believe exactly what the Bible says" will eventually have to interpret the scripture to formulate coherent beliefs. To be "oneness" for instance, you have to explain some passages that seem to deny your beliefs. To believe in the Trinity, you have to do the same. To be Calvinist, the same. Catholic, the same.

The rub is who is being more true to the overall context and message with their doctrinal interpretations.</font>[/QUOTE]Scott, I do appologize. I did not mean for that to come across the wrong way. I meant it to be funny you know...HA..HA..