Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

My proof that Paul cursed James, the brother of Jesus

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> The Ten Commandments and Laws of the Bible

Author

Message

porphyry
Growing Guppy

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:43 pm Post subject:

Craig2uguys wrote:

porphyry wrote:

God made an exception to your hard and fast rule of Levitical lineage with Aaron's own son!

No, He did not! Eleazar was Aaron’s son and therefore he was a Levite. His other relatives are irrelevant to the issue.

You need to do your homework a little more. In the case of Eleazor, the priesthood passed out of the line of Levi, as I documented earlier from the Jewish Encyclopedia

porphyry
Growing Guppy

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject:

Craig2uguys wrote:

porphyry wrote:

It is my contention that James and Paul disagree over whether Mosaic Law continues to be spiritually significant for JEWS who become Christians.

Paul doesn't merely teach that Gentiles don't need to be circumcized to be saved....he teaches that NOBODY needs to be circumcized in order to be saved.

Yet everything known about James from the bible and Christian histories indicates that he'd have maintained the necessity of circumcision for JEWS who become Christians. And that puts him at odds with Paul, who decried the Law as 100% impotent to contribute ANYTHING to salvation:

Quote:

4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.
5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, " (Romans 4, NASB)

I don't think you appreciate how "alone" Paul's justifying faith really is. He may have also taught that good works naturally result from a genuine faith, but that merely conflicts with his extreme statement in Romans 4:5 that it's possible to have a genuine saving faith that DOESN'T produce good works.

Quote:

The theological differences between James and Paul are mostly imaginary and based on a less than careful reading of the New Testament. This less than careful reading of the New Testament has caused many to overlook the fact that when Paul wrote of “works” in reference to salvation or justification he was writing exclusively of “works of the Law” ...

Really? What "works of the Law" could be associated with Abraham? Paul appeals to the case of Abraham to ground his argument that works cannot justify a person, and Abe lived long before the works of the Law. So their being linked to Abraham forbids these "works" Paul mentions here, from being interpreted as "works of the Law", since the Law came 430 years after Abe.

Quote:

and that when James wrote of “works” in reference to salvation or justification he was writing exclusively of good works—not of obeying the Law for the Law’s sake, but doing good works as the believer in Christ walks in the Spirit.

And you assume the NT authors believed exactly what they wrote, for their entire lives, which contradicts what we know about theologians and their ever-changing beliefs.

It is perfectly legitimate to infer that a theologian will disagree with his own writings as his understanding evolves. That happens with routine regularity every day, and even the NT records somebody trying to preach mighty about Christ, before he understood correctly (Acts 18:26)

Quote:

This fact becomes especially clear when we read Rom. 1-8 as a unit rather than as miscellaneous individual verses. These first eight chapters of Romans are a unit in which Paul argues that the Law, that is, the old covenant, is not efficacious in saving anyone but God’s grace is efficacious to save those who accept it through faith in Christ. Good works are, therefore, totally out of his mind in these eight chapters.

Sorry, the immediate context of a disputed word is the first priority when trying to get at the author's intended meaning. Paul's "works" in Romans 4:5 are in the immediate context of the works of Abraham (see verse 1-3). Abraham could not do the works of the Law, so paul wasn't saying "works of the Law" cannot justify, he must have meant some other sort of works.

Romans 4:4 is obviously talking about actual paid labor. So it is as clear as it can possibly be, that "works of the Law" have nothing to do with the "works" that can't justify us, in Romans 4:5. The works that Paul said can't justify us, are ANY good works, whether the kind that Abe could have performed, or the sort that we get paid for.

As such, my thesis, that Paul taught that ZERO works can justify us, still stands, and your attempt to expand the context a full 8 chapters does nothing more than violate the standard canons of bible interpretation, which tell you that an author is likely to define what he meant with a disputed word, in that immediate context. You offer no good reason to try and understand Romans 4:5 in light of anything other than Romans 4:1-4.

Quote:

This fact is even clearer in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians:
Gal. 2:16. nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Gal. 3:2. This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

Gal. 3:10. For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."

yes, Paul specified the works of the Law in other contexts. But the "works" he mentions in Romans 4:1-5 are clearly not "works of the Law".

Quote:

]James, on the other hand, wrote,

James 2:14. What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
15. If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,
16. and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?
17. Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
18. But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
19. You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
20. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
22. You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
23. and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.
24. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25. In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
26. For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Notice especially verse 21. The works which James writes saved Abraham were not works of the Law. Abraham was not obeying any Old Testament laws when he offered up Isaac on the altar—he was obeying the voice of God.

Then you admit that Paul isn't talking about the works of the Law when he appeals to the same exact case of Abraham in Romans 4, right?

Quote:

And be sure to notice verse 25. Rahab did NOT receive the messengers because the Old Testament Law told her to do so—she was obeying the voice of God (although she may not have been conscious that she was doing so).

And since Paul appealed to the same case of Abraham for his own argument against works in Romans 4, obviously you agree with me that Paul is not discussing specifically the "works of the Law" in Romans 4:5, right?

If so, then my thesis, that Paul discounted ALL works, whether works of the Law or otherwise, to justify a person, still stands.

That would put Paul in clear dispute with James, if the references to James's High Priesthood in ancient Christian sources are accurate. So far nobody has provided a reason to withdraw the benefit of the doubt from Eusebius on the matter of James the Just.

All Scripture quotations are from the NASB, 1995.
[/b][/color]

Craig2uguys
Hamster

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject:

porphyry wrote:

Craig2uguys wrote:

porphyry wrote:

Craig2uguys wrote:

porphyry wrote:

yes, Paul specified the works of the Law in other contexts. But the "works" he mentions in Romans 4:1-5 are clearly not "works of the Law".

Craig2uguys wrote:

James, on the other hand, wrote,

James 2:14. What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
15. If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,
16. and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?
17. Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
18. But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
19. You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
20. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
22. You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
23. and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.
24. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25. In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?
26. For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Notice especially verse 21. The works which James writes saved Abraham were not works of the Law. Abraham was not obeying any Old Testament laws when he offered up Isaac on the altar—he was obeying the voice of God.

porphyry wrote:

Then you admit that Paul isn't talking about the works of the Law when he appeals to the same exact case of Abraham in Romans 4, right?

Craig2uguys wrote:

porphyry wrote:

And since Paul appealed to the same case of Abraham for his own argument against works in Romans 4, obviously you agree with me that Paul is not discussing specifically the "works of the Law" in Romans 4:5, right??

If so, then my thesis, that Paul discounted ALL works, whether works of the Law or otherwise, to justify a person, still stands.

That would put Paul in clear dispute with James, if the references to James's High Priesthood in ancient Christian sources are accurate. So far nobody has provided a reason to withdraw the benefit of the doubt from Eusebius on the matter of James the Just.

Let’s take a look at Rom. 4:5 in its immediate context and then in the context of Rom. 1-8.

1. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?
2. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
4. Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
5. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
6. just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7. "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
8. "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."
9. Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
10. How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
11. and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
12. and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

We find here that the work specifically spoken of is that of circumcision. Circumcision was first commanded by God in Gen. 17:10 and is known as the Abrahamic Covenant.

Gen. 17:10. "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.

Circumcision was subsequently commanded by God in Lev. 12:3 as part of the Mosaic Law.

Lev. 12:3. 'On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Paul and James both used episodes in Abraham’s life to support their teachings, but they used two very different episodes—one concerning works of the Law; the other, good works having nothing to do with the Law. Rom. 4:1-12, therefore, is one of the many parts of the more comprehensive argument found in Rom 1-8. These first eight chapters of Romans are a unit in which Paul argues that the Law, that is, the old covenant, is not efficacious in saving anyone but God’s grace is efficacious to save those who accept it through faith in Christ. Good works are, therefore, totally out of his mind in these eight chapters.

In James chapter 2, however, the subject is not “works of the Law,” but good works having nothing to do with the Law. And so it is throughout the Epistle of James—Christian believers have a responsibility, not to keep the Law legalistically, but to do good to others as an expression of their true faith in Christ.

(All Scripture quotations are from the NASB, 1995)

porphyry
Growing Guppy

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject:

Quote:

[quote="Craig2uguys"]

porphyry wrote:

Craig2uguys wrote:

porphyry wrote:

Craig2uguys wrote:

porphyry wrote:

yes, Paul specified the works of the Law in other contexts. But the "works" he mentions in Romans 4:1-5 are clearly not "works of the Law".

Craig2uguys wrote:

porphyry wrote:

Then you admit that Paul isn't talking about the works of the Law when he appeals to the same exact case of Abraham in Romans 4, right?

Craig2uguys wrote:

porphyry wrote:

And since Paul appealed to the same case of Abraham for his own argument against works in Romans 4, obviously you agree with me that Paul is not discussing specifically the "works of the Law" in Romans 4:5, right??

If so, then my thesis, that Paul discounted ALL works, whether works of the Law or otherwise, to justify a person, still stands.

That would put Paul in clear dispute with James, if the references to James's High Priesthood in ancient Christian sources are accurate. So far nobody has provided a reason to withdraw the benefit of the doubt from Eusebius on the matter of James the Just.

[b]Let’s take a look at Rom. 4:5 in its immediate context and then in the context of Rom. 1-8.

1. What then

Quote:

shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?
2. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
4. Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
5. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
6. just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7. "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
8. "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."
9. Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
10. How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
11. and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
12. and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

Quote:

We find here that the work specifically spoken of is that of circumcision. Circumcision was first commanded by God in Gen. 17:10 and is known as the Abrahamic Covenant.

You are expanding the context too quickly. We dispute the meaning of Romans 4:5, and verse 4 is revealing on what sort of "works" Paul meant:

Quote:

3 For what does the Scripture say? "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due.

When Paul in verse 4 refers to "work" that a man would get paid to do, which might be anything that benefits his employer/society, it should be clear that the "work" in the next verse is similar.

Secondly, Paul doesn't say "the man who doesn't do this work, but believes...." He says "the man who does not WORK." "Work" in Romans 4:5 is not a certain work (which it would be if it was the specific work of circumcision he meant) purposefully unspecific, because NO type of work, says paul, can justify us.

Third, sure, Paul brings circumcusion into the picture, but all he does is negate it's ability to justifiy. That doesn't mean that this is the specific "work" he meant in Romans 4:5. The connection between circumcision in the latter verses and "work" in Romans 4:5 isn't conspicuous at all.

Fourth, my position was justified by looking at Romans 4:1-6. Unless you accuse Paul of inconsistency, you have not refuted my interpretation of Romans 4:1-6, by telling us what Paul meant in Romans 4:7-ff.

Quote:

Gen. 17:10. "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.

Circumcision was subsequently commanded by God in Lev. 12:3 as part of the Mosaic Law.

Lev. 12:3. 'On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Yup, and Paul expands on his unspecific "work" that cannot save, in Romans 4:13-14, saying that the Law also cannot justify. Like I already said, Paul negated ALL good works, whatever they may be, as needing to be present in the believer.

Quote:

Paul and James both used episodes in Abraham’s life to support their teachings, but they used two very different episodes—one concerning works of the Law; the other, good works having nothing to do with the Law. Rom. 4:1-12, therefore, is one of the many parts of the more comprehensive argument found in Rom 1-8. These first eight chapters of Romans are a unit in which Paul argues that the Law, that is, the old covenant, is not efficacious in saving anyone but God’s grace is efficacious to save those who accept it through faith in Christ. Good works are, therefore, totally out of his mind in these eight chapters.

And now that we see Paul wasn't referring specifically to circumcision with his general statement "the one who does not work" in Romans 4:5, you still need to answer how Paul could have taught that non-working believers can be saved.

The fact that Paul mentions circumcision specifically, but later in Romans 4, proves that he wasn't afraid to use that word if that's what he was talking about. SO his failure to say "but to the one who doesn't get circumciszed, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly..." in Romans 4:5, proves that his actual statement about non-specific "work" was not meant to be understood as circumcision.

What that work should be understood to be, should come from the closest context, in this case, the previous verse, which mentions the kind of work that a man would get paid for.

It is clear that before Paul got to the subject of circumcision in the latter verses, his statement in Romans 4:5 is purely Antinomianist; that is, the belief that faith will even justify the kind of Christian that does no work period.

Quote:

In James chapter 2, however, the subject is not “works of the Law,” but good works having nothing to do with the Law. And so it is throughout the Epistle of James—Christian believers have a responsibility, not to keep the Law legalistically, but to do good to others as an expression of their true faith in Christ.

Yes, while James says the true faith will naturally produce good works, Paul says the one who does NOT work, but believes, will have their faith counted as righteousness.

You failed to show that the "work" of Romans 4:5 was specifically circumcision mentioned much later, while I showed that the idea of of employment/jobs was on Paul's mind in the previous verse.

At minimum you have to explain why Paul thought jobs that pay money had something to do with the idea that the man who doesn't work is still justified by his faith alone. Sure sounds like Paul is saying a Christian can be justified even when they completely lack any and all types of "work".

I recognize that Paul elsewhere taught Christians to maintain good works, but I never said Paul was consistent. My analysis of his meaning in Romans 4 doesn't lose probability simply because Paul stated other things elsewhere.

The idea that a dogmatic theologian will have evolving beliefs is very common, and the only reason one wouldn't explain Paul's inconsistency this way, is out of concern to maintain biblical inerrancy. Unfortunately, the idea that certain men of the ancient world never made a mistake when they wrote theological epistles is an appeal to something absolutely UNcommon, and as such, fails the test of Occam's razor.

Quite simply, the hypothesis that explains the data but employs the least amount of uncommon presuppositions is more likely to be correct. We both agree that theologians do little more than contradict each other like crazy all day long. But only one of us appeals to the more complex hypothesis that certain select men of the ancient world put forth theology that doesn't contradict. My hypothesis wins because it doesn't depend on controversial presuppositions regarding inspiration/inerrancy of the text that require books to be written to explain, and which is itself a point of controversy among Christians anyway. Yours does.

Craig2uguys
Hamster

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject:

porphyry wrote:

The fact that Paul mentions circumcision specifically, but later in Romans 4, proves that he wasn't afraid to use that word if that's what he was talking about. SO his failure to say "but to the one who doesn't get circumciszed, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly..." in Romans 4:5, proves that his actual statement about non-specific "work" was not meant to be understood as circumcision.

The theme of Romans 4:1-25 is: “justification by faith is taught in the Old Testament.” To prove the point, Paul cites the fact, by quoting the Old Testament, that the Scriptures declare in Gen. 15:6 that Abraham was justified by faith, and this having taken place before he was circumcised. Therefore, being circumcised did not justify him; having faith in God justified him.

Gen. 15:6. Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

Rom. 4:1. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?
2. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."

We see that in verses 1-3 Paul writing about Abraham; but in verses 4-8 he digresses from Abraham to provide an illustration in support of his argument that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised .

4. Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
5. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
6. just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7. "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
8. "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."

In verse 9 he resumes his argument that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised and does not digress again from Abraham.

9. Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
10. How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
11. and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
12. and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.
13. For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified;
15. for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.
16. For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
17. (as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU") in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.
18. In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, "SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE."
19. Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb;
20. yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God,
21. and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.
22. Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
23. Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him,
24. but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
25. He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

Therefore, verses 4-8 are parenthetical in nature and subordinate to Paul’s argument that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised.

(All Scripture quotations are from the NASB, 1995)

Craig2uguys
Hamster

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject:

porphyry wrote:

I recognize that Paul elsewhere taught Christians to maintain good works, but I never said Paul was consistent. My analysis of his meaning in Romans 4 doesn't lose probability simply because Paul stated other things elsewhere.

The idea that a dogmatic theologian will have evolving beliefs is very common, and the only reason one wouldn't explain Paul's inconsistency this way, is out of concern to maintain biblical inerrancy. Unfortunately, the idea that certain men of the ancient world never made a mistake when they wrote theological epistles is an appeal to something absolutely UNcommon, and as such, fails the test of Occam's razor.

Paul is entirely consistent throughout his Epistle to the Romans and his theology did not evolve and change during his writing of the fourth chapter. Rolling Eyes

Craig2uguys
Hamster

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:55 pm Post subject:

porphyry wrote:

Quite simply, the hypothesis that explains the data but employs the least amount of uncommon presuppositions is more likely to be correct. We both agree that theologians do little more than contradict each other like crazy all day long. But only one of us appeals to the more complex hypothesis that certain select men of the ancient world put forth theology that doesn't contradict. My hypothesis wins because it doesn't depend on controversial presuppositions regarding inspiration/inerrancy of the text that require books to be written to explain, and which is itself a point of controversy among Christians anyway. Yours does.

I do not approach Paul’s Epistle to the Romans or any other book of the Bible with the presupposition that every word, phrase and thought are the words, phrases or thoughts of God. Nor do I approach Paul’s Epistle to the Romans or any other of his epistles with the presupposition that his theology did not mature with age and experience, or with the presupposition that that Paul’s Epistles are inerrant. I have spent many thousands of hours with Paul and his writings and my personal library includes more than 235 commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans representing scores of conflicting schools of theology, not to mention each of Paul’s other epistles and numerous other volumes on Paul’s theology, and not to mention a multitude of volumes on Old Testament theology, New Testament theology and Judeo-Christian theology, and not to mention scores of volumes of Hebrew and Greek lexicons, grammars and other linguistic studies. I begin my personal studies with only one presupposition—the presupposition that the data must first be collected and analyzed BEFORE any suppositions are made.

Zathrus
King Kong

Joined: 28 Aug 2002

Posts: 2202

Location: WI USA

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject:

porphyry, This thread caught my eye. There was some discussion about this on the Bible Debate forum some months back. Can you sum up your point briefly? I admit I don't have the time or the attention span to read through all the posts and quoted posts in this thread. Paul did say "certain came from James" from jerusalem and were misleading the Galatians by preaching another gospel. Paul also said anyone who preached another gospel than the one of grace and salvation through faith in Christ was accursed. I suppose we could extend that to apply to James, if the shoe fit. Scripture does not say James was a high priest, but it does indicate that he and others in Jerusalem, as well as Peter, slipped from their steadfastness in the faith and back to their exclusivist Jewish traditions. Much interesting information regarding James was brought to light in the discussion on the Bible Debate forum.

porphyry
Growing Guppy

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject:

Craig2uguys wrote:

porphyry wrote:

[b]The theme of Romans 4:1-25 is: “justification by faith is taught in the Old Testament.” To prove the point, Paul cites the fact, by quoting the Old Testament, that the Scriptures declare in Gen. 15:6 that Abraham was justified by faith, and this having taken place before he was circumcised. Therefore, being circumcised did not justify him; having faith in God justified him.

Gen. 15:6. Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

Rom. 4:1. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?
2. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."

We see that in verses 1-3 Paul writing about Abraham; but in verses 4-8 he digresses from Abraham to provide an illustration in support of his argument that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised .

4. Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
5. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
6. just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7. "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
8. "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."

In verse 9 he resumes his argument that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised and does not digress again from Abraham.

9. Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
10. How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
11. and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
12. and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.
13. For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified;
15. for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.
16. For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
17. (as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU") in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.
18. In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, "SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE."
19. Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb;
20. yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God,
21. and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.
22. Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
23. Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him,
24. but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
25. He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

[color=blue]Therefore, verses 4-8 are parenthetical in nature and subordinate to Paul’s argument that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised.

Even under that assumption, you haven't separated verse 4 from verse 5, which means verse 4 is the preparation for verse 5, at least, and so that still leaves verse 4 as a closer context to understand the disputed verse 5. Paul in verse 4 is clearly talking about jobs, the kind of work that one would get paid to do, which benefits society in general, and which would include typical moral good works of any sort, such as helping other people fix something, or cleaning somebody's house, or erecting a building, etc.

So it is "works that benefit one's employer and/or socieity in general" that is on Paul's mind, that is, all kinds of good moral works, and certainly not limited to "works of the Law" when he next says "to the one who does not work, but believes on him who justifies the ungoldy, his faith is counted for righteousness." in verse 5.

As such, when Paul said "the one who does not work", Paul is talking about the kind of person who doesn't engage in ANY sort of work whatsoever, that is, any kind of work that might benefit somebody else or society in general. That therefore is a person who lacks any and all types of good works. As such, it is this ridiculously lazy good-for-nothing person, whose faith Paul says will nevertheless justify them before God.

I never claimed that Paul was an inerrant theologian, so I am not bothered by his statements in other books and contexts where he decries the faith of Christians who are lazy. It is only the worry to preserve biblical inerrancy that spurns you on to desperately search for a way to reconcile every theological statement within 66 ancient books, a procedure that you yourself do not even engage in with respect to any other set of ancient religious propagandistic writings outside the bible.

porphyry
Growing Guppy

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject:

Craig2uguys wrote:

porphyry wrote:

Taking you at your word, I'll have to say that you've devoted far more time and resources to Romans that even the inerrantists!

I cannot know for certain whether you are telling the truth or lying about your personal motivations in this matter, but I find it hard to believe you'd have done as much research into Romans as you now say you have, without a presupposition that Romans is the inspired word of God, somehow.

porphyry
Growing Guppy

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:49 pm Post subject:

Zathrus wrote:

porphyry,
This thread caught my eye. There was some discussion about this on the Bible Debate forum some months back.
Can you sum up your point briefly?

Yes, I believe that Romans 4:5 places Paul in conflict with James, since while James teaches that works are the product of a genuine saving faith, Paul actually says the faith of the person who "doesn't work" will be accounted as righteousness, and thus justify them.

Quote:

Paul did say "certain came from James" from jerusalem and were misleading the Galatians by preaching another gospel.

Paul also said anyone who preached another gospel than the one of grace and salvation through faith in Christ was accursed.

And in all my debates on that passage (Galatians 2:12) I have yet to hear an inerrantist show that the legalism of the "men from James" doesn't go back to James himself. The idea that these "men from James" were more legalistic than James himself, gets the modern inerrantist out of trouble for the moment, but makes Peter's reaction look unbelievably stupid.

Peter, of all people, would clearly know what exactly James believed, and thus would know whether those "men from James" correctly represented James or not.

Inerrantist try to defend the gullibility of Peter as a viable explaination of his acqueiscing to legalists here in Galatians 2:12, by appeal to how gullible Peter was in the gospels.

This however ignores the radical progress in spiritual maturity that Peter went through in Acts. The Peter of Galatians 2:12 was no longer the bumbling idiot of weak faith, he had by then become a fearless wonder working preacher possessed of gifts of discernement (in Acts 5, knowing that a couple lied about their tithe, before empirical evidence came to light).

this more spiritually gifted and mature Peter is the Peter of Galatians 2:12, and with that updated information, makes Peter's obedience to the legalism of the "men from James" all the more likely to go back to James himself. Peter, of all people, would surely know what James truly believed anyway, and therefore, whether the legalism of these "men from James" correctly represented James's true beliefs on the matter of Jew/Gentile associations.

So Peter's choice to start acting legalistically upon their arrival, and quit eating with Gentiles, is best understood as implying that the legalism of these Jamesian delegates goes properly back to James himself.

That is the simple truth, and it cannot support another interpretation merely because inerrantists have a lot to lose upon admitting James was a legalist.

James was the head of the Jerusalem faction of the Church in Acts 21:18, yet in verse 21, James's church tells Paul "we are all zealous for the Law".

I've often quipped to Christians:

"do you think James's church was zealous for the Law, because James had been teaching in harmony with Paul that Law is done away in Christ?"

The sarcasm makes my point clear: If James taught the same gospel as Paul, James's church would not be "zealous for the Law". They'd believe as most Christians do today, that the death of Jesus "fulfilled" the Law for us, and that after faith has come, we are no longer under the tutor of the Law.

Quote:

I suppose we could extend that to apply to James, if the shoe fit. Scripture does not say James was a high priest,

That's correct, James being a high priest comes from a solidly based historical tradition documented by Eusebius and other ancient christian historians, which under the standard rules of historiography, cannot be simply dismissed.

Quote:

but it does indicate that he and others in Jerusalem, as well as Peter, slipped from their steadfastness in the faith and back to their exclusivist Jewish traditions.

Are you sure that James's preference for Jewish traditions constitutes "slipping from their steadfastness in the faith"?

Could it perhaps also be interpreted as James faithfully continuing the beliefs of Jesus? After all, Jesus nowhere negated the Law, and everywhere supported it, and even told the rich young ruler something very legalistic, that you get eternal life by keeping the commandments AND following Christ, which is exactly the message of the Judaizers that Paul cursed in Galatians 1!

Quote:

Much interesting information regarding James was brought to light in the discussion on the Bible Debate forum.

Thank you for the compliment. Eusebius' description of James as high priest makes James more qualifies to hold a legalistic gospel and therefore be a Judaizer, than the Judaizers themselves.

The lowest common denominator we can all agree on, but which already has the inerrantist view looking bad, is that James admitted the legalists who demand circumcision DID come from his own church:

24 "Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls," (Acts 15)

As such, much of the debate is over, my belief that the Judaizers Paul cursed were sent by James for the express purpose of confuting Paul is very close to being proven, and the only question that remains is whether James truly said "to whom we gave no instruction", thus making him disagree with the Judaizers.... or...whether the author of Acts placed these words in James' mouth to make it appear James was further from Judaizers and closer to Paul's theology.

I give argument to answer that question. I believe Luke has spin-doctored the truth about James's beliefs for his friend Paul, because while Paul disagreed with james, James was too high of an authority to simply and plainly be written off the page as a heretic.

Furthermore, the idea that legalists came from James's church, but not with James's endorsement, is ridiculous:

For it James had been teaching the Pauline Gospel to his own Jerusalem church, it would have been as plain as day to his audience that the Law should not be mixed with Grace.

When Jehovah's Witnesses come to your doorstep and say "Jesus is not God", do you automatically assume they are perverting the beliefs of the church which sent them out?

No. You have other evidence indicating what their superiors believe.

It is the same with James and his church. Some of his members went to confute Paul's teachings, and the vast majority of patristic and biblical information on James gives us reason to believe James was a legalist. As such, that array of evidence doesn't square up with James "saying" he didn't send the legalists who came from his church and disrupted Paul's ministry.

What's more likely? That all of the evidence for James's own legalism is false, and Acts reports James truthfully when he says he didn't send out these legalistic brothers from his very own church?

Or that the evidences of James's legalism stand firm, and Acts is likely spin-doctoring a kernel of historical truth to lessen the conflict between James, the undisputed leader, and Paul, the oddball who is forever defending his independence from the apostles, but who cannot afford to go as far as plainly saying James was a heretic?

There is simply too much biblical and patristic evidence showing that James himself was equally as legalistic as the Judaizers Paul cursed. The weight of this evidence justifies suspicion toward the places in Acts (written by Luke, Paul's traveling companion and fellow minister) which attempt to play down or cover up James's own legalism.

And the idea that an ancient religious man, writing a history supporting his own religion and spin-doctoring it to smother fires of controversy, is common sense, while the idea that any ancient religious history is perfectly inerrant and does nothing but tell the truth about everything, is the more uncommon procedure, and should be excluded in favor of the more common one, unless especially powerful arguments can be made to interpret the evidence about James in a way that makes him appear less or non-legalistic.

That will never happen.
[/quote]

Zathrus
King Kong

Joined: 28 Aug 2002

Posts: 2202

Location: WI USA

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:25 am Post subject:

Good points, porphyry.

You mentioned Paul's arrival in Jerusalem and hi sconversation with James in Acts 21. That also came up in the thread in the Bible Debate forum where this was discussed. It was pointed out that the reason Paul got arrested in Jerusalem was he agreed to follow James' bad advice.

James and the elders told Paul in Acts 21:

Quote:

20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

22What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

The way verse 21 reads, you get the impression that this was a false rumor that the elders wanted Paul to prove untrue. The fact is, he was teaching Jews who lived among Gentile believers that they should not circumcise their children or observe the customs!

Verse 22 is important. Paul and the elders apparently agreed that the unity in the early church had to be maintained. Unfortunately, Paul agreed to do this by "becoming as a Jew to the Jews".
Acts 21:

Quote:

23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

25As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

26Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

27And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,

Observing this religious ritual that they suggested was what got him arrested!

It is understandable that because the first believers in Christ were Jews, and Jesus was sent first to Israel, that the faith of the early Christians would be a very Jewish one. Paul understood that if this work that God was doing was going to include all who wanted to enter the kingdom whether Jew or Gentile, requiring those who believed to observe Jewish customs was not going to work. And he understood that that's not what it's all about. But that was way too much for the Jewish believers in Jerusalem to deal with.

The elders and Paul agreed to preserve the unity by having Paul appear to be something he was not. In retrospect, that may not have been a real great idea. As hard as it may have been for them to swallow, it would probably have been better if they'd taken a stand for the gospel and declared that observance of Jewish customs, even by Jewish believers, was not required.

Zathrus
King Kong

Joined: 28 Aug 2002

Posts: 2202

Location: WI USA

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:38 am Post subject:

porphyry, Do you believe the "vain man" who James instructed that faith without works is dead was anyone reading, or do you think he had someone specific in mind? Who do you believe the man of sin who Paul wrote about was?

porphyry
Growing Guppy

Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 43

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:48 pm Post subject:

Zathrus wrote:

Quote:

Yes, and I maintain that Paul's desire to become a Jew to Jews and a Gentile to Gentile, looks exactly like a business decision to try to increase sales by making yourself look and sound more like the audience you are trying to reach. It is therefore nothing but salesmanship, and implies that the work of the Spirit in convicting the hearts of the hearers is not enough, you also have to pretend to be more like them, than you really are, to increase the chances they'll believe you.

Quote:

Acts 21:

Quote: