Do You Have Saving Faith?

Derf

Derf

Well-known member
Robert Pate said:
The Gospel is not a religion or a denomination. The Gospel is what Jesus Christ has done to justify the ungodly, Romans 4:5 and reconcile us and the world unto God, 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19.

The Gospel calls all religions and religious thought into question. I try everything in the light of the "Historical Gospel" of Jesus Christ. If it is not according to the Gospel, I disregard it.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should try everything to see if it is "from God", rather than "according to the Gospel". The Gospel is truth, but so is wrath poured out on those that reject the Gospel. Both are truths from God. Both are important. Only one of them is "good news". Do you disregard the truth that God will pour out His wrath on those who reject the Gospel, just because it isn't the Gospel?

James didn't think "religion" was a bad thing, but a thing to be promoted.
[Jas 1:26-27 KJV] 26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain. 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Do you disagree with James?

What do you think the vanity means for that man that deceived his own heart? What does he miss? Is it possible that he misses the gospel, or at least the effects of it on his life? (I would suggest the answer is "yes".) If so, then James has equated the Gospel with "religion", and he is at odds with you. God, if he agrees with James, promotes that kind of religion. Why would you want to disregard it?
 
R

Robert Pate

Well-known member
Banned
Derf said:
Maybe you should try everything to see if it is "from God", rather than "according to the Gospel". The Gospel is truth, but so is wrath poured out on those that reject the Gospel. Both are truths from God. Both are important. Only one of them is "good news". Do you disregard the truth that God will pour out His wrath on those who reject the Gospel, just because it isn't the Gospel?

James didn't think "religion" was a bad thing, but a thing to be promoted.
[Jas 1:26-27 KJV] 26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain. 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Do you disagree with James?

What do you think the vanity means for that man that deceived his own heart? What does he miss? Is it possible that he misses the gospel, or at least the effects of it on his life? (I would suggest the answer is "yes".) If so, then James has equated the Gospel with "religion", and he is at odds with you. God, if he agrees with James, promotes that kind of religion. Why would you want to disregard it?
Click to expand...

The Bible is an honest book it does not hide the sins of God's people. James is one of the first epistles written. Many such as James did not understand the Gospel and justification by faith, as it was taught by Paul. James was a Judaizer. A Judaizer is one that believes in Jesus, but also believes that you must keep the law of Moses. This is why James sent men to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles. Galatians 2:12. This caused quite a stink at the dinner when Peter and Barnabas went under the table when the men that James sent showed up. Paul got very upset with the whole scene, Galatians 2:14.

There were some other problems with James who was the head of the church in Jerusalem. You can read about it in Acts 15:1-21. I am sure that at a latter date James came into a full understanding of the Gospel and justification by faith.
 
Derf

Derf

Well-known member
Robert Pate said:
The Bible is an honest book it does not hide the sins of God's people. James is one of the first epistles written. Many such as James did not understand the Gospel and justification by faith, as it was taught by Paul. James was a Judaizer. A Judaizer is one that believes in Jesus, but also believes that you must keep the law of Moses. This is why James sent men to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles. Galatians 2:12. This caused quite a stink at the dinner when Peter and Barnabas went under the table when the men that James sent showed up. Paul got very upset with the whole scene, Galatians 2:14.

There were some other problems with James who was the head of the church in Jerusalem. You can read about it in Acts 15:1-21. I am sure that at a latter date James came into a full understanding of the Gospel and justification by faith.
Click to expand...

Whether what you have related is true or not, it is a "doctrine". And your use of it puts you smack dab in the same category you have tried to put others in by your OP. Why would I believe you over James? You have selected a portion of the bible to believe, and another section to reject. If James, who is overtly consistent with Paul despite your objections, is to be disregarded on your testimony, what other things can I believe without going through the Robert Pate filter? Are you not setting yourself up as the arbiter of truth? Isn't this what those religions do that you are so opposed to? You don't even meet your own standard.

[Mat 12:37 KJV] 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
 
R

Robert Pate

Well-known member
Banned
Derf said:
Whether what you have related is true or not, it is a "doctrine". And your use of it puts you smack dab in the same category you have tried to put others in by your OP. Why would I believe you over James? You have selected a portion of the bible to believe, and another section to reject. If James, who is overtly consistent with Paul despite your objections, is to be disregarded on your testimony, what other things can I believe without going through the Robert Pate filter? Are you not setting yourself up as the arbiter of truth? Isn't this what those religions do that you are so opposed to? You don't even meet your own standard.

[Mat 12:37 KJV] 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Click to expand...

Everything that I say is backed by scripture. Maybe its not me that you have a problem with, maybe its God's word.
 
Ask Mr. Religion

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Derf

Derf

Well-known member
Robert Pate said:
Everything that I say is backed by scripture. Maybe its not me that you have a problem with, maybe its God's word.
Click to expand...
That's what all religionists say. Welcome to the club--you fit right in!

But I'm pretty sure God's word doesn't tell us to ignore/reject James' letter. If you could point out that scripture reference, I'd appreciate it.
 
R

Robert Pate

Well-known member
Banned
Derf said:
That's what all religionists say. Welcome to the club--you fit right in!

But I'm pretty sure God's word doesn't tell us to ignore/reject James' letter. If you could point out that scripture reference, I'd appreciate it.
Click to expand...

The book of James is just fine if you understand that it was written under the law. Notice that there is little to nothing about Christ and his Gospel in the book of James. It is a very Jewish book.
 
Derf

Derf

Well-known member
Robert Pate said:
The book of James is just fine if you understand that it was written under the law. Notice that there is little to nothing about Christ and his Gospel in the book of James. It is a very Jewish book.
Click to expand...

The book of James is just fine if you read it for what it is trying to say--that your faith is dead if it doesn't effect anything in you. Paul said the same thing, writing "under grace". "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? GOD FORBID!" [Rom 6:1-2a KJV]

How can God forbid anything when we are under grace??????

But Paul explicitly repeats what James is trying to say--that a faith that doesn't do anything to you is worthless--it's dead. Paul says we are dead to sin--a true faith has that effect on us, that we don't want to sin anymore.
 
J

jsanford108

New member
Robert Pate said:
The book of James is just fine if you understand that it was written under the law. Notice that there is little to nothing about Christ and his Gospel in the book of James. It is a very Jewish book.
Click to expand...

It is a very Christian book. If it was so "Jewish," and "written under the law," then why is it in the New Testament, rather than the Old?

Also, how could James not have known more than Paul? James was an Apostle. One who literally walked with Christ. He also would have seen the a Resurrected Christ. So how could James have been ignorant of Christ/Gospel/Grace, and Paul not?

Your argument lacks historical, logical, and rational evidence and support.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
R

Robert Pate

Well-known member
Banned
jsanford108 said:
It is a very Christian book. If it was so "Jewish," and "written under the law," then why is it in the New Testament, rather than the Old?

Also, how could James not have known more than Paul? James was an Apostle. One who literally walked with Christ. He also would have seen the a Resurrected Christ. So how could James have been ignorant of Christ/Gospel/Grace, and Paul not?

Your argument lacks historical, logical, and rational evidence and support.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Click to expand...


I have found the religious people like Catholics frequently refer to the book of James. My theology is based upon the Gospel and justification by faith. The word "Gospel" is nowhere to be found in the book of James, Yet it appears over 100 times in Paul's writings.

Fact: James sent men to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles. Galatians 2:12. A Jewish no, no.

Fact: James wanted to circumcise Gentile believers, Acts 15:1-21.

Maybe you don't see anything wrong with that? It all just goes to show us that James was a Judaizer.
 
J

jsanford108

New member
Robert Pate said:
I have found the religious people like Catholics frequently refer to the book of James. My theology is based upon the Gospel and justification by faith. The word "Gospel" is nowhere to be found in the book of James, Yet it appears over 100 times in Paul's writings.

Fact: James sent men to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles. Galatians 2:12. A Jewish no, no.

Fact: James wanted to circumcise Gentile believers, Acts 15:1-21.

Maybe you don't see anything wrong with that? It all just goes to show us that James was a Judaizer.
Click to expand...

It appears you dismiss books (James) which are devastating to your view.

If you want a review of the facts, my previous quote is truth, as demonstrated within the Gospels themselves, not a letter of a fellow teacher.

James is an Apostle. James witnessed the Resurrected Christ with the other Apostles. James literally heard with his own ears the Words of Christ.

To even suggest that James was ignorant of the Gospel is simply false; an act of desperation at sustaining a false idea/doctrine.

You can dismiss actual facts all you want, friend, but that doesn't render them null.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
R

Robert Pate

Well-known member
Banned
jsanford108 said:
It appears you dismiss books (James) which are devastating to your view.

If you want a review of the facts, my previous quote is truth, as demonstrated within the Gospels themselves, not a letter of a fellow teacher.

James is an Apostle. James witnessed the Resurrected Christ with the other Apostles. James literally heard with his own ears the Words of Christ.

To even suggest that James was ignorant of the Gospel is simply false; an act of desperation at sustaining a false idea/doctrine.

You can dismiss actual facts all you want, friend, but that doesn't render them null.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Click to expand...


I don't know which is worse. Peter and Barnabus going under the table when the judaizers showed up at the dinner or the fact that James sent those Judaizers to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles, Galatians 2:11-13.

All three are guilty of not living according to the Gospel.
 
R

Robert Pate

Well-known member
Banned
Robert Pate said:
I don't know which is worse. Peter and Barnabus going under the table when the judaizers showed up at the dinner or the fact that James sent those Judaizers to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles, Galatians 2:11-13.

All three are guilty of not living according to the Gospel.
Click to expand...


What about Peter and Barnabus going under the table when the Judaizers that James sent arrived?

Do you see anything wrong with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top