Do Paul and James Really Contradict on Faith and Works?

From Faith by Definition by Willowtree. James can easily be reconciled with Paul, maybe not in such a way to create a systematic theology, but certainly in such a way as to make it silly to call it a contradiction between Paul and James. First of all, almost no one believes Paul wrote Hebrews, but if you can give some reason that we need Hebrews in this discussion, then I'll grant you Pauline authorship, just for the sake of discussion. However, it seems like addressing Romans and Galatians should be enough.The heart of the issue of contradiction between Paul and James normally lies at these two verses:

quote:

---

Rom 3:28: Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

​

Jam 2:24: Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

---

Obviously, on the surface these are direct contradictions. On the other hand, on the surface Rom 3:28 also directly contradicts Rom 2:6,7:

quote:

---

[ God ] will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life.

---

There was a conflict between James and Paul in life, but not the contradiction you describe. There are two issues here:1. James grants the necessity of faith, admitting the centrality of faith to his message as well: [quote]A man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew my thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.[/qs]James is not saying, I object to the message of faith. He is simply saying that faith without works is dead.2. Paul's audience was Greco-Roman. Either because of his more western audience, or because of his more exact, step-by-step approach to theology, his teaching was closer to systematic. He carefully defined faith and works and their role, while, as seen above, James did not. He combined the two.Here's Paul's description of the role of faith and works. Faith is tied to the death of Christ, and it brings us into Christ. Works are tied to the resurrection life of Christ and to the judgment, and they gain us the reward of eternal life.Or, more succintly, faith is for the past, and works are for the future.I'm not just making this up. Paul says it directly, right there in Romans, and then his usage everywhere else is consistent.

quote:

---

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled [ note the past tense here ]to God by the death of his Son [past tense and death go hand in hand for Paul ], much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved [ future tense ] by his life [life and future tense go hand in hand as well ] (Rom 5:10).

---

Since I don't think there's going to be any argument about Paul's emphasis on faith bringing us into Christ, let me go straight to the passages that show that he said works will get us past the judgment in the future and into eternal life (I've already quoted Rom 2:6,7):

quote:

---

2 Cor 5:10: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

---

quote:

---

Gal 6:7-10: Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

---

Then, three times he tells us that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God, using a different but similar list of what constitutes unrighteousness each time (1 Cor 6:9,10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:3-5).Paul did not believe that a man was saved by faith apart from works, by the definition of faith normally used. Paul believed that a man was justified or saved, in the past, by faith (thus sharing in the death of Christ and entering into Christ), and that a man will be saved, in the future, by the works that are a result of that faith (thus passing the judgment and entering into eternal life).Thus, he would agree completely with James statement, "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works."There's a lot of convoluted attempts by the faith only crowd to make Paul (and sometimes James, too) say that Christians will not have eternal life rewarded on the basis of works, but they have a lot of Paul's passages to explain away, and they look like those who are explaining them away when they do so. Paul is very consistent. The future is always up in the air on the basis of works, and eternal life, to Paul, is always rewarded at the end of life, at the judgment, based on your deeds.I am addressing this for everyone. Even non-Christians point to Rom 3:28 and Jam 2:24 as contradictions, and they're not. I believe the Bible has lots of factual contradictions, but I also consider Paul and James both as part of the spiritual history of my own faith. They are not the same. They played two different roles, and they had their conflicts, but their views on faith and works do not contradict.

You know what I especially like about your post Truthlover ?It is the fact that you take a clear and unambigous stand. You plainly state that Paul and James can be reconciled, and you generously evidence your argument. Nothing wishy washy here.Allow me to quickly review (in part) what I already said in a different topic.I said Paul and James CANNOT be reconciled, that the entire church world at large continuously insists that Paul and James do not contradict each other. The only reason there is an issue is because rational and sensible people can plainly see that their writings certainly do APPEAR to contradict one another. Then, upon seeing the alleged contradictions, conclusions are drawn to raise doubt as to the claim of scripture : Is it the eternal word of God afterall ?Why must Paul and James be reconciled in order to remove inerrant doubts ?In the other topic I already concluded that the reason God included the epistle of James into the canon was to contrast the crooked stick of James next to the straight sticks of Paul (Romans, Galatians, Hebrews). The inclusion of James into the Bible by God (I am assuming God ultimately controlled the content of the canon) was to demonstrate the perversion of the gospel by people who have "Jesus on their lips but Moses in their heart". God never intended James to be consistent/compatible with the theology of Paul. Here's why :As was custom in the first century, when a spiritual leader died, the most capable blood relative took their place. James was by all accounts a half brother of Jesus, and even though he thought Jesus was crazy while He was alive, upon His death, James became leader of the Church at Jerusalem.In Acts 15 we have recorded the decisions of the First Church Council.The major issue was the law of Moses. Did it have to be kept by the new Gentile converts ? And if it did to what extent ?Paul argued that the law was now abrogate IF you related to God through Christ via faith - period.James, seeking a piece of Solomon's glory, decided to split the baby in two. The Pharisee (converts) that he played before at Jerusalem added Jesus onto the Law. James, and the Church he presided over at Jerusalem, believed that the way to relate to the risen Christ was via a code of conduct which they insisted was faith.James decided that Paul and Barnabas were to take the gospel to the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles must keep a small part of the law.Paul's argument was rejected - James prevailed.Who wrote two thirds of the New Testament ? Paul the Apostle. God sided with Paul. James got one epistle into the N.T. and it wasn't even canonized until the 4th or 5th centuries. Think about it, almost twice the age of the United States and THEN James is accepted into the canon.Why ?Because the canon was decided by consensus and one single criteria :
Is it the inspired word of God ? Did James write the epistle while under possession of the Holy Spirit ?Regardless of the actual truth, James made the canon because of who he was AND because of the appeal of his works based message.Luther believed James was not the inspired word of God and that it did not belong in the canon....." a right strawy little epistle....not one word of gospel in it " (evangelion or its derivatives do not appear in the general epistle of James).Dr. Scott disagrees with Luther (and of course I agree with Dr. Scott). The right and correct view of James in relation to the message of the N.T. is that this epistle was inserted into the canon by God for the single purpose of exposing the perverted message of works which nullifies the true gospel/good news.What is the gospel ? The word in the greek is evangelion and it means "good news".What's the good news ?Answer : Jesus Christ.WRONG, Jesus is good news, but He is not THE good news.Are you saying Jesus is not the gospel/good news ?Yes I am.Then what is the gospel/good news ?The good news is HOW you get Jesus.The good news is that God will accept another way to relate to Him apart from the Old Testament law. That "way" is the gospel/good news, which is, IF a person will relate to His Son by faith (whatever that is) then this new method of relating places you in "grace", and most importantly the Old Testament law is now abrogate to you. Read Romans 3:21 - it means what it says. The righteousness spoken of there is the righteousness of faith apart from the law of Moses.The subject of the Book of Romans is righteousness - righteousness by faith.The subject of the Book of Hebrews is the life of those who obtain the promises of God by faith.And sandwiched in between is the Book of Galatians. The message of Galatians is (speaking to christian converts) YOU CONTINUE THE EXACT SAME WAY YOU STARTED.Paul founded the Church at Galatia. They discovered the grace and goodness of God through the power of the gospel. Then infiltrators, called Judahizers, sent by James poisoned the Galatians with the message of the yoke of the law.The particular issue was circumcision. James sent spies (2:1) to see if Paul's gentile convert (Titus) was circumcised or not.These Judahizers corrupted the Galatians with the bondage of Moses law as the way to relate and please God.Paul reacted to this corruption by writing this epistle.In Galatians 1:7, that word "pervert" in the greek means to put that which is behind - in front again.The Judahizers seek to re-exalt the law of Moses (behind) and put it back in front. Paul calls this spiritual perversion. Jesus was the Law Incarnate and God crucified it.Galatians 3:1,2 says Paul's argument best. "did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or the hearing of faith ?"
This is said to shake the Galatians into seeing that the way you started your christian walk is the way you continue and the way you finish. The "rules" do not change after conversion. You start by faith, continue by faith, and finish by faith.The message of James was that if you are really a christian you will get circumcised. Paul says if you get circumcised with the INTENT of staying saved "Christ will profit you nothing ....if righteousness comes through the law then Christ died in vain" (2:21)Circumcision is not an issue today. The equivalent in our culture is the works based message of the fundies. Circumcision is representative of any part of the law you keep with the INTENT of relating to God other than the righteousness of faith.Then, in Galatians 4, Paul provides the ultimate crescendo of his argument.He symbolizes Sinai (the Law) to be Abraham's mistress Hagar, who birthed Ishmael who corresponds to Jerusalem (James).Sarah, the freewoman, and her son Isaac symbolize the Jerusalem of above - the free (Paul's message of freedom from the law).Paul says these two examples are symbolic of the two covenants : Old and New. Law vs. Faith.Galatians 4:30 " what saith the scripture (Genesis) cast out the bondwoman and her son for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman "Ishmael was produced by Abraham fornicating in a tent with Hagar.Isaac was the product of promise, a promise the N.T. says was obtained through faith.Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit equates Hagar/Ishmael/Sinai/Jerusalem now/James to be the bondage of the law and its requirements. Genesis says Abraham kicked out Hagar and her son for persecuting Isaac.So it is today. The fundies and their works based message persecute the free in Christ with their perverted (already defined) message of James.Isaac was obtained through faith in the promise of God. We duplicate what Isaac symbolizes when we by faith obtain the promises of God (apart from the law) that apply to us in His Son. That's the gospel contrasted with the crooked stick of James.Source of theology : Dr. Gene ScottAll theological inaccuracies belong to me - Willowtree.

You said a lot about Paul saying the law isn't the way, but you never addressed what I said about Paul and works.

Hello truthlover and WILLOWTREE,In my estimation you both are overlooking what I consider to be the crux of the contradictory positions of James and Paul, and the implications of this division.You are both speaking in terms of the emphasis placed on "faith" and/or "good works" and their relation one to another. However, the primary division between James and Paul was not simply the question of generic "good works" but of objective "Mosaic Law".The implication of this division is that the bible was not written or compiled under the directorship of God but does, rather, indicate an evolving theology with the final canonical material being selected to reflect the later prevailing view.Here and there, even in the canonical scriptures, the nature of this division seeps through. For instance, in the book of Acts, Paul meets with James and the Jerusalem council. In Acts 20-21, we hear James say, ". . . Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are zealous for the law. (21)And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs."Paul is then told to attend a purification ritual with four other men which included (Acts 21:26) that an offering should be offered for every one of them. The reason is given in Acts 21:24, ". . . (that) 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."Simply put, James is here saying that the Jewish Christians adhere to the customs and tenets of Mosaic law. He is saying that there have been reports that Paul has been telling the Jews that they shouldn't perform the requirements of the Mosaic law and customs (which, indeed, Paul was telling them precisely that). He is further saying that Paul should submit to a purification ritual and an offering under the requirements of the Mosaic law as proof that he not only isn't telling Jews to forsake the law, but that he himself also adheres to this law.Although a few restrictions are also placed on Gentile converts, the Gentiles are here completely irrelevant to the point as they were never obligated to Mosaic law to begin with and "good works" are distinguished from adherence to the law.The point and the implications of this is that the Jerusalem council included the original disciples of Jesus, i.e. those who learned of Jesus' purpose from Jesus himself. Now, lest it be said that the disciples simply failed to understand Jesus' message, it must be remembered that this was after pentecost. John 14:26 tells us, ". . .the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things . . ."Note, the gospel of John does not say "Paul will teach you all things" or that, "I will send a man to teach you all things", but that the Holy Ghost will teach you all things.Now, on the one hand, we have the original disciples who knew and walked with Jesus during his ministry who have, in addition, now already received the Holy Spirit which they were told would teach them all things. Yet, for some reason, these Holy Spirit led disciples of Jesus seem to think that they should still be adhering to Mosaic law.On the other hand, we have a person who never met or talked with Jesus on earth, who claims he had an epiphany on the road to Damascus, and who claims he gets his knowledge "from no man" but through personal revelations from God. Also interesting is that the "revealed doctrine" espoused by this man seems to be curiously slanted toward the Hellenistic religions he would have been exposed to growing up in Tarsus. This man, contrary to the disciples, is telling the Jews that they shouldn't follow Mosaic law and, for some reason, the Christian Jews with the disciples seem to think this makes him a heretic and a blasphemer.IOW, yes, there certainly is a reason why the preponderance of the NT testament documents are "Pauline". But if it is asserted that the NT was an "inspired of God" compilation, one is forced to conclude that the Jerusalem disciples were not only incredibly dense but that, even after receiving the Holy Spirit (to teach them all things), they were still going around teaching false doctrine to thousands of Jews.All of these circumstances are not difficult to explain at all, however, if it is understood that the NT is a compilation of documents put together by fallible men for the purpose of supporting the dominant religious faction at the time. The fact that the Jerusalem Christians did not understand Jesus' crucifixion to be any sort of all-encompassing sacrifice which alleviated them from performing the strictures of Mosaic law (including various sin offerings), is made apparent by the statements of James and the Jerusalem council in regard to Paul's activities.It was later that Paul, syncretizing Hellenistic concepts with Jewish messianism, developed his uniquely Pauline doctrine. Then, in the subsequently written gospels, this Pauline doctrine is retroactively reflected onto Jesus and woven into the purpose of his ministry. The later still canonization process only considered as inspired (of course) those documents that agreed with the eventually prevailing Pauline religious concepts.This is a strong indication of an evolving theology that eventually morphed into a canonized doctrine that only faintly resembles the actual circumstances of Jesus' mission.Namaste'Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 02-24-2004]

Well, it depends on what you mean by overlooking. Except for some minor nuances, I agreed with everything you said in your post. I guess I think it's a completely different subject.Modern Christians, and Dr. Scott to an extreme, have gained some bizarre anti-good-works doctrine since Martin Luther. I think the Rom 3:28 and Jam 2:24 controversy is totally based in that doctrine.I agree with you completely that there is a large divide between James and Paul on the role of the law. I think they do contradict there, and you described the contradiction pretty darn well, in my opinion. I would probably limit the influence of his upbringing in Tarsus on that, because I think he got more anti-law as time went by. I don't think they were dense. I think things were still changing. Peter didn't learn that it was okay to eat with Gentiles from Jesus on earth; he learned that from the Holy Spirit later.And I object to the definition of "inspired by God" that means "inerrant and applicable for all time in its current form." I'm not sure I believe that the letter of James was "inspired by God"--well, yeah, I think I do--but I think it had an audience, and that audience needed to hear that they couldn't go around saying, "I have faith, now leave me alone and let me live how I want." I also think that there's things is that letter that God uses with us today, but it sure isn't so that we can develop a systematic theology from a letter written during a time of great theological change.I like that things went Paul's way. I think it was the will of God. I also think it was evolution, influenced not just by revelation to Paul, but by circumstances, struggle, and survival of the fittest.The message, as it has come to me, works. It makes a tight-knit family out of a bunch of neurotic Americans who once had very little idea of what it takes to get along and get close over a long term. It creates love and unity.Having said all that, I repeat that I agree with your whole assessment of the law issue, but it doesn't make we want to take anything back that I said in message 1 above.

Oh, wait, one more thing: Can you tell me in what ways you see Pauline doctrine reflected onto Jesus in the gospels? Maybe you could give a couple examples. I don't know how "Pauline" any of the gospels seem.

This post will be dedicated to addressing "what you said about Paul and works" (post #3).But first I want to inform EvC member Amlodhi that I will respond to his/her post ASAP.Truthlover :Let me state plainly from the outset that I believe, nay, I know that you have taken the words of Paul and contorted them to fit a previously held belief that was brought into this debate. This belief says that Paul and James do not contradict one another, that they really are, after all, compatible.I have already argued that Paul and James are not compatible, and that the reason God included James into the canon was to demonstrate, by contrast, the damnable heresy contained in his message which was intended to challenge and counter Paul.For you that know your Bible, it is perfectly clear that works do not save. If works could save, what is to prevent some savvy heathen from taking out an insurance policy, through performing the required amount, and thus making it to heaven ?TL, there are two judgment seats revealed in scripture.1) The Judgement Seat of Christ.2) The Great White Throne Judgement Seat.Seat number 1 is where those who have been saved through the gospel, and are covered by the blood of Christ appear. They receive what the Spirit did through them because of their faith in the promises of God. Rewards for faith are handed out.Seat number 2 is where every other person appears who is not covered by the blood of Christ. "white" in scripture is the color of righteousness, purity, sinlessness, perfection. Revelation makes it clear that persons appearing here are judged according to their works. Works don't save - everyone here goes to hell.When Paul speaks of good works, they are works that are a product of faith and the power of the Spirit that comes because of faith.Intent is all important. If you intend to relate to God via a code of conduct/works you are under the curse of the law. If you perform good works BECAUSE of the knowledge of sins forgiven (received by faith), then the works you are doing are the product of debt (sins forgiven), and are then, the works that are well pleasing to God.Both James and Paul agree that faith gets a person started. Where they depart is how one continues with God after conversion.Paul's audience according to scripture is all Gentiles. Even James in Acts 15 recognized this. This means that IF any contradiction of Paul arises then Gentiles must side with Paul. James even states that he is addressing the "twelve tribes scattered abroad" (James 1:1)You quote Romans 5:10, and then using this text, you preach your own James based slant.The subject of the Book of Romans is righteousness - righteousness by faith apart from the works of the law.Romans 5:10 isn't even remotely declaring what you have tailored it to say.Anytime Paul mentions good works, they are the outgrowth and product of the Spirit within which is really responsible for them. Christianity, and its essence, is the submission to God via faith which allows Him to manifest His Son literally in us. This miracle, is the power of the gospel which changes a person - born again-ness.You are twisting Paul to accomodate James. This is done to preserve a natural tendency in man - the desire to relate to God via a code of conduct, which is easy compared to the life of faith apart from works of the law.God wants YOU and your faith gaze, and not some checklist that you can do and then be done with Him. I have more to say about your post # 1 - ASAP.

That's good, because I would answer your post 7 by simply saying that it really is a bad twist on the passages I quoted in post 1, and I would rest my case than anyone could read my post 1 and your contortions in post 7 and agree that my post 1 is a much more reasonable reading of Paul.

quote:

---

Originally posted by truthlover

​

Can you tell me in what ways you see Pauline doctrine reflected onto Jesus in the gospels?

---

Fortunately, not all the gospels do this to the same degree. Otherwise we would have little comparison between Jewish Christian doctrine and Paul at all and would be left only comparing Paul with Paul.Overall, there can be seen an ongoing development of Pauline influence; with a lesser degree in Mark and Matthew, Luke showing a greater influence and it has been stated that John is more Pauline than Paul himself. Coincidentally(?), this influence seems to exhibit the greatest increase after the fall of the temple in 70 a.d. and the dispersion of the Jerusalem church. Such later influence may also have been responsible for later subtle editing which, it is said, may have been still ongoing as late as 125 - 150 a.d.The primary areas of influence are seen in the overt Christification of Jesus while on earth (which becomes glaring in John), intimations of the crucifixion as vicarious atonement (if the original disciples had understood Jesus' crucifixion as vicarious atonement, they wouldn't still be making sin offerings in the temple), and the "dumbing down" of the apostles (i.e. that they never did understand Jesus' mission, thereby opening the door to Paul's later interpretations).I understand your position that this is basically a different subject than James' and Paul's opinions regarding works/faith. The point of fact, however, is that linguistic analysis has shown very strongly that the letter of James is unlikely to be authentic. Hence, my previous comment that the discussion seemed to be overlooking the crucial differences between Paul and (the real) James by focusing on more semantical issues based on (likely) inauthentic texts.Nevertheless, you are correct that my interjection does deviate from the subject presented in the OP and for that you have my apologies. Should either you or WILLOWTREE wish to discuss this digression further, one of you can open a new thread and I will be happy to respond. For now, I will wish you both all good things and leave you to your original discussion.Namaste'Amlodhi

Truthlover :This post of yours contains numerous scriptural references. You provide these verses as a text to argue that Paul the Apostle, really, after all, does teach that good works is an acceptable way to relate to God; that James and Paul are not in contradiction.First, I want to say that Dr. Scott nor myself are against good works. Nobody is against good works per se. IF you believe we are then I answer - "straw man argument".The Two Golden Rules of Interpreting Scripture :1) "...no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation..." 2Peter 1:202) TEXT without CONTEXT is ERROR.Anyone can hunt and peck, in doing so they can support any pet theory that they are trying to promote. The controlling truth is : What does the entire revelation say in context ?1st Context :The Bible containing the Old/New Tesataments.The Old Testament is the story of mankind failing miserably under the Law of Moses. This testament/covenant is defined and ends in one word "curse". (Mal.4:6)The New Testament is the unveiling of the gospel/good news. The good news is that God will now accept faith, apart from the works of the law, as the only other way to relate to Him. That Jesus was the literal Law Incarnate whom God crucified as a sacrifice for every sin ever committed. The good news is how one obtains the benefits of what Christ did : faith.2nd Context :Is the subject of the Book of Romans.Romans was written to evidence that righteousness/salvation is appropiated individually by acts of faith and not via the Old Covenant of Moses law.3rd Context :Is Romans 1:17"For in it a righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, 'the just shall live by faith'".The "it" being the gospel referred to from the previous verse.According to Dr. Scott this is the most important verse in the Bible.
Dr. Scott has read every book ever written on Romans. He has read and he owns a copy of every commentary ever written on Romans. Through pure hard work he has memorized and can write every verse of Romans in the original greek, aramaic, syriac, arabic, coptic, latin, and ethiopic translations, and can, and does write them on a clear board while denoting the syntax and grammar for the purpose of explaining what it means in english all without any notes at will.Dr. Scott plainly declares that God called him to tell the world what Paul said, and in his subjective view Romans 1:17 is the most important verse in the Bible. Through this verse flows the key to interpreting Romans, that Paul is not going to suddenly negate the truth of this verse in the forth coming 16 chapters of Romans.4th Context :Galatians 3:11"...the just shall live by faith..."5th Context Hebrews 10:38"...the just shall live by faith..."What's the point ?The context of the New Testament is FAITH and not the works of the Old Testament law.What other purpose or reason does the New Testament have ?Why would God repeat the message of the Old in the New ?The New would not be needed if the message was the same as the Old.God reached down and claimed Saul of Tarsus to rescue the gospel message (faith apart from the works of the law as the way to relate to God), because, if He did not, christianity would of ended up a splinter group of Judaism.Now how apparent is your rendering of Paul to be a "private interpretation" totally devoid of any factual context ?How can faith be past (as you claimed) when the text you used to make this interpretation was written with the intent to establish faith as the new God approved way of relating to Him ?Paul, prior to conversion, was the quintessencial Pharisee having been raised at the feet of the brightest Mosaic scholar of the day (the school of Gamelielo) Paul is not against works, good works, or any religious rite or custom. He teaches that works do not earn you God or His salvation. Only faith does so examine your intent when doing works.James is representative of the stereotypical good christian who has regressed from the ways of his first love (faith) back into the angel of light bewitchery of believing God is related to by the works of the law instead of the never changing method of "faith to faith" (Romans 1:17)

Great, Willowtree. I still rest my case. I'll be happy to let anyone compare your "context" with the actual content of the verses back in my post 1.Thanks.However, I can't resist commenting on this: I could simply say, this is an argument from authority, and those aren't normally valid ("My authority is better than yours, nyah nyah"). In this case, however, I should point out that a lot of people question the sanity of your authority, including me. Very, very entertaining, I admit, and I don't doubt he has accumulated a lot of information. Once it's in his brain, though, I really don't trust what that particular brain does with information.I love that little ditty I got from him, though--"I want to know that Jesus welcomes me there...I do not want to be denied...I want to live (Oh, let me live) in that city so fair...that's enough for me to know." The guy who sung the bass part looked totally cool; big, wide mouth; I always thought he'd make a great, really-evil, villanous henchman in a movie.

Why don't you initiate a friendly little poll and let members decide which position best represents objective truth ?

I have resurrected the dead (this old topic forum I mean). I just got around to checking it out. I would have to say this. Good works don't get you to heaven. The gift and grace of God Almighty does by the sacrifice of God the son, Jesus Christ. With that said, I believe that once you have salvation you make every attempt (with many failures) to live a life honorable to God the Father. After all, we are to live our lives as Jesus did (close as possible). So, I think what we have here are two differing ways of saying somewhat the same thing. James and Paul both knew the need for good works and the free gift of salvation. They also knew how the people were reacting to missconceptions and bad influences (many of the letters of Paul and the such to the churches). -In Christ -Z

Negative :Whats the message of the Book of Galatians ?Answer : You continue being a christian the EXACT same way you started (the way of faith).The message of Galatians is that you start, continue, and finish your christian journey the exact same way you began : Faith in Jesus via the promises of God.James message was that you start by faith THEN you prove your conversion by continuing via the works of the Mosaic Law. This is the message of Satan. Attempting to relate to God via a code of conduct.Good works must only be the product of the knowledge of sins forgiven; if intended as the basis to ensure standing with God then you have fallen from grace and Christ will profit you nothing.

Is unfortunately a missinterpretation. James isn't writing about HOW to be a christian but how to ACT like one. I defy you to find one verse in the book of James that says he believes that you have to "work" to get salvation. And as for the book of Galatians. The Galatians are christians struggling with their jewish roots. They are having trouble letting go. They put more emphasis on Jewish heritage "The Law" or "Torah" than on what Christ did.
You are correct in saying that by faith we are saved. What I'm saying is, as a christian you are compelled by the HOLY SPIRIT to live in a godly way. Otherwise we would have a bunch of so called christians running around saying "I'm good, I'm going to heaven, oooooh a hooker! Hey baby wait up" No, as a christian you maybe tempted but you would abstain from that action....most of the time. I know christians will fall but for the most part we will repent and feel true sorrow for what we did. Not just words but true sorrow. I feel like we agree for the most part we just have a few ideas that are bumping heads. That's how we learn.[This message has been edited by JOSIAH, 04-09-2004]