The Dangers of the Hebrew Roots Messianic Movement

HeRoseFromTheDead · Nov 3, 2013

And his love and mercy override the letters of the law. Where love and mercy are, the letter is irrelevant because love fulfills anything and everything demanded by the law. Love accomplishes what the law was put in place for.

Scripture says to obey GOD's voice, i.e., his spirit. The law was just an interim measure to bring us to Christ, so that we can be empowered to follow his spirit.

HeRoseFromTheDead · Nov 3, 2013

Yahshua said:

No he wasn't. He was a Levitical priest. What website are you reading this stuff from? Or are you just making things up?

Yahshua said:

It indicated completeness. Nevertheless, forever does mean forever. Why are you glossing over this point?

Yahshua said:

The kingdom of heaven is the restored kingdom of Israel. It was never GOD's intention to have an earthly kingdom.

The Levitical priesthood was just a shadow of the true priesthood in Christ, just as natural Israel was merely a shadow of true Israel (Christ). You say the congregation of the lord is not Israel, but the law calls Israel the congregation of the lord.

Elin · Nov 3, 2013

Yahshua said:

She is saying a change of mind is not a change of character.

SarahM777 · Nov 3, 2013

Apostol2013 said:

HMM Perhaps if one would actually read what Martin Luther actually wrote about James and not go by hearsay.

Luther's Antilegomena

Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, [SUP]1[/SUP] I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation [SUP]2[/SUP] devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses' statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham's faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.
In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15, "You shall bear witness to me." All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.
But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty," though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin. [SUP]3[/SUP]
Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter: "Love covers a multitude of sins," and again, "Humble yourselves under the hand of God;" also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5, "The Spirit lusteth against envy." And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. [SUP]4[/SUP] So it seems that this author came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.
In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. [SUP]5[/SUP] He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture? [SUP]6[/SUP]
Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.

Perhaps if one were to actually read what was really said instead of going by hearsay by what someone else has said about it,it might change ones perspective

SarahM777 · Nov 3, 2013

Opps forgot the link

Luther's Antilegomena

HeRoseFromTheDead · Nov 3, 2013

SarahM777 said:

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, [SUP]1[/SUP] I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation [SUP]2[/SUP] devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses' statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham's faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle

This is a perfect example, IMO, of how filters in one's mind (Luther's no less!) can completely blind one to what words on a page actually mean per the author's intent. James and Paul did not contradict each other; they described the same thing from different vantage points.

Elin · Nov 3, 2013

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

Did Luther write anything later that was different from this?

SarahM777 · Nov 3, 2013

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

Go back and read what Luther said again,it's obvious you didn't get what he was saying. His point was and is that Christ's passion or resurecction is not mentioned

SarahM777 · Nov 3, 2013

And Luther did NOT take it out of the Bible but included it at the end of the Bible. That is a misnomer that Luther took it OUT of the Bible when he did no such thing.

HeRoseFromTheDead · Nov 3, 2013

SarahM777 said:

No, I did get what he said. I was merely addressing his first point, i.e., In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works.

Luther failed to (or did not) make the distinction between works of law (Paul) and works of faith (James).

SarahM777 · Nov 3, 2013

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

Are you so sure about that or did Luther actually say something else and all one has done is taken one question as to the authorship of the book of James and blown it out of shape?

So what did Luther say about faith and works?

Beggars ALL:Reformation

[h=3]Luther on the Book of James...Revisited[/h]

I've written a lot on Luther's opinion on the book of James and the canon . I've asserted that Luther appears to have held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James. This is something beyond dispute. I have found though that those who chastise Luther on his rejection of James tend to ignore the many statements in which he questions the book because of authorship. For Luther, the book was not written by an apostle, but rather a later Christian. He repeats this often, and also notes others before him did as well.

Luther detractors tend to focus on his statements asserting a contradiction between James and Paul. The most popular passage comes from his preface to the book of James. Luther states: “In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]."

Protestants have had a cogent harmonizing solution between Paul and James for quite some time. The book of James describes a real true faith in Christ: a real saving faith is a living faith. If no works are found in a person, that faith is a dead faith (c.f. James 2:17

). James then describes a non-saving dead faith:the faith of a demon. A demon has faith that God exists, that Christ rose from the dead- I would dare say a demon knows theology better than you or I. But is the faith of this demon a saving faith? Absolutely not. James describes a living and saving faith, as opposed to a dead faith.

Luther clearly taught the concept of living vs. dead faith throughout his writings. My paper here goes into this in great depth. It may be surprising though to some that Luther was actually aware of a harmonization between James and Paul, and even at times uses it.

In Luther's Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther answered this spurious proposition: “Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17

, 26

]. Therefore, dead faith justifies.” Luther responded:

“The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, “faith” ought to be placed with the word “justifies” and the portion of the sentence “without works justifies” is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word “justifies,” not to “faith.” In the minor premise, “without works” is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. “Without works” is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.”

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther on the Book of James...Revisited

SarahM777 · Nov 3, 2013

cont

In The Sermons of Martin Luther 2:2:308, Luther offers the harmonizing solution quite clearly: “This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘Faith without works is dead.’ That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith.”

But here's the citation that provoked this blog entry. Recently I've been reading Luther's early Commentary on Romans. Here's a very interesting passage:

Here the question arises: How can a person be justified without the works of the Law, or how can it be that justification does not flow from our works? For St. James writes: 'We see how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (Jas. 2:24

). So also St. Paul: "Faith . . . worketh by love" (Gal. 5:6

); and: "The doers of the law shall be justified" (Rom. 2:13

). To this we reply: As the Apostle distinguishes between the law and faith, the letter and grace, so also he distinguishes between the works resulting from these. He calls those deeds "works of the Law" that are done without faith and divine grace, merely because of the law, moved either by fear of punishment or the alluring hope of reward. But works of faith he calls those deeds which are done in the spirit of (Christian) liberty and flow from love to God. These can be done only by such as are justified by faith. Justification, however, is not in any way promoted by the works of the Law, but they rather hinder it, because they keep a person from regarding himself as unrighteous and so in need of justification. When James and Paul say that a man is justified by works, they argue against the false opinion of those who think that (for justification) a faith suffices that is without works. Paul does not say that true faith exists without its proper works, for without these there is no true faith. But what he says is that it is faith alone that justifies, regardless of works. Justification therefore does not presuppose the works of the Law, but rather a living faith, which performs its proper works, as we read in Galatians 5:6

[Commentary on Romans (Michigan: Kregel, 1976), 75].

In the Luther's Works version of Luther's Commentary and writings on Romans, Luther gives a rather lengthy and curious explanation of James, somewhat different than anything stated above:

The question is asked, “How can justification take place without the works of the Law, and how by the works of the Law can there be no justification, since James 2:26

clearly states: ‘Faith apart from works is dead’ and ‘a man is justified by works,’ using the example of Abraham and Rahab (James 2:23–25

)?” And Paul himself in Gal. 5:6

speaks of “faith working through love,” and above in chapter 2:13 he says that “the doers of the Law will be justified before God.” The answer to this question is that the apostle is distinguishing between the Law and faith, or between the letter and grace, and thus also between their respective works. The works of the Law are those, he says, which take place outside of faith and grace and are done at the urging of the Law, which either forces obedience through fear or allures us through the promise of temporal blessings. But the works of faith, he says, are those which are done out of the spirit of liberty and solely for the love of God. And the latter cannot be accomplished except by those who have been justified by faith, to which justification the works of the Law add nothing, indeed, they strongly hinder it, since they do not permit a man to see himself as unrighteous and in need of justification.

Here is an example. If a layman should perform all the outward functions of a priest, celebrating Mass, confirming, absolving, administering the sacraments, dedicating altars, churches, vestments, vessels, etc., it is certain that these actions in all respects would be similar to those of a true priest, in fact, they might be performed more reverently and properly than the real ones. But because he has not been consecrated and ordained and sanctified, he performs nothing at all, but is only playing church and deceiving himself and his followers. It is the same way with the righteous, good, and holy works which are performed either without or before justification. For just as this layman does not become a priest by performing all these functions, although it can happen that he could be made a priest without doing them, namely, by ordination, so also the man who is righteous by the Law is actually not made righteous by the works of the Law at all, but without them, by something else, namely, through faith in Christ, by which he is justified and, as it were, ordained, so that he is made righteous for the performance of the works of righteousness, just as this layman is ordained a priest for the performance of the functions of a priest. And it can happen that the man who is righteous by the Law does works which are more according to the letter and more spectacular than the man who is righteous by grace. But yet he is not for this reason righteous but rather may actually be more impeded by these works from coming to righteousness and to the works of grace.

Another example. A monkey can imitate the actions of people, but he is not a man on that account. But if he should become a man, this doubtless would not take place by virtue of these actions, by which he has imitated a man, but by some other power, namely, God’s; but then having become a man, he would truly and rightly perform the actions of a man.

Therefore, when St. James and the apostle say that a man is justified by works, they are contending against the erroneous notion of those who thought that faith suffices without works, although the apostle does not say that faith justifies without its own works (because then there would be no faith, since, according to the philosophers, “action is the evidence that form exists”), but that it justifies without the works of the Law. Therefore justification does not demand the works of the Law but a living faith which produces its own works.

But if faith justifies with its own works, but without the works of the Law, then why are heretics regarded as beyond justification, since they also believe and from this same faith produce great and sometimes even greater works than the other believers? And all the people in the church who are spiritually proud, who have many and great works which also surely proceed from faith, are such people also unrighteous? Does something other than faith in Christ with its good works seem to be required for justification?

James answers the question briefly: “Whosoever … fails in one point has become guilty of all of it” (2:10). For faith is indivisible. Therefore it is either a whole faith and believes all that is to be believed, or it is no faith, if it does not believe one part. The Lord thus compares it to one pearl, to one grain of mustard, etc. Because “Christ is not divided” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:13

), therefore He is either completely denied in one unit, or else He is completely affirmed. He cannot be at the same time denied in one word and confessed in another. But heretics are always picking out one thing or many from those which are to be believed, against which they set their minds in their arrogance, as if they were wiser than all the rest. And thus they believe nothing which is to be believed and perish without faith, without obedience toward God, while still in their great works, which are so similar to the real ones. They are not different from the Jews, who themselves believe many things which the church also truly believes. But one only does the thought of their own proud heart oppose, namely, Christ, and thus they perish in their unbelief. So also every proud man in his own mind always opposes either the precept or the counsel of him who is correctly guiding him to salvation. Since he does not believe this counsel, he likewise believes nothing, and his entire faith perishes because of the tenacity of one thought. We must always humbly, therefore, give way in our thinking, lest we stumble over this rock of offense,34 that is, the truth which in humility stands against us and opposes our own thinking. For since we are liars, the truth can never come to us except as an apparent adversary to what we are thinking, for we presume that we think the truth, and we wish to hear and see as truth only that which agrees with us and applauds us. But this cannot be.

The works of all of these men, therefore, are the works of the Law, not of faith or of grace, indeed they are opposed to and in conflict with faith. Thus justification not only can but must take place without them, and with the apostle must “be counted as refuse for the sake of Christ” (Phil. 3:8

).

Source: LW 25: 234-236

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther on the Book of James...Revisited

iamsoandso · Nov 3, 2013

i have always loved the way Paul worded Galatians 5;4,,,,"Christ is become of no effect to you,whosoever of you are justified by the law;ye are fallen from grace",,,,i think this explains the two paths perfectly,,,first in verse 3 Paul states those whom are "circumcised",they are in dept to do the whole law,so they because of how they see this are still bound to the old.

then again in 5;4 he states two key things "that Christ is become of no effect unto you",and "ye are fallen from grace",,,that is because they still are of the mind that salvation comes by works(of the law/circumcision) they have made Christ of no effect,and the grace they were offered "they are fallen from",,,so in their belief in salvation by the works of the law they in fact have decided they would save their own selves because the grace that is freely given them they deny. which is proven by their works that is they do not rest from the struggle to become saved(believing it to be accomplished at the Crucifixion) but rather they continue to try to do a work believing that if they do not they are not saved.

one is at rest from their works of obtaining salvation so they break forth into praise saying thank you to the lord god for the gift of salvation,,,the other not being capable of believing that they have actually been saved,is then thrust into agony,filled with fear,panicking forever digging through the scriptures to try to figure out(since they deny that the lord had provided salvation),,what other work they still need to do to be saved. with out the ability to give thanks for the salvation provided,from that point on always begging for the salvation they were already given,,,,,,

timberdoodle · Nov 3, 2013

kinda said:

Jesus declared all meats clean. What is wrong with Pig?

Timberdoodle

timberdoodle · Nov 3, 2013

RedTent said:

This entire subject borders on disgusting. At least no one is telling others not to believe in Christ, but what you are saying is almost as bad! You speak against what God tells us in scripture, and just as the demons do, you use scripture to say not to listen to scripture.

This is a movement to listen to all scripture equally for our spiritual training. They say that all scripture is from God, it all says the same thing. So when you gossip about how terrible these people are, it is saying some things in the bible shouldn't be listened to. It is not right to oppose God.

I thought that Christ brought a better covenant or maybe I am mistaken

Timber

HeRoseFromTheDead · Nov 3, 2013

SarahM777 said:

I am absolutely sure that I properly understood what Luther said. I'm not addressing his decision regarding the book of James (because I don't really care what he did), but merely the fact that he said James and Paul were at odds in regards to justification by works. They aren't, and he was wrong. Whether he changed his mind in a later writing, or said what he said merely for effect, I don't know.

And again, I don't really care what Calvin said. My original comment was made merely to draw attention to the fact that people can read something entirely different from what the author intended due to filters in their minds. That pertains to this OP quite well.

SarahM777 · Nov 3, 2013

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

I am absolutely sure that I properly understood what Luther said. I'm not addressing his decision regarding the book of James (because I don't really care what he did), but merely the fact that he said James and Paul were at odds in regards to justification by works. They aren't, and he was wrong. Whether he changed his mind in a later writing, or said what he said merely for effect, I don't know.

And again, I don't really care what Calvin said. My original comment was made merely to draw attention to the fact that people can read something entirely different from what the author intended due to filters in their minds. That pertains to this OP quite well.

And did you not also do the same thing?

zone · Nov 3, 2013

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

well, when you're trying to sort through ROMEs stuff and translate, stuff happens.
what can one man do in one lifetime?

nobody said luther was infallible...least of all himself.

timberdoodle · Nov 3, 2013

zone said:

I agree

Timber

RedTent · Nov 3, 2013

HeRoseFromTheDead said:

And I think that the spirit that denies that Christ and God is in the law, that the law expresses love, is the spirit of evil, trying to hoodwink the church into saying we can live in a world without law. It has ushered in immorality that is even in the members of our churches, and look at the immorality teens are looking up to expressed and tolerated in our TV and movies. The church says the spirit does not lead to law, and the church has always led the world.

I understand that you believe in the Lord, you are trying to follow the Lord in all you do and say, but I think you are being influenced in a wrong way. You hear one part of God's word, but there are parts you are not reporting.

The Dangers of the Hebrew Roots Messianic Movement

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

timberdoodle

Guest

timberdoodle

Guest

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

timberdoodle

Guest

Banned