Requirements of Salvation
- Thread starter BlessedCreator
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
as we have discussed before.... this is a "one time only" event... the gentiles were given the Holy Spirit to PROVE to the Jews that they were acceptable to God. They were not allowed to be baptized before this. Once it was proven to the Jews that God accepted them, Paul insisted they should be baptized. In water, by the way.... this is not the normal "sequence" of events.... as you know.
You are correct there. Putting your faith in God requires you to obey what God says to you (Hebrews 11)
Under the Law of Moses, God told all the Jews they needed to follow the Law (Exodus 19:4–6). If they don't obey his instructions, they cannot be said to have faith in God.
But do you think its the same for us in the Body of Christ now?
Under the Law of Moses, God told all the Jews they needed to follow the Law (Exodus 19:4–6). If they don't obey his instructions, they cannot be said to have faith in God.
But do you think its the same for us in the Body of Christ now?
This conversation has moved way beyond whether belief and baptism are required for salvation. I am by no means excusing Simon’s wickedness. It is exactly as Peter describes it.
I didn’t ask you to compare yourself with Simon. I asked you whether you committed any wickedness after believing and being baptized.
I didn’t ask you to compare yourself with Simon. I asked you whether you committed any wickedness after believing and being baptized.
Yes we are are under the law, though a different law than what the Israelites were.
James 2:12 KJB
"So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty."
The law of liberty is the law we are under.
___________________________
"On the phrase, "the law of liberty," see the notes at James 1:25. Compare the notes at James 4:11. The meaning is, that in all our conduct we are to act under the constant impression of the truth that we are soon to be brought into judgment, and that the law by which we are to be judged is that by which it is contemplated that we shall be set free from the dominion of sin. In the rule which God has laid down in his word, called "the law of liberty," or the rule by which true freedom is to be secured, a system of religion is revealed by which it is designed that man shall be emancipated not only from one sin, but from all. Now, it is with reference to such a law that we are to be judged; that is, we shall not be able to plead on our trial that we were under a necessity of sinning, but we shall be judged under that law by which the arrangement was made that we might be free from sin. If we might be free from sin; if an arrangement was made by which we could have led holy lives, then it will be proper that we shall be judged and condemned if we are not righteous. The sense is, "In all your conduct, whatever you do or say, remember that you are to be judged, or that you are to give an impartial account; and remember also that the rule by which you are to be judged is that by which provision is made for being delivered from the dominion of sin, and brought into the freedom of the gospel." The argument here seems to be, that he who habitually feels that he is soon to be judged by a law under which it was contemplated that he might be, and should be, free from the bondage of sin, has one of the strongest of all inducements to lead a holy life."‐ Barnes commentary on James 2:12
James 2:12 KJB
"So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty."
The law of liberty is the law we are under.
___________________________
"On the phrase, "the law of liberty," see the notes at James 1:25. Compare the notes at James 4:11. The meaning is, that in all our conduct we are to act under the constant impression of the truth that we are soon to be brought into judgment, and that the law by which we are to be judged is that by which it is contemplated that we shall be set free from the dominion of sin. In the rule which God has laid down in his word, called "the law of liberty," or the rule by which true freedom is to be secured, a system of religion is revealed by which it is designed that man shall be emancipated not only from one sin, but from all. Now, it is with reference to such a law that we are to be judged; that is, we shall not be able to plead on our trial that we were under a necessity of sinning, but we shall be judged under that law by which the arrangement was made that we might be free from sin. If we might be free from sin; if an arrangement was made by which we could have led holy lives, then it will be proper that we shall be judged and condemned if we are not righteous. The sense is, "In all your conduct, whatever you do or say, remember that you are to be judged, or that you are to give an impartial account; and remember also that the rule by which you are to be judged is that by which provision is made for being delivered from the dominion of sin, and brought into the freedom of the gospel." The argument here seems to be, that he who habitually feels that he is soon to be judged by a law under which it was contemplated that he might be, and should be, free from the bondage of sin, has one of the strongest of all inducements to lead a holy life."‐ Barnes commentary on James 2:12
You said we, and distinguished us from the Israelites, but then you use James.
Isn't James directing his letter to the 12 tribes scattered abroad in the very first verse of his epistle?
Aren't the 12 tribes Jews too? You regard James as writing to the Body of Christ?
Why not used Paul's letters?
Isn't James directing his letter to the 12 tribes scattered abroad in the very first verse of his epistle?
Aren't the 12 tribes Jews too? You regard James as writing to the Body of Christ?
Why not used Paul's letters?
-
1
- Show all
Interesting, Alexander MacLaren states this...
An old tradition tells us that James, who was probably the writer of this letter, continued in the practice of Jewish piety all his life. He was surnamed 'the Just.' He lived the life of a Nazarite. He was even admitted into the sanctuary of the Temple, and there spent so much of his time in praying for the forgiveness of the people that, in the vivid language of the old writer, his ' knees were hard and worn like a camel's.' To such a man the Gospel would naturally present itself as 'a law,' which word expressed the highest form of revelation with which he was familiar; and to him the glory of Christ's message would be that it was the perfecting of an earlier utterance, moving on the same plane as it did, but infinitely greater.
Now that, of course, is somewhat different from the point of view from which, for instance, Paul regards the relation of the Gospel and the Law. To him they are rather antitheses. He conceived mainly of the law as a system of outward observances, incapable of fulfilment, and valuable as impressing upon men the consciousness of sin.
But, though there is diversity, there is no contradiction, any more than there is between the two pictures in a stereoscope, which, united, represent one solid reality. The two men simply regard the subject from slightly different angles. Paul would have said that the gospel was the perfection of the law, as indeed he does say that by faith we do not make void, but establish, the law. And James would have said that the law, in Paul's sense, was a yoke of bondage, as indeed he does say in my text, that the gospel, in contrast with the earlier revelation, is the law of liberty.
And so the two men complement and do not contradict each other. In like manner, the earnest urging of work and insisting upon conduct, which are the keynote of this letter, are no contradiction of Paul. The one writer begins at a later point than the other. Paul is a preacher of faith, but of faith which works by love. James is the preacher of works, but of works which are the fruit of faith.
An old tradition tells us that James, who was probably the writer of this letter, continued in the practice of Jewish piety all his life. He was surnamed 'the Just.' He lived the life of a Nazarite. He was even admitted into the sanctuary of the Temple, and there spent so much of his time in praying for the forgiveness of the people that, in the vivid language of the old writer, his ' knees were hard and worn like a camel's.' To such a man the Gospel would naturally present itself as 'a law,' which word expressed the highest form of revelation with which he was familiar; and to him the glory of Christ's message would be that it was the perfecting of an earlier utterance, moving on the same plane as it did, but infinitely greater.
Now that, of course, is somewhat different from the point of view from which, for instance, Paul regards the relation of the Gospel and the Law. To him they are rather antitheses. He conceived mainly of the law as a system of outward observances, incapable of fulfilment, and valuable as impressing upon men the consciousness of sin.
But, though there is diversity, there is no contradiction, any more than there is between the two pictures in a stereoscope, which, united, represent one solid reality. The two men simply regard the subject from slightly different angles. Paul would have said that the gospel was the perfection of the law, as indeed he does say that by faith we do not make void, but establish, the law. And James would have said that the law, in Paul's sense, was a yoke of bondage, as indeed he does say in my text, that the gospel, in contrast with the earlier revelation, is the law of liberty.
And so the two men complement and do not contradict each other. In like manner, the earnest urging of work and insisting upon conduct, which are the keynote of this letter, are no contradiction of Paul. The one writer begins at a later point than the other. Paul is a preacher of faith, but of faith which works by love. James is the preacher of works, but of works which are the fruit of faith.
-
1
- Show all
Actually Acts 21:20-25 clearly stated that James disagree with Paul about law-keeping, for Jews who believed. To James, its straightforward, Jews who believe must continue to keep the Law, faith without works for them is dead. The Book of James was written years before that event.
But he is very willing to excuse Gentiles who believed, from the Law of Moses, as established in the conclusion of Acts 15.
But he is very willing to excuse Gentiles who believed, from the Law of Moses, as established in the conclusion of Acts 15.
The epistle of James is clearly meant to reach Christians.
James 2:1 KJB
"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."
To claim that James taught that Jews were to keep the law is unscriptural and contrary to the the will of God. Of which the Holy Bible is all the inspired words of God (66 books in the KJB). God taught no such thing. God is the author of the Bible, not man.
James 2:1 KJB
"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."
To claim that James taught that Jews were to keep the law is unscriptural and contrary to the the will of God. Of which the Holy Bible is all the inspired words of God (66 books in the KJB). God taught no such thing. God is the author of the Bible, not man.
Well if you believe Paul wrote the Letter to the Hebrews (now why would an Apostle to the Gentiles write such a letter?). It would be a scathing attack on what you consider James position. Personally, I have my doubts that James preached keeping the law to new Jewish converts. That would require him to circumcise the males in his congregation and continue with animal sacrifices etc. I see no contradiction between James' teachings and Paul's. Do you?
Paul stated clearly in Galatians 5:2 that "Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing."
So if you believe that Paul was preaching the same gospel as James, and both Jews and Gentiles are to follow that same gospel, then the point made in Acts 21:21 must be correct
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 to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Obviously James still believed in circumcision having value to the Jews, otherwise, the elders and him would not have mentioned vs21.
So if you believe that Paul was preaching the same gospel as James, and both Jews and Gentiles are to follow that same gospel, then the point made in Acts 21:21 must be correct
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 to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Obviously James still believed in circumcision having value to the Jews, otherwise, the elders and him would not have mentioned vs21.
