Follies of Faith

  • 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.
PAC-fit

PAC-fit

Well-known member
Sep 20, 2018
987
536
93
Ever hear of that James 4:5 verse which interpreters has often found themselves incapable of hearing it by faith and has resulted in nothing more than a controversy? Seriously and namely, a revision from the spirit of man, to instead replace with ‘the Holy Spirit’. That is madness. Obviously, this changes the understanding of the words of this verse drastically. Notice two mege-stark contrast, KJV and the NKJV

“Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?”

“Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, “The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously”?

Someone show me where Christ is seen stating "I am jealous for my chosen." “, , as if he needed anything.” (Acts 17:25) As mortals, Paul and James to "feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ." A far cry from a ", , a jealous God” against disobedience and not otherwise.

The NIV, AB, CSB, ASV, GNT, WBT, YLT, SLT, ABPE, (DRB, CPDV, NAB, NRSV Catholic), as well as all four early “modern translations” all maintain the spirit of man.

Ref for thought: For who among men knows the thoughts of man except his own spirit within him? (1Cor 2:11)

The most concerning part over this IMO is since theologians cannot cite for source of James comment, that alone reduces the reading of it strickly by faith that the Holy Spirit has thus spoken.

Other examples, disagreement? Please post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Suze
Context helps explain this. I do not know why you chose the title “Follies of Faith”.???

James 4:5 is a famously complex and debated verse in the New Testament. It highlights the intense, divine jealousy God feels when a believer's heart is divided by worldly desires. It serves as a spiritual warning against unfaithfulness to God.

The verse reads: "Or do you think the Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us?" (NIV).

It seems to mean that God deeply desires for us to obey Him, instead of the world.

James 4

4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?

6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: HeIsHere, Ceph and GWH
The word envy is never used in a good sense in scripture

G5355 φθόνος phthonos (ftho'-nos) n.
ill-will (as detraction), i.e. jealousy (spite).
 
I think James may be asking a question in James 4:5. I can't see him meaning "the spirit that dwells" as referring to man's spirit. And since envy is evil perhaps he was saying:

Or are you supposing that for naught the scripture says, Is the spirit which dwells in us longing to envy? James 4:5​

And the answer to that is, of course, no; which is a sort of rhetorical question referring back to the previous verse to show that it's not the holy spirit making them lust and envy.
 

Exodus 34:14​

14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

2 Corinthians 11:2​

2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anchorite
GWH said:
Interpret Jam. 4:5-6 in connection with Rom. 5:15.
Click to expand...
That's the whole problem, the attempt to cast God's grace into a 'yearning' He is expressing. I get it, as long as that humility of the child of God is kept in-tact. For it is foolhardy to resist the warning and much much easier to see man's susceptibility to fulfill James 4:5 held as man's spirit, if in fact that grace given enables the child/candidate to excellence for Christ, for that is where other related refs come into view easily, Philippians 2:3, James 3:4, others.
 
PAC-fit said:
That's the whole problem, the attempt to cast God's grace into a 'yearning' He is expressing. I get it, as long as that humility of the child of God is kept in-tact. For it is foolhardy to resist the warning and much much easier to see man's susceptibility to fulfill James 4:5 held as man's spirit, if in fact that grace given enables the child/candidate to excellence for Christ, for that is where other related refs come into view easily, Philippians 2:3, James 3:4, others.
Click to expand...

Well, the problem also may be described as human illogic per what I call the Propensity Principle,
a logical train of thought that indicates everyone with common sense should hope the NT gracious God exists.
 
GWH said:
", , everyone with common sense should hope the NT gracious God exists.
Click to expand...
Expected that, though I hoped not so as to avoid what scriptures warn me of (OP). You on the other hand do not wish to accept our responsible part?
 
PAC-fit said:
Expected that, though I hoped not so as to avoid what scriptures warn me of (OP). You on the other hand do not wish to accept our responsible part?
Click to expand...

Huh?! Did not expect that, because I am one of the MFWers on CC, which I thought you would know.
 
GWH said:
Huh?! Did not expect that, because I am one of the MFWers on CC, which I thought you would know.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep using initialisms? You are not understood when you do this. Just state it. What is MFW?
 
Anchorite said:
Why do you keep using initialisms? You are not understood when you do this. Just state it. What is MFW?
Click to expand...

Because anyone who participates in discussions of TULIP needs to know that the opposite doctrine is MFW (moral free will).
CC means Christian Chat, GW = God's Word, HS = Holy Spirit, GRFS = God's requirement for salvation.
I employ abbreviations because I post a lot about these topics.
Thanks for asking!
 
  • Like
Reactions: rewriter
Theology is a very difficult subject to be consistent with. Many people try to base their theology exclusively on scripture, but scripture acknowledges that God reveals Himself in ways beyond scripture. Then there is the problem of whose understanding of scripture is the correct one, it is easy to claim the inspiration of the HS, but how can anyone prove such? What portions of scripture are to be taken literally, and which are symbolic, and how does one prove such outside of their own preference/assumptions?

And these are just a few of the pitfalls awaiting anyone attempting to do theology.
 
GWH said:
Huh?! Did not expect that, because I am one of the MFWers on CC, which I thought you would know.
Click to expand...
As I also would like to be considered :cool:, yet as is usually the case, works must not be denied but do it's part to confirm. And yes, the OP is no exception but declares our fallen state WE HAVE in which, puts that unsavory side of prudence (Laymen, Scholars, Theologians) on notice, as though it can somehow excuse itself from the possibility of those things we are advised to take heed of (post 7), which in fact, ties to your Post 2 context for one's responsibility to maintain - 'humility'.

So yes, I continue to grant that "double honor" for those who "labor in the word" so long as they show a common fidelity to the Spirit's many forms of spontaneous "edification" (1 Corinthians 14:5).
 
Anchorite said:
Context helps explain this. I do not know why you chose the title “Follies of Faith”.???
Click to expand...
Not obvious?? Maybe old school, certainly not the entertainment type of follies but just as you posted, "God resisteth the proud [scholar], but giveth grace unto the humble."
 
rewriter said:
Theology is a very difficult subject to be consistent with. Many people try to base their theology exclusively on scripture, but scripture acknowledges that God reveals Himself in ways beyond scripture. Then there is the problem of whose understanding of scripture is the correct one, it is easy to claim the inspiration of the HS, but how can anyone prove such? What portions of scripture are to be taken literally, and which are symbolic, and how does one prove such outside of their own preference/assumptions?

And these are just a few of the pitfalls awaiting anyone attempting to do theology.
Click to expand...
Generally, yes. Going back, we start off with milk and proceed till we can scrap enough of God's will together for a good conscience and solid contentment. I would call that, the bare minumum.
 
PAC-fit said:
Generally, yes. Going back, we start off with milk and proceed till we can scrap enough of God's will together for a good conscience and solid contentment. I would call that, the bare minumum.
Click to expand...
But the problem is, how many of those who have studied GW over the past 3000 years have said something similar and gotten the message wrong. Scripture records that happened multiple times, and the variety of different "correct" understandings in Christian circles certainly implies that it still occurs.

We like to charge ahead and claim we have gotten to eating meat, but does God agree or just shake His head at our follies.
 
rewriter said:
We like to charge ahead and claim we have gotten to eating meat, but does God agree or just shake His head at our follies.
Click to expand...
I don't believe shaking His head could apply, as He has provided opportunity that rises above levels of whether or not we have justification. But to support one another just as they did "asking God to fill you with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, ," (Col 1:9). That applies for us as well. See our 'Moral Free Will', post #14.
 
", , Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." (Rom 8:9)

So what does the Spirit of Christ tell you of the OP implication that the spirit of man can "lust to envy" while numbered with a unraveling theological community to the core? That is, a considerable number of them.

Or maybe not that far a stretch at all. Might well be another episode as the scriptures maintains, prudence being confounded right out of sound reason, in effect, envy driven to conclude saying; 'How dare you rise to express a greater deed (gifts) than what I can articulate!'
 
James 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?

6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

Of course it is speaking of the spirit of people because it is speaking of lust of the flesh that people do.

This has to do with lusting for things of the flesh which God tells them to correct it so it would not be speaking of the Jesus being jealous over His chosen.

James 4:5 Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, "The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously"?

This would be the wrong interpretation for it is not speaking of the Spirit but the spirit in people.

The context is lust of the flesh so it speaking of the spirit of people that lust.

Which is strange how it is the New King James version but strays like like that from the King James version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PAC-fit
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back