My Dad has told me on more than one occasion that I should become a televangelist to make good money.
But I just cannot ethically do the fake healing thing.
Edited work from my
PhD.
Preface
Within a sovereignty approach and theodicy as opposed to related but somewhat different incompatibilistic free will theodicy, I deduce a theoretical, possible and suitable reason why God created a good world and allowed human beings to rebel against him.
Certain persons will experience evil and atonement
Certain persons will have experienced their own sin, death, and the atoning work of Christ and his resurrection applied to them. These would be citizens of the culminated Kingdom of God.
Persons cannot be created with experience
Very importantly, persons cannot be created with experience, even if made with a level of initial maturity. God can create a perfect person, but God cannot logically create a perfect person with experience as such. The act of creating implies newness and inexperience. Admittedly, God could hypothetically create a being with false memories of a perfect life, but this would not be the same as having experience. I deduce the results would not be the same.
Through problem of evil certain persons will become Christ-like
It is reasonable to deduce that the problem of evil is possibly God’s means of developing certain individuals to eventual Christ-like stature, not sharing Christ’s divinity in nature but becoming like Christ in a mature and moral manner, combined with an unbreakable devotion to God. This would be finite moral perfection and goodness but not infinite, God-like moral perfection and goodness. Isaiah 43 makes it clear there was no God formed before God and there will be no God formed after. Isaiah 44-46 make similar statements.
Conclusion
Those within culminated Kingdom will have greater spiritual maturity than initial persons
A reason for God to willfully allow human rebellion
My theory and conclusion is that human beings in Christ with the use of compatibilism will eventually have greater spiritual maturity than Adam and Eve did prior to a fall from God.
It would also appear that God ultimately prefers persons (human ones at least) as they will be in the culminated Kingdom, over persons in a different scenario that would have never freely chosen to disobey God.
Perhaps in that case as well the former group would have greater spiritual maturity.
Further Explanation
It is believed that Christ will be God’s lieutenant in this godless world and bring about, through his crucifixion and resurrection, the promise of a better future, which includes hope. Moltmann (1993: 256). The Kingdom of God was present in Christ and this has been defined in history. Moltmann (1993: 263).
God would not have to go through such a process as he is infinitely good and human beings are finitely good and capable of falling.
That being stated, some angels apparently never did fall and yet had finite goodness.
I reason God could create significantly free finite beings that would fall, and significantly free finite beings that would not.
AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM.
HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.
LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics.
MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’ in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press .
MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans .Publishing Company.
Another shot from 'my estate'. Public road included.
"Persons cannot be created with experience"
ReplyDeleteMy engineering/physics background jumped when I read this! We usually look at history as a sequence of state changes, then assume that the behavior of two identical systems will be identical regardless of how they got to that state. Part of my training is in converting history dependent processes to a different representation with state variables so that the history can be bypassed. Computers also present an analogy where experience needn't be real. The person, however, has a soul and this might be different.
But in a moral sense, perhaps you are right. If I remember committing a murder which never actually happened, am I guilty? And what of the conscience? Perhaps creating someone with experience that didn't happen would simply leave the universe in a confused and inconsistent state ...
Thanks for the brain teaser!
'Computers also present an analogy where experience needn't be real. The person, however, has a soul and this might be different.'
ReplyDeleteYes, and a human nature that can produce limited free will choices and resulting actions.
At this point at least, computers do not have even a limited free will.
'But in a moral sense, perhaps you are right. If I remember committing a murder which never actually happened, am I guilty? And what of the conscience? Perhaps creating someone with experience that didn't happen would simply leave the universe in a confused and inconsistent state ...
Thanks for the brain teaser!'
Perhaps infused non-actual experiences would not serve adequately as experiences in human development.
I admit my theodicy is theoretical, but it is as Biblical as possible in context.
Looney, I appreciate your positive comments on this blog.
Whew. All these big words- this stuff is beyond me... P)
ReplyDeletezomba
I have had to consult a dictionary and related on many occasions in my academic career.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Zomba.
Thank you for reminding your readers that though there is the problem of evil there is still the possibility of atonement through Christ and the ability to become Christ like.
ReplyDelete-Hopefully Optimistic-
Cheers.
ReplyDeleteI have managed to stay Biblically orthodox with God's help.
For those interested, I also discuss related topics on my latest satire and theology post:
If I were famous
This is an interesting article. Perhaps you can comment on it, Russ:
ReplyDeleteWhy do Christians Suffer?
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to your article linked, I scanned it and I will admit that prior to you leaving the comment I already had another agenda and comment in mind. However I offer brief non in-depth comments:
'We all suffer. God does not take us out of this life to save us from all the consequences of our temporary existence.'
Yes.
'Our current sufferings help us build faith and endurance. Paul, looking at his present situation and his future wrote, "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us." (Romans 8:18)'
As basically noted in my post.
I would add that God allows and therefore wills our sufferings, some of which may be somewhat caused by our own sin, and yet God remains pure in motive.
Okay, now my agenda. I mentioned James 2 in my LDS post.
'From James 2:17, we know that faith without works is dead, and so a sign (not the only sign) of real Christian faith is to walk in good works.
But, I admit that it is possible that these good works can be limited as in the apparent example of a person saved with works burned up in 1 Corinthians 3: 12-15.'
I would point out that another and probably more important sign would be the confession of belief in the true God (1 John 2: 22-23).
I also just recently pointed it out in satire and theology comments that Hebrews 6 and 2 Peter 3 may very well provide similar concepts on Christian faith and lack of works as does 1 Corinthians 3.
I have noted several times as well that Ephesians 2 points out that we are saved by grace through faith unto good works. Works do not save us. See also 2 Timothy 1: 8-10.
Here in note form is an explanation of James 2.
Using:
CARSON T. (1986) ‘James', in F.F. Bruce (ed.),The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
-For Paul, faith has to do with legal justification before God, as in Romans and Galatians.
-For James, the meaning is somewhat different, as vindication is meant as in showing righteousness to God and humanity.
-In Paul, deeds of law are discussed, in regard to the topic of merit (and lack of).
-In James, faith has to do with love and obedience.
-James is concerned with the evidence for faith before God and persons.
-Paul states human beings are not justified by works.
-James does not contradict this in 2: 24.
-Legal justification and therefore salvation is not in mind here but rather justification and righteousness in works for one that already has saving faith.
-Carson mentions Calvin's idea that faith alone justifies (saves) but faith alone should never be alone.
My take:
Persons in 1 Corinthians 3, Hebrews 6, 2 Peter 3 and James 2 could all be considered to have dead or weak faith (James 2: 26, faith without works is dead).
Salvation or saving faith is not what is being discussed, rather works and lack of as a believer.
Additional:
This makes sense in light of 2 Corinthians 5: 10 where Christians that have their sin atoned for via Christ (Ephesians 2) are still judged for works.
Hmm.
I will place the James portion of this comment in satire and theology comments as well.
I was asked on the local blog, Life on the Blade:
ReplyDeleteLife of the Blade
What I think of Canada's participation in Afghanistan.
I admit 911 was an attack against some Canadians.
A response was needed.
In general, I favour a strong and well-financed military but more so defensive in the sense of protecting the West and its borders, actual democratic allies and not so much intervening in other parts of the world for gain.
If the idea was to protect 'freedom' at all costs then I guess the West should attack China, but this will not occur due to among other things, too much loss of life and public disapproval.
So, in conclusion I am skeptical on the issue.
Further, due to Al-Qaeda and other radical Muslim groups becoming adversarial with the West, regardless of my disagreement with much Western meddling throughout history, terrorism cannot be tolerated.
I do not therefore favour so much the full-scale invasions of places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, but instead favour particular military operations at targets...worldwide.
So that could include groups hiding in the countries of 'allies'.
Awesome Bobcat driver
ReplyDeleteWell done, that is, Pope Chucklins I.
ReplyDeleteAs you say in your comments that suffering builds faith and endurance, may it be so!
ReplyDelete-Sick of Suffering-
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteJames 2:14 says, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?" In other words, such a person is claiming to be a Christian, but it is a false claim. How many thousands of people have gone forward at a Billy Graham crusade, for example, and a year later, were not to be found in any church? How many people walked an aisle, yet their life was not changed one bit? For years, there have been articles and sermons and talks on the problem of "easy-believism"---for example, a person repeating a quick "salvation prayer," and thinking they are saved, yet their life remains completely unchanged. They might have repeated some words, but there was no regeneration that took place, and the Holy Spirit never indwelt them. For example, here is a video called Four False Converts and Their Testimonies that demonstrates that.
James 2:17 says, "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." In other words, faith not accompanied by action is not true faith, but is nothing more than a false profession of faith. Romans 1:5 says, "Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith." Obedience comes from faith; that's why faith without works is dead. A dead faith is not a real faith. Obedience is the proof of faith, so a faith without works is merely a claimed faith, and not a true faith. If you have true faith in Jesus, you're going to obey Him. Just saying you believe in God, or in Jesus, is not enough; that's merely intellectual head knowledge. James 2:19 says, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." So even the devil believes in God and Jesus.
James 2:18 says, "But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do." It says, "show." Works are the evidence of a true faith. This is not saying that works are a secondary requirement for salvation.
-For Paul, faith has to do with legal justification before God, as in Romans and Galatians. -For James, the meaning is somewhat different, as vindication is meant as in showing righteousness to God and humanity. -In Paul, deeds of law are discussed, in regard to the topic of merit (and lack of). -In James, faith has to do with love and obedience. -James is concerned with the evidence for faith before God and persons. -Paul states human beings are not justified by works. -James does not contradict this in 2: 24. -Legal justification and therefore salvation is not in mind here but rather justification and righteousness in works for one that already has saving faith. -Carson mentions Calvin's idea that faith alone justifies (saves) but faith alone should never be alone.
ReplyDeleteGood comparison, Russ.
So often, non-Christians will claim that the Bible does not teach salvation by faith alone, and they will point to James 2:24, which says, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” However, they manage to completely ignore Romans 3:28, which states, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."
Many non-Christians use James 2 to try to show that salvation is not by faith alone. But, as a Pastor said once, Paul deals with the root of faith, while James deals with the fruit of faith. James 2 is not teaching how to get saved; it's basically addressing those who are "Christian" in name only---they claim to be a Christian, yet they steal, lie, commit adultery, do drugs, are in and out of jail, etc. Matthew 7:16 says, "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" True faith will always show itself by its fruits.
Here is probably the best real-life example I know of to demonstrate this: Many years ago, Hustler Magazine publisher Larry Flynt claimed to be born again, yet he continued to publish his pornography magazine. Wikipedia states that "He was an evangelical Christian for one year, converted in 1977 by evangelist Ruth Carter Stapleton, the sister of President Jimmy Carter. He became "born again" and stated he had a vision from God while flying with Stapleton in his jet. He continued to publish his magazine, however, vowing to "hustle for God." He has since declared himself an atheist." In March 1978, Flynt was paralyzed by a gunman's bullet. Then, Flynt began spending a lot of time in courtrooms. The same month, he was on trial for obscenity in Atlanta, where he attempted to prove that violence, not sex, is the real obscenity. In November of 1983, he vilely cursed out the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1984, Flynt purchased a copy of an FBI surveillance tape. When the court ordered Flynt to disclose the source of the leak, he refused. For a while, he was fined $10,000 per day for his refusal. He appeared at one hearing wearing the American flag as a diaper. He threw fruit at the judge. At one point, he refused to shut up and was gagged by the bailiffs. He was thrown in a psychiatric hospital for six months, and then jail, where he spent another 15 months. In July 2003, before Arnold Schwarzenegger won the election, Flynt ran for governor of California. At Flynt's press conference, he unveiled his campaign slogan: "Vote for the smut-peddler with a heart." Flynt said that, if elected, he would decriminalize drugs and prostitution, and expand casino gambling. All of this is overwhelming evidence that his claim of being “born again” was nothing more than a false claim.
(cont.)
'Good comparison, Russ.'
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jeff.
'So often, non-Christians will claim that the Bible does not teach salvation by faith alone, and they will point to James 2:24, which says, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” However, they manage to completely ignore Romans 3:28, which states, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."'
Yes.
'Many non-Christians use James 2 to try to show that salvation is not by faith alone. But, as a Pastor said once, Paul deals with the root of faith, while James deals with the fruit of faith. James 2 is not teaching how to get saved; it's basically addressing those who are "Christian" in name only---they claim to be a Christian, yet they steal, lie, commit adultery, do drugs, are in and out of jail, etc. Matthew 7:16 says, "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" True faith will always show itself by its fruits.'
'A dead faith is not a real faith. Obedience is the proof of faith, so a faith without works is merely a claimed faith, and not a true faith. If you have true faith in Jesus, you're going to obey Him. Just saying you believe in God, or in Jesus, is not enough; that's merely intellectual head knowledge. James 2:19 says, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." So even the devil believes in God and Jesus.'
I think the verses I mentioned likely demonstrate that some believers although they have saving faith, do not show significant works and do not repent of all sin. In a sense this could be seen as dead or weak faith.
Since James is not discussing saving faith, it seems likely he is not discussing those outside of Christ, but those in.
It is primarily addressed to Christians. Those reading James believe.
I think the verses I mentioned likely demonstrate that some believers although they have saving faith, do not show significant works and do not repent of all sin. In a sense this could be seen as dead or weak faith.
ReplyDelete1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is talking about this, I think, when it says, "If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."
Since James is not discussing saving faith, it seems likely he is not discussing those outside of Christ, but those in.
It is primarily addressed to Christians. Those reading James believe.
Regarding James 2:12, the NIV footnote states:
2:12 judged. This judgment is not for determining eternal destiny, for James is speaking to believers (v. 1), whose destiny is already determined (Jn 5:24). Rather, it is for giving rewards to believers (1 Co 3:12-15; 2 Co 5:10; Rev 22:12).
So that section is apparently addressed to believers. But that is talking about verse 12. Verses 1-13 of James 2 is talking about how showing favoritism is forbidden. Verses 14-26 are talking about faith and deeds. Remember that there were no chapter or verse divisions in the original writings. In fact, verse 14b says, "Can such faith save him?" And verse 23 is talking about credited righteousness, while verse 24 mentions justification. So no, in verses 14-26, James is not talking about how to obtain saving faith, but rather what is the outward proof of a genuine saving faith. The NIV footnotes confirm that this latter section is talking about true faith vs. a claimed but false faith. For example:
2:14-26 In vv. 14-20, 24, 26 "faith" is not used in the sense of genuine, saving faith. Rather, it is demonic (v. 19), useless (v. 20) and dead (v. 26). It is a mere intellectual acceptance of certain truths without trust in Christ as Savior....Genuine faith will produce good deeds, but only faith in Christ saves.
2:15-16 This illustration of false faith is parallel to the illustration of false love found in 1 Jn 3:17.
2:24 not by faith alone. Not by an intellectual assent to certain truths.
The portion of James I was discussing was primarily in the context of believers and not saving faith. So we agree.
ReplyDeleteHowever, yes, Carson agrees that 2: 14 is discussing saving faith. p. 1541. In context it says, 'if a man'. So that could be a non-believer.
But, in 15 we are back to brother and sister talk, and so a believer is being discussed.
Carson states that James is concerned with the evidence of faith in a Christian. p. 1542.
Carson does not seem to agree with the NIV interpretation which may be reading into text. As in the following interpretation.
'2:24 not by faith alone. Not by an intellectual assent to certain truths.'
I do not see the idea of intellectual consent being discussed here.
The demons example in 2: 19, Carson states is in the context of divine awe, and says that the term dead faith should be better translated useless. p. 1542.
Interesting.
'As you say in your comments that suffering builds faith and endurance, may it be so!
ReplyDelete-Sick of Suffering-'
Sometimes I need a break though.
I need growth in faith in blessings and fulfillment as well.
'The demons example in 2: 19, Carson states is in the context of divine awe, and says that the term dead faith should be better translated useless.' p. 1542.
More on James 2: 19, Carson states the word 'shudder' from the Greek was used in the context of the awe of mysterious divine power. p. 1542.
φρίσσουσιν
A demon that knows God exists but does not having saving faith, could have this awe and have experienced God's supernatural presence. A person with saving faith that has a useless faith in regard to works and repentance could also have an understanding of this awe.
A non-believer may have this type of awe I suppose with a mere intellectual acceptance. But this seems less likely what is meant.
Okay, I will look at another James commentary:
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.
Barclay takes a view similar to the NIV that Jeff quoted.
James is arguing against a belief that is intellectual that does not have any influence upon life. He states the devils are convinced by the existence of God. Barclay (1976: 73).
Then he states that James is dealing with the professing Christian who claims to be in Christ, who is apparently justified and now must be shown to be sanctified. Barclay (1976: 74).
But Barclay does not deal with the Greek word shudder or the concept of awe in regard to the demons.
Bauer states that the term φρίσσw from φρίσσουσιν in 2: 19 means shudder, fear, of demons that do so. p. 866.
BAUER, W. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
I favour the conclusions of Carson here.
Thanks very much, Walter, Chucky and Jeff for the comments.
If I was ever to do a PhD in Biblical Studies (NO!) this could be a topic I would choose.
But, in 15 we are back to brother and sister talk, and so a believer is being discussed.
ReplyDelete"Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food." But whose brother or sister? Is James talking about his spiritual brothers and sisters, or is he talking about the reader's spiritual brother or sister? The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English (The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament) gives the literal translation of verse 15 as, "If a brother or a sister naked are and lacking of the daily food." It says a brother or a sister. So, it seems that it is not specific as to whose brother or sister it is referring to. I suspect that "a brother or sister" may be merely a synonym for someone who is a Christian. If this is the case, then I don't think this necessarily means that everyone who reads James' letter necessarily was expected to be a Christian, though I do think that James expected most of his readers to be Christians. Let me explain what I mean by that.
The recipients of the letter of James are identified in 1:1: "the twelve tribes scattered among the nations," which would seem to apply to Jewish Christians. That his readers were expected to be Jewish is shown by the Jewish nature of the letter (i.e., the use of the Hebrew title for God, kyrios sabaoth, or "Lord Almighty," in 5:4). And verses 2:1 and 5:7-8 do seem to imply that the recipients were Christians, possibly believers from the early Jerusalem church who, after Stephen's death, were scattered as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Syrian Antioch (Acts 8:1 and 11:19).
Now, in most, if not all, of the many churches I have attended or visited, there were churchgoers (as well as visitors) who called themselves "Christian," but who had never been regenerated. As the saying goes, "Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going into a garage makes you a car." There were also some who did not even call themselves "Christian," but were what some might call "seekers."
(cont.)
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteSo, since James' letter was passed around to such a widely-dispersed group of people (i.e., "the twelve tribes scattered among the nations," including those in Phoenicia, Cyprus and Syrian Antioch), wouldn't it be likely that some who read James' letter would be "Christian" in name only? And couldn't it be possible that James might have anticipated this, and maybe had even previously corresponded or spoken with some whom he knew were "Christian" in name only? Some who attended a local church, and who thought they were Christians, but who had never actually been regenerated? Some who may have said that they had faith, but whose claimed faith was obviously not a genuine faith, because of their immoral lifestyle? Might it be that he anticipated that those same individuals would read his letter, and therefore he was addressing them in this section? I suspect (and theorize) that it might have been exactly such individuals who were being addressed in 2:14-26.
Carson does not seem to agree with the NIV interpretation which may be reading into text.
My previously-mentioned example of 1 Cor. 3:12-15 mentions "using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is..." This is presumably talking about durable works, or "good deeds," which will stand the test of divine judgment (not the Great White Throne Judgment for unbelievers, of course, but the Bema Seat or Judgment Seat of Christ, for rewards to be given out to believers). The believer's works will be tested as if by fire. And of course, the wood, hay or straw would be worthless works that will not stand the test. These, I assume, might include "good deeds" that were done for selfish reasons, rather than for the sake of Christ.
However, I do not see James 2:14-26 as talking about the quality or intentions of (or the attitude behind) good works done by a believer, or as talking about how a believer's "good" works will be judged; but rather, as talking about the difference between true and false faith, which would mean the outward evidence of whether a person had truly been regenerated or not.
If this is the case, then I don't think this necessarily means that everyone who reads James' letter necessarily was expected to be a Christian, though I do think that James expected most of his readers to be Christians. Let me explain what I mean by that.'
ReplyDeleteI think it is all meant for believers, but non-believers are used as examples. Of course some addressed could turn out to fakes, but believers are the target group.
'Now, in most, if not all, of the many churches I have attended or visited, there were churchgoers (as well as visitors) who called themselves "Christian," but who had never been regenerated. As the saying goes, "Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going into a garage makes you a car." There were also some who did not even call themselves "Christian," but were what some might call "seekers."'
That is more of a modern concept than a New Testament one. But again, of course there were some fakes. The New Testament recognizes this.
'They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.' 1 John 2: 19. NASB
Notice, they had been of us.
We are also, especially in the USA in an era of cultural Christianity not found in New Testament times. There was cultural Judaism.
'However, I do not see James 2:14-26 as talking about the quality or intentions of (or the attitude behind) good works done by a believer, or as talking about how a believer's "good" works will be judged; but rather, as talking about the difference between true and false faith, which would mean the outward evidence of whether a person had truly been regenerated or not.'
I can respect the fact that you and many scholars see this, but I think it rests somewhat upon a questionable assumption that James is addressing non-believers.
I think it also fails to recognize that a believer, like a demonic being is more likely to shudder and be in awe of God than is a non-believer with mere intellectual belief.
So, I do see a connection between James 2 and 2 Corinthians 5: 10 and the other verses I mentioned.
Thanks my friend.
Bonus I found this:
James 2: 14-26
'Dr. Charlie Bing is the founder and president of GraceLife Ministries. He is also an adjunct professor of Biblical Studies at LeTourneau University'
He states:
'Conclusion
This passage in James is written to Christians to encourage them to do good works which will make their faith mature and profitable to them and to others. There is no contradiction between James and Paul. When Paul speaks of justification through faith alone, he is speaking of judicial righteousness before God. When James speaks of justification by a faith that works, he is speaking of a practical righteousness displayed before other people. In Romans 3-5, Paul is discussing how to obtain a new life in Christ. In James, James is discussing how to make that new life profitable. If this passage is taken to mean that one must demonstrate a “real” salvation through works, then works unavoidably becomes necessary for salvation—a contradiction of Ephesians 2:8-9. Also, there are no criteria mentioned for exactly what kind or how much work verifies salvation. This opens the door to subjectivism and undermines the objective basis of assurance—the promise of God’s Word that all who believe in Christ’s work will be saved.'
If this passage is taken to mean that one must demonstrate a “real” salvation through works, then works unavoidably becomes necessary for salvation—a contradiction of Ephesians 2:8-9.
ReplyDeleteBased on this logic, then he would likely have to also apply the same argument to the following verses:
Matthew 7:15-23:
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
"So then, you will know them by their fruits.
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'"
I think that Matthew 7:15-23 and James 2:14-26 are basically talking about the same thing. Matthew 7:15 mentions false prophets, but I think the commonality is that their actions, or their words, betray a faith that is not genuine.
We disagree on this point, Russ, but you make some good points. And at least we agree on the important issue, that James 2 is not saying that works is necessary for salvation. That's the main thing.
'I think that Matthew 7:15-23 and James 2:14-26 are basically talking about the same thing. Matthew 7:15 mentions false prophets, but I think the commonality is that their actions, or their words, betray a faith that is not genuine.'
ReplyDeleteI do not think the best scholarship supports that idea. But, we live and learn. I quoted Barclay and even have two of his books, even though my former PhD advisor Rob said Barclay was not scholarly enough and I should not use him in my PhD. I still reason Barclay is useful.
Matthew 7: 15-23 is discussing false prophets, false religionists, and for the most part, at least, the unregenerate.
James 2: 14-26 is primarily discussing believers with dead/useless/weak faith that demonstrates a lack of significant works.
Two different groups of persons are discussed.
'We disagree on this point, Russ, but you make some good points. And at least we agree on the important issue, that James 2 is not saying that works is necessary for salvation. That's the main thing.'
Mind you, Howard's Uncle is a scholar and I posted a television interview of his in the 'False assumptions...' article. He reasons that 7: 21-23 is discussing unrepentant believers.
I do not agree.
Thanks Jeff and God bless.
The book of James and related is also discussed below in comments, see link:
ReplyDeleteSorry, it is kind of like when Marvel comics would publish a story in one 'mag' and continue it in another.
But, I did not plan it this way.
But this blog (thekingpin68) is better than the one below (satire and theology) and he will tell you his is better, but don't listen to him, please.
satire and suluology
L M A O !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeletebrillant ,
JME
Jimmmmmmy!
ReplyDeleteCheers.
If only Colombia and Canada (British Columbia) were involved in this World Cup.
Like the Lego football recap.
ReplyDeleteButterfingers! tsk tsk!
zomba
FIFA World Cup picks world ranking 21971/79706 (So far)
ReplyDeleteUEFA Champions League 2009-2010 picks world ranking 232/51066
Hmm. Hopes things get better with this WC.:)
Too many teams are underachieving.
My picks are suffering as a result, as many of the favourites have not played that well (France, England, Italy, Portugal and others who were favoured in individual matches).
Hello, readers.
ReplyDeleteI have posted on my blogs previously concerning floaters and a possible vitrectomy.
The vitrectomy went well this morning.
The opthamologist/surgeon stated there were no serious problems.
I will keep the eye covered and wait for the large (appears so with my eye) bubble to continue to shrink.
There are now no viewable floaters in sight in that eye. Will have to take it very easy for several days, of course. No working out at all, of course.
I will visit the ophthalmologist/surgeon from UBC tomorrow morning.
Russ
Nice LEGO soccer video, but these plastic goal keepers are sieves!!
ReplyDelete-LEGO me EGGO-
You stated that persons cannot be created with experience, I like that train of thought, it seems to me that experience and learning from our experiences are an important attribute about being human.
ReplyDelete-Living & Learning-
'Nice LEGO soccer video, but these plastic goal keepers are sieves!!
ReplyDelete-LEGO me EGGO-'
Cousins of yours? Thanks.
'You stated that persons cannot be created with experience, I like that train of thought, it seems to me that experience and learning from our experiences are an important attribute about being human.'
-Living & Learning-
Thanks, LL.
People can be however, and generally are, created with a vitreous in each eye.
That can be removed.
It is replaced with a phoney, artificial solution, that does the trick.
Hope the surgery did the trick and that you heal up fast.
ReplyDeleteLots of goodness to look at on the Net! 8)
zombie
Thanks, Zombie.
ReplyDeleteThe eye is sore. I await the bubble to burst.
In Somalia, two sports fans were executed solely for watching the World Cup.
ReplyDelete"Recently in Somalia, radical Islamists have gained control and imposed extremely strict rule that is unparalleled in the West. This week, two soccer fans were shot dead solely because they were watching a game, by the hands of Islamist militants from the rebel group, Hezbal Islam. Their house was stormed and fire was opened, two were immediately executed and 10 others arrested. Another local militia group al Shabaab, which has been recruiting Americans recently has banned the viewing of the World Cup, as they deem it "un-Islamic."
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteThat said, the conversation (if enough people find it worth having) is going to be broken up all over the web anyway. Regardless of whether or not you allow comments on your blog, people are going to respond to it in what ever manner they prefer. These days for many people, that means simply retweeting it or liking it on Facebook (now people can even "like" the comments on Facebook too).
[Would you rather have blog comments or Facebook "likes" and retweets?]
Maybe the real question is this: how much do blog comments matter anyway? There is no containing the conversation. It's really been this way as long as blogs have been popular. People have always responded to others' posts with their own blog posts. The fact that services like Facebook and Twitter have become so popular in the mainstream is what has changed. It's so much easier to add your comment in a quick status update or tweet than it is to write a new blog post.
Likewise, many will find it easier to simply hit a "like" button or a "recommend button" for Facebook or a retweet button to express their approval of a blog post. With a tweet, they can add their own commentary too, and it really provides more benefit to them, because they are bringing the people they know into the conversation, as opposed to just participating in a conversation with a bunch of strangers that also read that blog.
Naturally, this also benefits the blog post by opening it up to increased exposure, and obviously more traffic, as well as potentially more links, which can even benefit you in search.
Comments Still Have Value
Comments can add value to a blog post by presenting different perspectives around the subject at hand. Even Gruber has acknowledged this. But increasingly, more of those perspectives are being expressed externally. The entire conversation rarely (if ever) takes place on the blog post itself.
When readers see that a post has a lot of comments, they may be more inclined to read it. This is another valuable trait comments have, but if you display a count of retweets or Facebook Likes or Google Buzzes or Diggs, or whatever, it can achieve a similar effect. However, only the people that actually go to your site in the first place will see these counts. A more important factor to consider is probably that as more content is shared throughout networks like Twitter or Facebook, users will be more likely to read a post based on things like the title, who shared it with them, and what that person said about it.
Interestingly, Gruber was able to convince Wilcox to turn off his own blog comments. Would you ever consider taking that leap?
From WebProNews, by Chris Crum:
ReplyDeleteCan You Get More Links If You Turn Off Comments?
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Both Blocking and Accepting Blog Comments May Have Benefits
Every so often, an argument and ensuing discussion erupts in the Blogosphere over whether or not it is ethical to block comments on a blog post and what value they actually add to content.
The latest one started when John Gruber at DaringFireball wrote a post in response to a John Battelle post about Apple blocking Google from iOS app Ads. Gruber has become somewhat famous around the tech Blogosphere for not allowing comments, and is usually referenced in these conversations.
Joe Wilcox at OddlyTogether wanted to respond to Gruber's post, but obviously couldn't do that via a blog comment, so he wrote his own blog post instead, questioning Gruber's manhood. "If John Gruber allowed comments on his blog, I wouldn't need to write this post, and it has been long-time coming," wrote Wilcox. "I considered writing it every time I read something outrageous at Daring Fireball but couldn't directly respond because John doesn't allow comments. Finally, this morning, I had enough.
"A man pushes out only as much as he can receive back," he added later in the post. "By comparison, I see John attacking from a fortified position. He can attack but not easily be assaulted, and, yes, many of his posts are attacks on others. Sarcasm and witticism are the ammunition. Maybe John has different values of what is a man. My values are clear. A man - [heck], a good writer - doesn't hide behind his assertions. He stands by them. Discussion and response test his assertions and expose him to more points of view."
Benefits to Eliminating Comments?
One thing seems clear to me. If you turn off comments, it forces the conversation outward. As Gruber has proven, people who want to respond to one of his posts have no choice but to blog about it themselves, tweet about it, or choose some other venue to discuss it. Most likely, those who wish to discuss it are going to link to DaringFireball to give their own content context. It seems entirely possible that by not allowing comments, Gruber is encouraging more links to his content. This may not be his intent, but it would appear to be the case nevertheless.
That's not to say that this strategy will work for everyone. Don't expect to turn off comments and automatically get more traffic. Obviously, you're going to have to create great content that people want to discuss in the first place. The question you have to ask yourself is whether you want the conversation to happen where it started or to be broken up all over the web.
(cont.)
'This is as clear of an example as any that radical Muslims will not be reasoned with. The group routinely bans music and dancing, and now with sports, basically all fun is prohibited.
ReplyDeleteIt is said that the two victims had broken a law. What happens when the world ceases to live by a set of laws that are universally acceptable? With the increasing popularity of Shariah law in different enclaves in places like France or even regions of the United States, how can we uphold universal rights? The right to watch a sports game without fear of death is something that everybody should agree to. But clearly they don't.'
In the West, we must strongly oppose Islamic law.
It is largely anti-democratic.
'He can attack but not easily be assaulted, and, yes, many of his posts are attacks on others.'
ReplyDeleteA good point concerning blogging in general.
'As Gruber has proven, people who want to respond to one of his posts have no choice but to blog about it '
Many people do not have the time or energy/motivation to do this.
Persons will more likely, in comparison, leave a blog comment once and awhile.
Being a commenter requires far less commitment than being a blog owner.
'That's not to say that this strategy will work for everyone.'
It will not work for most.
'People have always responded to others' posts with their own blog posts.'
More people will comment, however.
'Interestingly, Gruber was able to convince Wilcox to turn off his own blog comments. Would you ever consider taking that leap?'
The larger my blogs, the less I would need commenters and links.
But, for me comments allows not only others to comment, but allows me to add further material after the main body content.
So, no.
Cheers, Jeff.
"With the increasing popularity of Shariah law in different enclaves in places like France or even regions of the United States, how can we uphold universal rights?"
ReplyDeleteI believe that God is behind Islam (i.e. He has a purpose), although perhaps in the same sense as God was behind the Tower of Babel. The West seems to be fighting hard to uphold universals wrongs while mendaciously referring to them as rights. As long as we do this, we should expect Islam to be empowered.
'I believe that God is behind Islam (i.e. He has a purpose), although perhaps in the same sense as God was behind the Tower of Babel.'
ReplyDeleteIn Reformed/Biblical theology and in related philosophy, God wills all things, even evil and the sinful actions of others with perfect motives for the greater good.
Romans 8: 28-30 is an example of this understanding in general terms and in the context of the life of the believer.
'The West seems to be fighting hard to uphold universals wrongs while mendaciously referring to them as rights. As long as we do this, we should expect Islam to be empowered.'
The West does support some wrongs morally and philosophically.
But, I also reason that a Muslim majority in a given jurisdiction could lead to government control and an attempt to enforce Islamic law.
The West should maintain democracy, including religious liberty.
Thanks, Looney.
I agree with Looney. America has fallen further and further from God, and I think we are beginning to reap what we have sown. And Europe is even less godly than America (I guess Canada falls somewhere between the two). I find it very ironic that the West is embracing homosexuality, and Islam (under Shari'a law) kills homosexuals. In a sense, this may be a judgment from God. But I also suspect that we are nearing the End Times, and I strongly suspect that Islam will play a part in the Last Days of Revelation.
ReplyDeleteAs you said, Russ, God wills all things (though I tend to believe there is a difference between God's perfect will and God's permissible will). But I don't think that Christians should just lie down and let it happen. Christians should inform others about the dangers of Islam, and especially the dangers of Shari'a law, which I believe poses a larger threat than terrorist acts do (and, in fact, terrorist acts/jihad is only one of the means toward the ultimate Islamic goal of worldwide Shari'a law). I think we should also be active in writing to out political leaders at every level. Most importantly, we should pray about it, and also witness the gospel of Jesus Christ to Muslims.
'though I tend to believe there is a difference between God's perfect will and God's permissible will'
ReplyDeleteYes, I have taught that as well.
God still, philosophically speaking, is the first cause (causes all events) and theologically wills all things.
'Christians should inform others about the dangers of Islam, and especially the dangers of Shari'a law,'
Yes.
Thanks.
refer to your Mom's email Russ.
ReplyDeleteMarlene