The most significant contradiction or inconcistency?

[shnarkle]

There are no shortage of online sites providing numerous examples of contradictions and inconsistencies from the biblical texts. While some of these are quite simply the result of poor reading comprehension skills or an unfamiliarity with the texts, others seem legitimate. Many of those that are legitimate are inconsequential, but some could be quite controversial and may have significant ramifications.

Of all the contradictions found in scripture, which ones could prove to be most disturbing, or have the most serious ramifications for "believers"?


One that I think fits this bill is Paul's view on eating food sacrificed to false gods. He doesn't seem to have a problem with it if it doesn't have a negative effect over a fellow believer's faith. While I can see his point, and also agree that none of those pagan deities are real, I do wonder how he is able to disregard the law which he upholds; a law that forbids eating anything that is sacrificed to idols.

The reason this could be looked at as disturbing is because it indicates to me that Paul has attributed capriciousness to Paul's God.

[Goose]

Right, and my follow up point is, contradictory interpretations such as "A is X" and "A is not X" can both be correct interpretation of a contradictory bit of text.

Sure, they can both be “correct� if by correct you mean something like an accurate representation of the text and if the text we are looking at is literally "A is X and A is not X".

I was objecting to you contention that "[two contradictory interpetations] can't both be correct interpretations if the text itself is contradictory. If the text is contradictory then at least one interpretation is still incorrect."

Fine. But your objection, then, is a trivially obvious point which is to say "A is X" is an accurate representation of the bolded part of the statement: "A is X and A is not X". Although your objection holds, it has no real bearing on the discussion. Unless of course you are able to show how that example translates over to interpretations taken from Biblical texts.

And I don’t think you understood what I was objecting to. It was your use of the word correct. What I meant was the two interpretations can’t both be correct (in the sense of being in accordance with fact or truth) even if they are accurate interpretations because the text itself is contradictory. So even in the event of your example where the interpretations were a verbatim representation of the text, one or both of the interpretations would necessarily still be false. I think once you understand what I was objecting to you will agree since you seem to agree that "A is X and A is not X" is logically incoherent. Although my objection may have been a trivial one - one of semantics – it holds.

How is salvation through faith possible, if not via the grace of God?

Sure but you are appealing to additional texts now. The fact remains your original contention that: "Grace alone" versus "work + grace� is not directly supported by the texts you provided from James and Romans.

Come on, stop sweating over the terminology, the concept is well established, even if you don't follow a particular doctine.

You can accuse me of sweating over terminology but you are the one conflating theological terms like grace with faith. You seem to also be conflating justification with salvation.

That's the point faith alone is not enough.

Belief that produces no good works is not enough. That’s the kind of belief the demons have.

Faith without work is "death faith."

Right. The kind of faith which produces no good works is James’ point. To illustrate this James uses the analogy where one of them, who says he has faith, does nothing to help his brother who is hungry and naked. Faith like this, James says, is dead faith. It’s no better than the belief the demons have.

Demons have faith and they are not justified.

No, the bolded part is patently false. James 2:19 doesn’t use the same word for “faith� in relation to the demons belief as it does in 2:24 in regards to the kind of faith needed to be justified. When describing the belief of demons James uses πιστευ�ω. In 2:24 James uses πι�στις. These are different words. Related yes, but different. The former has the connotation of mere belief, as in the intellectual ascent to a proposition. The latter has the connotation of faith, as in placing one’s trust in something. James has made a distinction between kinds of faith. There is one kind of faith which justifies; the kind which produces good works. And there is another kind faith which is merely belief and produces no good works. The latter is not the kind of faith which justifies. In the greater context James is not saying faith alone is not enough; that faith must accompanied by works in order to be justified. No, he is saying the kind of faith that justifies is the kind which produces good works. Or put another way James is saying it requires faith (πι�στις) not merely belief (πιστευ�ω) to be justified.

Faith has to be accompanied by works.

The kind of faith that justifies is accompanied by good works.

That's why I brought up doctrines that goes with these verses, Christians have been looking at the entirety of the Bible, with the context in mind, without seeking to undermine the text, and still came to the conclusion that faith has to be accompanied by works. The accusation of picking verses out of context, juxtaposing them might work against these verses in isolation but not in wider context of the existence of sects of Christianity and endless debate between scholars and theologians.

But you are back to arguing from Christians who disagree. That doesn’t show the text is contradictory only that Christians can form contradictory doctrines.

By keeping the law is a good deed, at least in the minds of Paul.

Even if that were the case it doesn’t change the argument. Paul isn’t talking about good works (B) and James isn’t talking about keeping the law (C). In the two respective texts justification is achieved through:

• 1. Paul: (A) and ~(C)
  
  2. James: (A) and (B)

How is that a contradiction? It isn’t. And you haven’t shown otherwise.

Sure, but you might want to give me a hand with defending the claim that Jesus is God.

Why would I chase that rabbit trail? It’s enough that I’ve shown there’s no contradiction between Paul and John.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 201 by Goose]

You know, in simplistic logic, they both can't be correct, but in practical reality, we often observe things seemingly contradictory, yet quite consistent.
These are called paradoxes, and so far they all have had logical, if mentally challenging answers.
So if one side of the logic is a undiscovered lie, and the other is reality, you would observe a paradox.
So the question you may really be debating is:
What side don't you understand, or have the most reason to challenge?

Stories about the adventures of creatures that can't be shown to exist, or humble reality?
Or could it be that both observations are equally misguided?

What can be shown?
Or like the Twins Paradox, is there a demonstrable reality based explanation?

[Bust Nak]

Sure, they can both be “correct� if by correct you mean something like an accurate representation of the text and if the text we are looking at is literally "A is X and A is not X"...

Good enough for me, I was just objecting to that particular claim there.

You can accuse me of sweating over terminology but you are the one conflating theological terms like grace with faith. You seem to also be conflating justification with salvation.

Stuff like that is exactly what I was referring to as sweating over the terminology.

Belief that produces no good works is not enough. That’s the kind of belief the demons have.

Right, which means you need both works and faith.

Right. The kind of faith which produces no good works is James’ point. To illustrate this James uses the analogy where one of them, who says he has faith, does nothing to help his brother who is hungry and naked. Faith like this, James says, is dead faith. It’s no better than the belief the demons have.

Wight, again, that means means you need both works and faith.

No, the bolded part is patently false. James 2:19 doesn’t use the same word for “faith� in relation to the demons belief...

Fine, faith without works is like the belief of demons, I don't see how that helps, since...

James has made a distinction between kinds of faith. There is one kind of faith which justifies; the kind which produces good works. And there is another kind faith which is merely belief and produces no good works. The latter is not the kind of faith which justifies.

... that means faith without works is no good. So I don't know how you maintain that James isn't saying faith alone is not enough.faith alone is not enough

Or put another way James is saying it requires faith (πι�στις) not merely belief (πιστευ�ω) to be justified.

So is "πι�στις without works" a coherent concept?

The kind of faith that justifies is accompanied by good works.

So faith without works is not enough. What seems to be the problem here?

But you are back to arguing from Christians who disagree. That doesn’t show the text is contradictory only that Christians can form contradictory doctrines.

The point was I was not taking the text out of context. And if I am not taking the text out of context and still can produce a contradiction, said contradiction is in the text.

Even if that were the case it doesn’t change the argument. Paul isn’t talking about good works (B) and James isn’t talking about keeping the law (C). In the two respective texts justification is achieved through:

• 1. Paul: (A) and ~(C)
  
  2. James: (A) and (B)

How is that a contradiction?

You are missing the premise B->C.

Why would I chase that rabbit trail? It’s enough that I’ve shown there’s no contradiction between Paul and John.

That's up to you if you don't mind leaving the challenges against the doctine here unaddressed.

[Goose]

Stuff like that is exactly what I was referring to as sweating over the terminology.

Terminology is important. When terms aren’t used properly we tend to think there is either ignorance of the meaning of those terms or carelessness in how they have been used.

Right, which means you need both works and faith.

It means the kind of faith which justifies produces good works. The good works are just a by-product of the right kind of faith. James begins by asking the question:

2:14 - �What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?�

Notice James is talking about a particular kind of πι�στις, ἡ πι�στις (the faith) just mentioned. The kind of faith where a man says he has faith but does not have works which demonstrate he has faith. James is asking if that kind of faith can save. The subject, then, is the kind of faith. Faith itself is personified by James. Faith is a working thing and is either dead or alive. Like a dead man, dead faith produces no work. Like a living man produces work, then, alive faith likewise produces work.

2:17 – �Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead…�

Good works are a product of faith.

James doesn’t say here in verse 17 if a man has no works. No, James says if faith has no works.

Wight, again, that means means you need both works and faith.

Faith that produces works.

Fine, faith without works is like the belief of demons, I don't see how that helps, since...

Because mere belief doesn’t produce works. Only real faith does.

... that means faith without works is no good.

Right. Faith that has no works is dead. Like a dead man, dead faith produces nothing.

So I don't know how you maintain that James isn't saying faith alone is not enough.

He’s saying the kind of faith that justifies is the kind which produces good works. Works are dependent upon the right kind of faith. You are saying faith and works are independent. That good works come from the man. James is saying good works come from the right kind of faith.

So is "πι�στις without works" a coherent concept?

Sure.

So faith without works is not enough. What seems to be the problem here?

No problem. Faith that produces no works is not the right kind of faith.

The point was I was not taking the text out of context. And if I am not taking the text out of context and still can produce a contradiction, said contradiction is in the text.

But you did take James 2:24 out of its greater context. I’ve shown that. And you have yet to show your interpretation is correct. Or that mine is for that matter. And that’s what you need. You need to show both our interpretations are correct. Because that’s your argument; both interpretations are correct so the text is contradictory.

Even if that were the case it doesn’t change the argument. Paul isn’t talking about good works (B) and James isn’t talking about keeping the law (C). In the two respective texts justification is achieved through:

1. Paul: (A) and ~(C)

2. James: (A) and (B)

How is that a contradiction?

You are missing the premise B->C.

The premise B->C is missing because it’s not in the text you quoted. And that’s the crux. The texts you quoted don’t contradict. We can argue over interpretations until we are blue in the face. But the bottom line is those texts aren’t contradictory.

That's up to you if you don't mind leaving the challenges against the doctine here unaddressed.

If this thread was about doctrine I’d be concerned. It’s not though. It’s about contradictions. And I’ve refuted your argument that John and Paul contradict.

[Bust Nak]

Terminology is important. When terms aren’t used properly we tend to think there is either ignorance of the meaning of those terms or carelessness in how they have been used.

Okay, what is "justified" if not "saved?"

Roman 10:10 "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

It means the kind of faith which justifies produces good works. The good works are just a by-product of the right kind of faith. James begins by asking the question:

2:14 - �What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?�

Notice James is talking about a particular kind of πι�στις, ἡ πι�στις (the faith) just mentioned. The kind of faith where a man says he has faith but does not have works which demonstrate he has faith. James is asking if that kind of faith can save.

And the answer is no faith of that kind cannot save, i.e. you need both faith and works.

The subject, then, is the kind of faith. Faith itself is personified by James. Faith is a working thing and is either dead or alive. Like a dead man, dead faith produces no work. Like a living man produces work, then, alive faith likewise produces work.

2:17 – �Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead…�

Good works are a product of faith.

James doesn’t say here in verse 17 if a man has no works. No, James says if faith has no works.

Right, faith has to be accompanied with works. There is no need to answer each of these individually by the way. I am pretty much repeating myself through out this post.

Faith that produces works.

i.e. Faith AND works.

Because mere belief doesn’t produce works. Only real faith does.

So real faith is always accompanied with works.

Right. Faith that has no works is dead. Like a dead man, dead faith produces nothing.

Faith alone is no good.

He’s saying the kind of faith that justifies is the kind which produces good works. Works are dependent upon the right kind of faith. You are saying faith and works are independent. That good works come from the man. James is saying good works come from the right kind of faith.

I didn't say anything about dependence though. Good works comes from the right kind of faith, fine, how on Earth is that compatible with the claim that faith alone is enough?

Sure.

Right, so it is possible to have faith without works.

No problem. Faith that produces no works is not the right kind of faith.

Again, faith and works.

But you did take James 2:24 out of its greater context. I’ve shown that.

Have you? You are saying the right kind of faith produces works, I am saying that means faith and works. You say I was taking things out of greater context yet I am saying pretty much the same thing as you. What is the difference?

And you have yet to show your interpretation is correct. Or that mine is for that matter. And that’s what you need. You need to show both our interpretations are correct. Because that’s your argument; both interpretations are correct so the text is contradictory.

Well both our interpretation seems to coincide, at least from where I am.

The premise B->C is missing because it’s not in the text you quoted.

But it's in other text, verses like:

Romans 2:13 "for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified."

Isaiah 56:1 "Thus says the Lord: Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed."

Isaiah 42:21 "The Lord was pleased, for his righteousness' sake, to magnify his law and make it glorious."

Following the law is tied to righteousness and justification.

If this thread was about doctrine I’d be concerned. It’s not though. It’s about contradictions...

So you accept that your doctrine is separate from and does not originate from the text?

[Goose]

Okay, what is "justified" if not "saved?"

Roman 10:10 "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Here justification is δικαιοσυ�νη and saved is σωτη�ι�α.

And the answer is no faith of that kind cannot save, i.e. you need both faith and works.

No, you need the kind of faith that produces works. In the mind of James there’s no separation of faith and works as though they exist independently from one another. As though James means to be justified one must have faith and one must have works. That’s what you imply every time you use the conjunction and. It joins two independent stand alone things. But that’s not what James means. Works is dependent on having the right faith.

Right, faith has to be accompanied with works.

The right kind of faith will be accompanied by works. Works would be the external evidence that one has the right faith.

There is no need to answer each of these individually by the way. I am pretty much repeating myself through out this post.

Yes, your counter assertion is fairly repetitive, works AND faith.

i.e. Faith AND works.

If by Faith and works you mean faith that produces works, we are in agreement. But I don’t think that’s what you mean.

So real faith is always accompanied with works.

Right. The works would be external evidence that it is real faith. That’s why James says this:

2:18 – �But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.��

Faith alone is no good.

Faith that produces no works is dead faith. And dead faith is no good.

I didn't say anything about dependence though. Good works comes from the right kind of faith, fine, how on Earth is that compatible with the claim that faith alone is enough?

How is it not compatible? Or do you think Paul is talking about a different kind of faith than James, one that doesn’t produce good works? You do realize Paul envisions a living and working faith that produces good works just like James, right?

�For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.� – Galatians 5:6

�constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father� - 1 Thess 1:3

�This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds.� – Titus 3:8

That word for works which Paul uses the very same word James uses.

Right, so it is possible to have faith without works.

Of course, that’s the kind of faith James talks about in 2:14. There’s a kind of πι�στις that amounts to no more than a statement of having faith (James 2:14). There’s also the kind that is mere πιστευ�ω like the demons have (James 2:19). Neither of these produce works. Neither of these kinds of faith can justify. Then there’s the kind of πι�στις which produces good works, a kind of living and working faith. A kind of faith that is not dead.

Have you? You are saying the right kind of faith produces works, I am saying that means faith and works. You say I was taking things out of greater context yet I am saying pretty much the same thing as you. What is the difference?

I’m saying that James is saying: (A) where (A ->B). You are saying that James is saying: (a) and (B). These are different statements. We are talking about two different kinds of faith. You are talking about a faith that does not produce works - where the works are produced by man himself independent of faith. I’m talking about a kind of faith that produces works. That’s the kind James is talking about in 2:24 (and Paul affirms).

Well both our interpretation seems to coincide, at least from where I am.

That would negate “A is X and A is not X� then.

But it's in other text, verses like:

But if you are going to appeal to other texts then I can too thereby bringing further context and eliminating the alleged contradiction between James and Paul as I’ve done above.

Romans 2:13 "for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified."

But Paul is talking about Jews here. Notice how right before in verse 12 he contrasts those who have sinned without the law (i.e. the gentiles) and those who have sinned in the law (i.e. the Jews).

And this isn’t B->C. It’s not, good works (as James means good works) implies keeping the law.

Isaiah 56:1 "Thus says the Lord: Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my deliverance be revealed."

Isaiah 42:21 "The Lord was pleased, for his righteousness' sake, to magnify his law and make it glorious."

Following the law is tied to righteousness and justification.

For the Jews, yes, following the Law.

Once again, Paul has asserted ~(C) and (A). James has asserted (A) where (A->B). James says nothing about keeping the law (C). There’s no B->C.

So you accept that your doctrine is separate from and does not originate from the text?

Irrelevant to the argument.

[Bust Nak]

Here justification is δικαιοσυ�νη and saved is σωτη�ι�α.

Again with the semantics. I was asking about the concept. Does being "justified" mean one is going to heaven?

No, you need the kind of faith that produces works.

i.e. the kind of faith that does not produces works does not save. Why are you saying "no" when you are affirming what I said?

In the mind of James there’s no separation of faith and works as though they exist independently from one another...

If that was the case, he wouldn't being going on and on about faith that doesn't produce works.

As though James means to be justified one must have faith and one must have works. That’s what you imply every time you use the conjunction and.

Right you are. James is saying one must have faith AND one must have works, because faith without works is a dead faith.

It joins two independent stand alone things. But that’s not what James means. Works is dependent on having the right faith.

Again, if that was the case, then James wouldn't have mentioned faith without works.

The right kind of faith will be accompanied by works. Works would be the external evidence that one has the right faith.

i.e. Faith AND works.

If by Faith and works you mean faith that produces works, we are in agreement. But I don’t think that’s what you mean.

I do mean faith that produces works though.

Right. The works would be external evidence that it is real faith. That’s why James says this:

2:18 – �But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.��

I don't know how you can maintain that in the mind of James there’s no separation of faith and works as though they exist independently from one another in the face of that verse.

Faith that produces no works is dead faith. And dead faith is no good.

So faith alone is no good.

How is it not compatible? Or do you think Paul is talking about a different kind of faith than James, one that doesn’t produce good works?

Yes, Paul is saying faith alone is good enough, James is saying it is not good enough. "Faith" in the above two clause refers to the same thing.

You do realize Paul envisions a living and working faith that produces good works just like James, right?

Yes, it's not my problem he is inconsistent.

Of course, that’s the kind of faith James talks about in 2:14. There’s a kind of πι�στις that amounts to no more than a statement of having faith (James 2:14). There’s also the kind that is mere πιστευ�ω like the demons have (James 2:19). Neither of these produce works. Neither of these kinds of faith can justify. Then there’s the kind of πι�στις which produces good works, a kind of living and working faith. A kind of faith that is not dead.

Again, if you know that then how can you say James thought there is no separation between works and faith?

I’m saying that James is saying: (A) where (A ->B). You are saying that James is saying: (a) and (B). These are different statements. We are talking about two different kinds of faith. You are talking about a faith that does not produce works - where the works are produced by man himself independent of faith. I’m talking about a kind of faith that produces works. That’s the kind James is talking about in 2:24 (and Paul affirms).

And yet trivially, ((A) & (A ->B)) -> A & B. How is it different?

That would negate “A is X and A is not X� then.

How?

But if you are going to appeal to other texts then I can too thereby bringing further context and eliminating the alleged contradiction between James and Paul as I’ve done above.

Have you though? Brining in additional text doesn't make mine disappear. At best you have an alternative interpretation.

But Paul is talking about Jews here. Notice how right before in verse 12 he contrasts those who have sinned without the law (i.e. the gentiles) and those who have sinned in the law (i.e. the Jews).

And this isn’t B->C. It’s not, good works (as James means good works) implies keeping the law.

Where are you drawing this conclusion from? So what if one can sin without the law?

For the Jews, yes, following the Law.

Well there you go B->C. Works mean following the law, as least for the Jews.

Irrelevant to the argument.

Right, but I would still like an answer.

[Goose]

Again with the semantics. I was asking about the concept. Does being "justified" mean one is going to heaven?

Not necessarily. And it’s not semantics. Terms like faith, grace, justification, and salvation have different meanings.

You agree that faith is not the same thing as grace, right?

i.e. the kind of faith that does not produces works does not save.

According to James, yes.

Why are you saying "no" when you are affirming what I said?

Because when you said “i.e. you need both faith and works� I thought you meant a kind of faith that doesn’t produce works, let’s call that kind of faith (a). Where the person herself must produce faith (a) and the person herself must produce works (B).

If that was the case, he wouldn't being going on and on about faith that doesn't produce works.

You are misunderstanding me here. And I’ve discussed this already. James distinguishes between different kinds of faiths. In the mind James there’s no such thing as real Faith without works because real Faith entails there will be works (A->B).

Right you are. James is saying one must have faith AND one must have works, because faith without works is a dead faith.

Fine. But it’s also right to simply say one must have (A) if it also true that (A->B).

Again, if that was the case, then James wouldn't have mentioned faith without works.

He mentions faith without works because there are different kinds of faith. There is the right one, which produces works (A->B). And there are the wrong ones which produce no works, types of (a).

Why are you disagreeing with the idea that works is dependent on having the right kind faith when you agree with (A) and (A->B) and when you say this...

I do mean faith that produces works though.

Okay, we are in agreement then if you agree with (A) & (A->B). I think the disagreement is on whether the works must be actualized in order to be justified. I don’t think they necessarily need to be. It seems to me, you think they necessarily must be.

I don't know how you can maintain that in the mind of James there’s no separation of faith and works as though they exist independently from one another in the face of that verse.

I think you are misunderstanding me. In the mind of James there are different types of faith. The kind of faith that is talk only, a type of (a). The kind which is mere belief, another kind of (a). Then there is the kind which produces works. This is real faith, the kind of faith which justifies. In that sense, in the mind of James, there is no separation between real faith and works. Real faith implies good works. That’s why James says he will show his faith, the real kind of faith, by his works. There is no real faith apart from good works.

So faith alone is no good.

That depends on what kind of faith it is. Let’s say it happens to be the right kind of faith (A) that would produce works but for some reason those works could not be actualized in this world. It would still be the right kind of faith (A).

Let’s say person X is about to die and with her last breath she sincerely commits her life to Christ and places her trust in Christ fully. It’s a real faith (A). It’s the kind of faith that if she were to continue to live would produce good works. She’d feel compelled out of love to help the hungry, help the poor, give shelter to the homeless, etc. But those works are never actualized because she dies only moments later. She would still be justified because she has the right faith (A). The way you seem to be framing your position she would not be justified because she never performed a single good work.

Yes, Paul is saying faith alone is good enough, James is saying it is not good enough. "Faith" in the above two clause refers to the same thing.

Except Paul doesn’t say “faith alone� (as in a faith that doesn’t produce good works) is good enough. Paul just says we are justified by faith apart from the Law (i.e. the Mosaic Law). And by faith he means a working faith as I’ve shown with other verses.

Here’s a few more from Paul’s letter to Timothy.

1 Tim 1:18-19 – �...that by them you fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.�

1 Tim 2:15 – �But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.�

1 Tim 4:12 – �Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe.�

Yes, it's not my problem [Paul] is inconsistent.

If you agree Paul envisions a living and working faith that produces good works like James does, what exactly is the problem then? Because I can’t see where you’ve shown Paul to be inconsistent.

Again, if you know that then how can you say James thought there is no separation between works and faith?

No separation between works and faith if it’s the right kind of faith. Clearly James sees a separation between works and faith if it is the wrong kind of faith.

And yet trivially, ((A) & (A ->B)) -> A & B. How is it different?

Well sure, expressed like that, if you agree with (A) and (A->B), then we agree. I thought you were talking about a type of faith (a) that wouldn’t produce works.

How?

Because, according to you, we are both saying the same thing, A and A->B. In other words, we are both looking at the same text and saying “A is X.� Neither seems to be looking at James and saying “A is not X.�

Have you though? Brining in additional text doesn't make mine disappear. At best you have an alternative interpretation.

Yes I have eliminated the alleged contradiction between James and Paul with the additional texts showing Paul envisions the same kind of faith as James, a living working faith that produces good works. You tacitly conceded this point when you accused Paul of being inconsistent in response to those verses.

Where are you drawing this conclusion from? So what if one can sin without the law?

How are you getting B->C from Romans 2:13? Where does Paul say that good works (the kind of good works James talks about like feeding the hungry) implies keeping the Mosaic Law?

Here is Romans 2:13 in its immediate context:

12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Quite clearly Paul is talking about Jews under the Law and gentiles who have not been given the Law. So again, how are you getting B->C from this?

Well there you go B->C. Works mean following the law, as least for the Jews.

That’s not B->C. That's not good works (as James or Paul means good works) implies keeping the Mosaic Law.

Right, but I would still like an answer.

Feel free to start another thread then.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 208 by Goose]

Altho' I believe we are getting away from the subject of this subtopic and getting into 'Holy Huddle' territory, I am in general agreement with you Goose. I have never understood the necessity for the reams of material devoted to the 'faith' v. 'works' arguments. It should be intuitively obvious that where there is true faith in the message of Jesus, that will be displayed in a person's conduct. Not everyone who cries "Lord! Lord!" will be 'saved.'

There is a reason I often put "Christian" in quotes. Some of the most vile, unethical, and even criminal people have claimed to be Christian. I am not a theist, and frequently as in this very post, am judgmental, but I can say I love Jesus and his message of love and of recognizing there are ideals beyond the self that give life meaning and that we should have 'faith' in. I've always liked the book of James and long ago memorized the 4th Chapter. James sets a tough standard, but like other ideals, that standard presents a goal rather than an absolute expectation.

Despite the fact our 'works' should demonstrate our 'faith,' we should not deny that a person has faith in his ideals, even if his conduct too frequently betrays that faith. Even tho' I am no longer a believer in the supernatural, one of the passages that still resonates with me... can still evoke an emotional response is "Lord, be merciful to me a sinner."

[Bust Nak]

Not necessarily.

Please expand on that. Someone can be justified in the eye of God and still end up in hell?

And it’s not semantics. Terms like faith, grace, justification, and salvation have different meanings.

You agree that faith is not the same thing as grace, right?

Sure, but that difference is moot to me since one is justified by faith, faith leads to salvation and salvation is through the grace of God. They are all terms used in a single concept.

You are misunderstanding me here. And I’ve discussed this already. James distinguishes between different kinds of faiths. In the mind James there’s no such thing as real Faith without works because real Faith entails there will be works (A->B).

That's why I asked you if "πι�στις without works" is a coherent concept in a previous post, and you said yes. Now you are telling me in James' mind there is no such thing.

Fine. But it’s also right to simply say one must have (A) if it also true that (A->B).

So now we have to resolve the issue of whether Paul said (A) alone could get you into heaven, right?

Why are you disagreeing with the idea that works is dependent on having the right kind faith when you agree with (A) and (A->B) and when you say this...

I am not sure I am disagreeing with you on that at all.

I think the disagreement is on whether the works must be actualized in order to be justified. I don’t think they necessarily need to be. It seems to me, you think they necessarily must be.

I don't think that's matters, I don't care one way or the other. My original point was Paul say (A) alone gets you into heaven. James is saying (A) & (B) gets you into heaven, granted James is also said (A->B.)

Let’s say person X is about to die and with her last breath she sincerely commits her life to Christ and places her trust in Christ fully. It’s a real faith (A). It’s the kind of faith that if she were to continue to live would produce good works. She’d feel compelled out of love to help the hungry, help the poor, give shelter to the homeless, etc. But those works are never actualized because she dies only moments later. She would still be justified because she has the right faith (A). The way you seem to be framing your position she would not be justified because she never performed a single good work.

That wasn't what I had in mind, but it is an interesting point. Does A->B hold when someone can die with A without having done any B?

Except Paul doesn’t say “faith alone� (as in a faith that doesn’t produce good works) is good enough. Paul just says we are justified by faith apart from the Law (i.e. the Mosaic Law). And by faith he means a working faith as I’ve shown with other verses...

So Paul is saying (A) but not (B)?

If you agree Paul envisions a living and working faith that produces good works like James does, what exactly is the problem then? Because I can’t see where you’ve shown Paul to be inconsistent.

He also said faith and not work.

Well sure, expressed like that, if you agree with (A) and (A->B), then we agree. I thought you were talking about a type of faith (a) that wouldn’t produce works.

And I thought it was a minor typo when you said (a) as opposed to (A).

Because, according to you, we are both saying the same thing, A and A->B. In other words, we are both looking at the same text and saying “A is X.� Neither seems to be looking at James and saying “A is not X.�

That's where Paul comes in.

Yes I have eliminated the alleged contradiction between James and Paul with the additional texts showing Paul envisions the same kind of faith as James, a living working faith that produces good works. You tacitly conceded this point when you accused Paul of being inconsistent in response to those verses.

So now we have two contradictions?

How are you getting B->C from Romans 2:13? Where does Paul say that good works (the kind of good works James talks about like feeding the hungry) implies keeping the Mosaic Law?

The bolded bit, pending on your response on being justified vs being saved above:

13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

To me that says, if you want to get to heaven then follow the law.

Quite clearly Paul is talking about Jews under the Law and gentiles who have not been given the Law.

Sure, but I don't see how that changes what I just said.

Feel free to start another thread then.

It's okay. I'll pass.