James 2:21 versus Romans 4:2. How was Abraham Justified?

[Shermana]

Lets just stand on what Christ teaches.Everything is summed up right here in the words of Christ.Walk in his commandment of love.
John 15

Sigh, not this "Love" misunderstanding again.

Jesus did not say you don't have to follow the commandments as long as you love. He said all the commandments are defined by Love. Thus, every commandment is some form of love. Otherwise, maybe you can help try to define what "love" is, many in the past that have went down this route have a hard time defining "love" exactly.

How do suppose we are clean through the words which he spoke to us . He did not say by the law

.

Actually Jesus said to the Rich man that you get eternal life by obeying the commandments.

It was because they believe the words and believe in him that they are made clean.

The words he spoke include obedience to the Law.

How come without Christ you can do nothing. Do you not have your laws to follow and guide you to righteousness?

There is no righteousness without understanding what sin is, and sin is "lawlessness". I don't believe Jesus is guiding anyone who doesn't obey the commandments.

How come the fruit we bear and that glorifies God comes from abiding in the words of Christ and not by obiding in OT laws?

I don't believe it does. I think all you're doing now is asserting Pauline doctrine and avoiding the specifics of this issue that James clashes with Paul by rewriting and ignoring what Jesus said.

Jesus's commandments were that to love summing up the whole law.

If only I had a dollar for every person who misunderstands what he meant by this. It's like saying "As long as you're a good driver you don't have to obey the Speed Limit". Jesus very specifically said to gain Eternal life you must follow the commandments. All he did was say that the Law is summarized by Love. That doesn't mean it REPLACES love.

Jesus kept his fathers commandments( the OT laws) and obided in his fathers love. How come he didn't say if you keep my fathers commandments as well you shall do the same?

He kinda did. Everything he taught was in the context of Torah obedience. And his commandments were about keeping the Law correctly.

He said keep his commandment to love one another.

If only I had a dollar for every time I hear people who think this was the ONLY commandment he gave.

How did they not have sin until Jesus came and spoke to them?

Ummm, that is not scriptural whatsoever. Of course they had sin way before Jesus spoke to them. Where are you possibly deriving this?

Is his authority above that of God who says sin is from transgressions of the law?

Yes. And 1 John says the exact same thing.

</SPAN>How come they have no cloke for their sin?Can't the law justify them? 23

Jesus says one's righteousness must exceed the Scribes and Pharisees to enter the Kingdom. He accused the Pharisees of not fully obeying the Law while making up their own commandments. The word "Righteousness" in Psalms and many other books always refers to obedience to the commandments. Jesus says to the Rich man when asked how to enter Eternal life to obey the commandments. It's clear as day that Jesus taught obedience to the commandments as the stairway to Heaven. It was Paul who went and changed this, and that's the point of the OP. It's as if you're not familiar with his actual teachings.

We do you suppose they crucified Christ and put him on the cross?

Because he claimed to be Christ and King of the Jews, or at least they claimed he did. Notice how they tried to pin lawbreaking on him and they could find nothing.

They were seeking to be justified by the law and Jesus taught a message that was contrary. Its the same today as it was then.

And you have no idea what they even tried to crucify him. Have you even read the Gospels? I'd challenge you to find even a single Antinomian Christian source that agrees they crucified him for his Lawless message. Not even Paul was condemned for Lawbreaking. It specifically says that they tried to find a charge on Jesus but they couldn't, so they resorted to charging him for being King of the Jews. In John 10, they charged him with claiming to be a god, and the son of god. Seriously, find me a SINGLE source that says that they wanted to crucify him for teaching a message contrary to justification of the Law. If anything, most Christian sites try to get around this by saying whatever he taught to the Jews was negated after he died, you're not even going there! So please, I'd love to see what source you're getting this from, since this is not even remotely what the text itself says.

 

[Walkntune]

Sigh, not this "Love" misunderstanding again.

Jesus did not say you don't have to follow the commandments as long as you love. He said all the commandments are defined by Love. Thus, every commandment is some form of love. Otherwise, maybe you can help try to define what "love" is, many in the past that have went down this route have a hard time defining "love" exactly.

.

Actually Jesus said to the Rich man that you get eternal life by obeying the commandments.


The words he spoke include obedience to the Law.



There is no righteousness without understanding what sin is, and sin is "lawlessness". I don't believe Jesus is guiding anyone who doesn't obey the commandments.





I don't believe it does. I think all you're doing now is asserting Pauline doctrine and avoiding the specifics of this issue that James clashes with Paul by rewriting and ignoring what Jesus said.






If only I had a dollar for every person who misunderstands what he meant by this. It's like saying "As long as you're a good driver you don't have to obey the Speed Limit". Jesus very specifically said to gain Eternal life you must follow the commandments. All he did was say that the Law is summarized by Love. That doesn't mean it REPLACES love.



He kinda did. Everything he taught was in the context of Torah obedience. And his commandments were about keeping the Law correctly.




If only I had a dollar for every time I hear people who think this was the ONLY commandment he gave.




Ummm, that is not scriptural whatsoever. Of course they had sin way before Jesus spoke to them. Where are you possibly deriving this?




Yes. And 1 John says the exact same thing.




Jesus says one's righteousness must exceed the Scribes and Pharisees to enter the Kingdom. He accused the Pharisees of not fully obeying the Law while making up their own commandments. The word "Righteousness" in Psalms and many other books always refers to obedience to the commandments. Jesus says to the Rich man when asked how to enter Eternal life to obey the commandments. It's clear as day that Jesus taught obedience to the commandments as the stairway to Heaven. It was Paul who went and changed this, and that's the point of the OP. It's as if you're not familiar with his actual teachings.



Because he claimed to be Christ and King of the Jews, or at least they claimed he did. Notice how they tried to pin lawbreaking on him and they could find nothing.



And you have no idea what they even tried to crucify him. Have you even read the Gospels? I'd challenge you to find even a single Antinomian Christian source that agrees they crucified him for his Lawless message. Not even Paul was condemned for Lawbreaking. It specifically says that they tried to find a charge on Jesus but they couldn't, so they resorted to charging him for being King of the Jews. In John 10, they charged him with claiming to be a god, and the son of god. Seriously, find me a SINGLE source that says that they wanted to crucify him for teaching a message contrary to justification of the Law. If anything, most Christian sites try to get around this by saying whatever he taught to the Jews was negated after he died, you're not even going there! So please, I'd love to see what source you're getting this from, since this is not even remotely what the text itself says.

Hmmmm, I suppose you can't put new wine into old wineskin.
As Pegg stated it was obedience driven by faith and not law as the act would have been against the law that made Abraham righteous.God prohibited killing in Genesis 9. The end.

 

[Shermana]

Hmmmm, I suppose you can't put new wine into old wineskin.

That passage has absolutely nothing to do with the Mosaic Law, and apparently that's your way of writing off and dismissing valid criticisms of your view. Nothing I'm not used to.

As Pegg stated it was obedience driven by faith and not law as the act would have been against the law that made Abraham righteous.God prohibited killing in Genesis 9. The end.

And apparently you don't know the difference between murder and slaying in war either. You're aware there's two different words, right?

So yeah once again, Abraham was favored by God for following his "Ordinances, precepts, and statutes", so whatever those were, they were nonetheless "Laws".

 

[Pegg]

That passage has absolutely nothing to do with the Mosaic Law, and apparently that's your way of writing off and dismissing valid criticisms of your view. Nothing I'm not used to.




And apparently you don't know the difference between murder and slaying in war either. You're aware there's two different words, right?

So yeah once again, Abraham was favored by God for following his "Ordinances, precepts, and statutes", so whatever those were, they were nonetheless "Laws".

but was the sacrificing of children one of them?

 

[Shermana]

but was the sacrificing of children one of them?

No. If it was, he wouldn't have sent his Angel to stop the test. A one time order that wasn't intended to be followed through but used to test to see if he'd fully obey regardless and go through with it is more of an exception than a rule.

Nonetheless, however, there is the Law that the Firstborn of Children must be redeemed in the same way that a Firstborn horse from one's stable must be redeemed which may have some implications to such.

Wouldn't God sacrificing his Only begotten have such an implication as well?

 

[Walkntune]

but was the sacrificing of children one of them?

He is in a deparate reach. I have to wipe the dust off my feet here. Neither Moses or anyone else will enter the promiseland by laws. Remember it was faith that brought them across the river Jordan.

 

[Shermana]

He is in a deparate reach. I have to wipe the dust off my feet here. Neither Moses or anyone else will enter the promiseland by laws. Remember it was faith that brought them across the river Jordan.

Accusing me of being in a desparate reach is not a substitute for addressing the valid criticisms. If anything I can say the same about you since you completely dismissed all my counter replies and demonstrated that you don't know the difference between the words for killing in war and murder. I appreciate that you think you can just say "I wipe the dust off my feet" to anyone who disagrees with you and puts you in a position that you can't answer though. You must have forgotten what the alleged Epistle of Peter says about being prepared to answer every concern. The concept is not to just tell people what you think is true and leave if they disagree and don't immediately buy your version of the story without question. If anything, the Apostles who were told to wipe the dust off to those who would not receive them were preaching a very Jewish, Torah obedient Nazarene message. It wasn't until Paul entered the question that everything went differently.

So what was the reason that Moses and his generation were not allowed to enter the Holy Land again? Why were so many Israelites destroyed along the way again?

With that said, would anyone like to actually try addressing the actual concept in the OP?

 

[Walkntune]

Accusing me of being in a desparate reach is not a substitute for addressing the valid criticisms. If anything I can say the same about you since you completely dismissed all my counter replies and demonstrated that you don't know the difference between the words for killing in war and murder. I appreciate that you think you can just say "I wipe the dust off my feet" to anyone who disagrees with you and puts you in a position that you can't answer though. You must have forgotten what the alleged Epistle of Peter says about being prepared to answer every concern. The concept is not to just tell people what you think is true and leave if they disagree and don't immediately buy your version of the story without question. If anything, the Apostles who were told to wipe the dust off to those who would not receive them were preaching a very Jewish, Torah obedient Nazarene message. It wasn't until Paul entered the question that everything went differently.

So what was the reason that Moses and his generation were not allowed to enter the Holy Land again? Why were so many Israelites destroyed along the way again?

With that said, would anyone like to actually try addressing the actual concept in the OP?

To kill isac would have been murder.
This is why Moses didn't enter the promiseland.
"Then the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, 'Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me [proclaim my name holy] in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.' " (Numbers 20:12)
Did God say because you did not follow the law. I think not. It was lack of belief once again. The same thing that was accounted to Abraham for righteoueness.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

 

[Shermana]

To kill isac would have been murder.

If God commanded it, it wouldn't be murder. It would only be murder if someone did it on their own accord.

This is why Moses didn't enter the promiseland.
"Then the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, 'Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me [proclaim my name holy] in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.' " (Numbers 20:12)

What didn't Moses believe exactly? I believe you skipped my thing about why so many Israelites died and couldn't enter it. Isn't hallowing God's name part of the Law?

Did God say because you did not follow the law. I think not. It was lack of belief once again. The same thing that was accounted to Abraham for righteoueness.

Lack of belief regarding what? And what about the rest of the Israelites?

5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Yes, and what about the part where he followed the Statutes, ordinances, and commandments?

 

[Walkntune]

=Shermana;3167199]If God commanded it, it wouldn't be murder. It would only be murder if someone did it on their own accord.

Actually the commandment was to not shed mans blood which he would be doing no matter who commanded it.

]What didn't Moses believe exactly? I believe you skipped my thing about why so many Israelites died and couldn't enter it. Isn't hallowing God's name part of the Law?
Lack of belief regarding what? And what about the rest of the Israelites?

Isrealites boasted about being able to do all God commanded so he gave them the law.He brought them out of Egypt and bondage through grace only and probably would have brought them all theway to the promiseland if not for pride and arrogance of boasting on being able to do all God commands.

Yes, and what about the part where he followed the Statutes, ordinances, and commandments

Show me the relavant scripture to address with accounting it as righteousness to Abraham.

 

[Pegg]

If God commanded it, it wouldn't be murder. It would only be murder if someone did it on their own accord.

the point is that it is not observance to the mosaic law that gains the approval of God...it is faith in God.

 

[Shermana]

the point is that it is not observance to the mosaic law that gains the approval of God...it is faith in God.

And the point is that it was his obedience to his statutes, ordinances, and precepts that earned his favor with God. This episode was just a test of his loyalty. Faith in God is technically part of the Law in itself.

Saul had Faith in God, but he lost favor with him when he performed unauthorized sacrifices.

 

[Walkntune]

the point is that it is not observance to the mosaic law that gains the approval of God...it is faith in God.

Good point. The simple obvious.

 

[Shermana]

Actually the commandment was to not shed mans blood which he would be doing no matter who commanded it.

I don't think you're reading the same Bible as me. Otherwise, get your source. I'm really suspecting you are not familiar with the text itself. The commandment specifically says "Thou shalt not murder" (Translated as kill in some translations). Really, where are you getting this? Are you not even familiar with the 10 commandments?

Isrealites boasted about being able to do all God commanded so he gave them the law

You think God gave them the Law because they were boasting? Where are you deriving this?

.

He brought them out of Egypt and bondage through grace only and probably would have brought them all theway to the promiseland if not for pride and arrogance of boasting on being able to do all God commands.

This has to be the first time I've heard of this ever. This is not supported in the text whatsoever. This is just loony. You can't just make up something that the text doesn't say or even remotely implies in a textual discussion. Can you name a SINGLE commentary or link or site that says this or will you kindly admit this is completely your own interpretation?

Show me the relavant scripture to address with accounting it as righteousness to Abraham

Genesis 26:4-5.

I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspringa all nations on earth will be blessed, 5because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws.&#8221;


It was because Abraham observed his commands, decrees, and laws that he was so honored to be the progenitor of all Israel, hence earning God's favor. Seriously, you may want to actually read the Torah before you debate it.

 

[Shermana]

Good point. The simple obvious.

So when Saul lost favor with God because he made unauthorized sacrifices, where does it say that Saul had no faith in God?

 

[Pegg]

So when Saul lost favor with God because he made unauthorized sacrifices, where does it say that Saul had no faith in God?

his actions showed a lack of faith because he was told not to do so and he rejected the prophet of God....he did what he was not authorised to do

if he had love for God he would also have respect for God and a healthy fear of God...but he had neither.

 

[Shermana]

his actions showed a lack of faith because he was told not to do so and he rejected the prophet of God....he did what he was not authorised to do

SO breaking the Law equals showing a lack of Faith? Interesting. Why was he making a sacrifice to begin with then?

if he had love for God he would also have respect for God and a healthy fear of God...but he had neither.

And breaking the Law as in this case doesn't mean not having a healthy fear of God?

 

[Pegg]

And the point is that it was his obedience to his statutes, ordinances, and precepts that earned his favor with God. This episode was just a test of his loyalty. Faith in God is technically part of the Law in itself.

Saul had Faith in God, but he lost favor with him when he performed unauthorized sacrifices.

you can't earn favor with God.

The reason is because a person can do the 'ordinances and requirements' without faith. You can do those things simply because you are told to. How many people practice religions that they profess to not really believe in.

we can do all the ordinences simply because others are doing them. God to the temple may simply become apart of our routine because our family do so. Refraining from eating certain foods may become the norm simply because mum never cooks it for us.

 

[Pegg]

SO breaking the Law equals showing a lack of Faith? Interesting. Why was he making a sacrifice to begin with then?

perhaps he was doing it for political reasons. Maybe he wanted the isrealites to respect him more so he though that if they saw him offer the sacrifice, then they would view him as something more important then just a king.

He offered the sacrifice because he had no respect for God.

 

[Shermana]

perhaps he was doing it for political reasons. Maybe he wanted the isrealites to respect him more so he though that if they saw him offer the sacrifice, then they would view him as something more important then just a king.

He offered the sacrifice because he had no respect for God.

The text does not imply whatsoever that he had no respect for God. At face value, the text says exactly what I'm saying, that he lost favor with God because he broke the Law and did something he didn't want to do. If anything, the text would imply that his breaking of the Law is what's disrespectful to God in itself, not that he didn't respect God beforehand.

Are you familiar with the episode? It has little to do with political reasoning, you'd have to assume he had no knowledge of the Law and figured the priests didn't either if you think that the text implies his reason was for this. He did it because he was in a hurry. He was in a hurry to go to battle, that in no way indicates He doesn't respect God.

I'd like to see a single Jewish commentary or any commentary for that matter that agrees with this interpretation. Otherwise, this is an example of how things must be read into the text that aren't there, ignoring the direct context, to shape these anti-law views.