Hi MercyBreeze,

Thanks for your reply. I'd like to clear up a matter of my meaning first: You wrote in your last post, "Seems you are indirectly saying that the 'incorrect side' is me." That was not my meaning. You had said that you liked to put forward arguments that you did not agree with, hoping that someone would meet the challenge and teach. I understood from this that you had offerred one side of an argument, a side that, as far as you knew, may well have been incorrect. That is what I referred to. I do not "assume that you are always incorrect," indeed not. I would only debate issues, not people.

<blockquote>"You have asserted that the Bible contradicts itself,"

I'm glad you used the word "asserted" here, because I have never said that. What I have encouraged many to do is consider the Scriptures that refer to "rightly dividing"...</blockquote>
No, you said that Paul in his NT books "argued against" what James said in his NT book. One cannot have an argument without a contradiction. If James and Paul both knew, as you say, that the Christian Jews should behave in one way, and Christian Gentiles should behave in another way, then everyone believes the same thing and there is no argument. As it happens, both knew that circumcision, animal sacrifices, stoning penalties, and so on were for the past, not for their present. (Such things are what I meant when I referred to the outward form of the law, as opposed to its substance.)

"...to the twelve tribes scattered abroad." James 1:1 etc.: First, St. Paul says, "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the mercy of God." (Gal 6:15-16) Thus the distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians is irrelevant. Second, St. James calls his readers: "My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ..." Third, Kittel/Friedrich/Bromiley's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament adds,
<blockquote>Open to debate is the expoition of Jm 1:1...If here a Jew is writing to Jews, or the Lord's brother to the Jewish diaspora, the twelve tribes refer quite literally to the Jewish people. Against this, however, is the fact that the disappearance of the Northern Kingdom leaves the twelve tribes as merely a theme of apostolic expectation...Another point, illustrated in Rev 7:31 is that idealisation of the twelve tribes had been established in Christian circles too. It thus seems logical to accept a transferred sense which understands the tribes as the new pople of God...
(vol. 9, p. 250)</blockquote>

Fourth, James in Acts 15:15 confirms the words of Peter, saying, "with this the words of the prophets agree," regarding the needlessness to practice the Jewish Law in its outward details (again, circumcision, etc.):
<blockquote>But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses." The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.

And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.
(Acts 15:5-11)</blockquote>
So if you say that James taught the necessity of the Jewish Law to his Christians, I find that the opposite is the case.

Fifth, re.: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all." I note that he (James) also says, "We all stumble in many ways." (James 3:2) So if these mean that James is against Paul, then Gal 3:10 means that Paul also is against Paul: "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.'" Paul and James say the same thing.

Sixth, re. Rom 3:28, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.": Paul also says,
<blockquote>God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest, if we do not give up.
Galatians 6:7-9</blockquote>
This is all the same as what James says:
<blockquote>What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such a faith save him?...Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do...And the Scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'
James 2:14,18,23</blockquote>
I conclude that, for James and for Paul, faith comes first, and good works must follow for as long as opportunity to do good lasts. The verses you give, therefore, do not show a disagreement; they, along with a few others, show full agreement between the two NT writers. I wait for the day when Christians no longer assert that books of Paul contradict (however ingeniously this is worded, 'argue indirectly against', "vs.", "Were not exactly best of friends", or whatever), the book of James. Before I pass on to other topics, I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance of James 4:4 to the "Paul vs. James" issue.

That issue was related to the Tolkien issue first in terms of the main premise of the argument against LoTR being in bookstores (ie., before the movie, you found, it wasn't there), and secondly in terms of the elusiveness of position common to your two arguments. I have nothing new to say about elusiveness, except to ask again whether you agree with the article (p. 5, I think), that says LoTR promotes witchcraft, or not? Until you generally endorsed this article, you had said that you found LoTR theologically neutral. Anything further about the nature of your argument re. LoTR should not be in the Christian bookstores? Again, I think you did argue this, which states more than that something is "interesting."

I will finish this post apologizing for the slightly confrontational tone of my posts of late. While I have confronted arguments rather than a person (as such), I might have tried to sound gentler. I tend to adopt the style of the writers whom I study and admire. When I study Chesterton, my writing becomes a bit whimsical. (A professor at such a time said my essay sounded Chestertonian, but unfortunately, he found that style irritating. ) When I study Aquinas, my writing can become a bit over-condensed. This year I have been concentratedly studying St. Augustine, who described his own style to St. Jerome in this way: "You ask...that we play together in the field of the Scriptures without 'hurting' each other. Indeed, as far as I am concerned, I would rather deal with... matters seriously than in sport." (Augustine, Letter 82) There's much to be said for such a style and for tackling serious issues head-on, but I admit that the style has the limitation mentioned. This is to explain and bring up again what I said in my last post: "Forgive me, I worry about such things."

God bless always, and best wishes,

Luke

Luke,

Unfortunately, when I wrote my last post, the "add reply" would not accept me because I had too many smilie faces. The reason I had so many in my post was because I was trying SOOOOO hard not to be rude. You probably write much in the same fashion that I write, only our "favorites" in authors tend to be different. Often times, I cling to the style of "letter writing" that Paul did when I address someone regarding a spiritual issue. It seems apparent that nearly each of his letters consists of these three things:

1. Introduction: Edification of his audience and reminding them of their strengths.

2. Body: Tearing down and badgering of his audience's weaker points.

3. Conclusion: Building back up of his audience with compliments of graciousness.

Though I do not hold to this model for every written comment I make to someone, it is a model I aspire to in each thing that is written. Its a joy for me to see this thread consisting of both you and I and others (Susan and JTW at times) making a point to build each other up while we continue to debate things that our intellects don't seem to agree on.

Furthermore, I thank you for SOMEHOW turning this back around to an LOTR conversation, because somewhere along the way, we might have had to switch over to another thread to continue our discussion on such matters (which we could if you so choose). As for now, I'm content to disagree with you (still holding to my original argument of Paul vs. James, though you do not like "vs" ). It seems as of this point in "that" discussion, we are not seeing each other's points and are perhaps making it more awkward for each other in our attempts to be cordial. One of the more frustrating ways to watch a theological discussion (at least those that I view from an outside lense) is to watch one person quote Scripture and the next person attempt to "one up" the previously quoted Scripture with their own. It only shows that neither side is really open to considering the other's point. At which "point," the argument is dead and continuing to fight it gains no one anything.

Getting back to LOTR...

"Until you generally endorsed this article, you had said that you found LoTR theologically neutral."

With so much that has come about in this thread, I'm not sure if by "article" you mean "post." Is this the case? If so, which one? Thus far, I do not recall myself ever having come to a point where I "endorsed" an article which taught that LOTR was all about witchcraft and such, but rather, I have thought it as "theologically neutral" as "Star Wars" or "The Velveteen Rabbit."

That was about all that you recently posted on LOTR and hence, I cannot comment until I know which article I perhaps may have endorsed through subtleties or direct statements. Please confirm.

Until then, I respectfully continue the "sport."

In Christ Alone,

Mercy

if i may,

concerning Paul & James.........

(first, let me say that i am truly enjoying you both, Luke & Mercy, as you lead us in this dialogue [for, indeed, a few of us - if not many - are reading you])

1) BIG PICTURE point of view:

God, being the sole author of Scripture, is condradicting Himself if two of the individuals He has [chosen] contradicts each other.......

2) Faith & Works:

this is primarily about faith & works!

it is believed that our most precious Abraham is the first to start this "faith & works" off!
(no disagreement here, i hope)

Paul states this, and we too see it thru by studying, that Abraham first had faith in God (the voice of God) before doing (works) what God said!

in other words, when God SPOKE: he believed Him!
thus, he (Abraham) began to 'DO' what he believed!

before Abraham 'DID ANYTHING' (works), God has 'ALREADY' counted his (Abraham's) belief [faith] in Him as RIGHTEOUSNESS!!!!

meaning, he (Abraham) was still a sinner or a pagan worshipper, if you will, when God pronounced Him RIGHTEOUS!!!!!!

{read Romans 4:9-12}
<font size=0>to me, Romans sums it all up about faith & works.......... <font size=2>

lets look at a few verses:
<font size=0>indulge me, please....
<font size=2>
13 it was not through law that Abraham and his offspring (us, included) received the [PROMISE] that he would be heir of the world, but through the rihgteousness that comes by faith.

lets jump down a few verses:

16 therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be ganranteed to all Abraham's offspring - <font color=red>not only to those who are of the law <font color=skyblue>but also to thosewho are of the faith of Abraham. he is the father of us all.

<font color=white>one thing that we do not accredit Abraham for is the fact that he, himself, represents both the circumcised & the uncircumcised!
meaning, both the Jews & the Gentiles!

WHY, you may ask or even HOW?

because he, himself, were both!

9 is this blessedness only for the circumcised (Jews), or also for the uncircumcised (us)? we have been aying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness.
10 under what circumstances was it credited? was it after he was circumcised, or before? it was not after, but before.
11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while "he was still uncircumcised." so then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.

i'm thinking to myself, Luke & Mercy, 'how can anyone say that Paul and James are contradicting each other after reading and studying what Paul, himself, just said here in Romans'!!!!!

to me, you can't ignore this piece or peace of scripture even as you "rightly divide" or read
other passages!!!

Abraham is the crust of what Paul and James talk about when they discuss faith and works!!!!!

so, common sense tells me, lets have a look at 'the man' (Abraham)!!!!
and we see, and you could read more if you like, that Paul teaches about Abraham quite well!!!

but also, we know that Christ was greater than Abraham!!!!
(both in faith and works - not to mention, also, that He 'IS' The Son)

Christ fulfilled the law!!!!!!
He didn't abolished it and neither did He 'do' it!
He simply became the "conclusion" of the matter!!

did not God, the Father, say that, "this is my Son in whom i am well pleased"?

Jesus, thru His Words and actions (practically, faith & works), concluded what God wanted done!!!
<font size=0>who, here at WUG, could disagree with this point????? <font size=2>

see, Jesus did not 'do' what the law of Moses said but he did 'DO' or 'fulfilled the [PURPOSE] of the law of Moses!!!!!!!

i'm not gonna go there but it is summed up in Love! (Romans 13:9-10)

another point:

James, a disciple of Jesus, did not even do the law of Moses..............

a matter of fact, none of the disciples did the law of Moses as they followed Jesus!!!!

WHY? because they walked with God (Jesus)!!!!!

Paul had to rebuke and correct Peter for being a disciple at one moment but then portraying a Jew at another moment!!!!!!

see, Jesus came to make people spiritually free! by showing us the conslusion of the matter!!!!!

this is why Paul declared that being circumcised or uncircumcised matters not!!!
but, does this mean that the uncircumcised could continue in sin? INDEED, NOT! NO!
Paul says to continue in good works or deeds!!!

and this is what James, who has been taught about doing good works, was talking about!!!!!
whwen he walked with Jesus, he saw Jesus doing good works!!!!

but when he see Gentiles or even think about them, all he could see is 'pagan worshippers'!!!

so, he had to stress the point of 'faith without works' is dead!!!!
Gentiles must show forth good works!!!!
you can not have faith without works!!!!
if you have the faith, then we ought to see the works!!!!

this is what James was teaching about!
and it is also what Christ Jesus taught about!

thus, James is not in the wrong!
and neither is Paul, for he teaches the same thing!!!!!

conclusion:

as you could see, i believe that God do not contradicts Himself!
we, more than likely, contradicts our understanding of Him and what He says!!!
but He, for sure, do not!

and i do not believe, no matter how close people assume that it seems so, that God chose individual people at different times to write His 'Love Letter' to all of us - just to contradict Himself in the long run!!!!

if so, then He is not Omniscient or Omnipotent!

i will rest here for now.............

in Love..........
<font size=0>and thank you for indulging me and my so-called writing skills........ i do not profess to have the skills in which either of you may have when it comes to 'studying' & 'writing'!
but i so do love to participate when the opportunity presents itself! thanks again......

Luke:

I applaude your interpretation. Although your statement that every assertion must be either true or false, is in itself false.

The following correctly characterizes what a statement may be:

1) A statement can be true;

2) A statement can be false;

3) A statement can be unintelligible;

4) A statement can be o/s the scope of knowledge known and therefore cannot be ascertained as true or false, but simply unknown whether true or false.

Before stepping back aside, there is another possibility for the "conflict" that Mercy perceives between Paul and James, although I agree with your take. That possibility is that the conflict was real; that James and Paul actually quarreled over their differences; and that the texts have been overwritten to harmonize this seeming difference. Something not addressed.

Having said that, I again endorse your take on the texts Luke.

Phlo,

I should have included you in my list of "those who have been" cordial throughout this dialogue.

Please forgive me for not reading your post, but I think that the point has been drilled and we are not really listening to each other on the presentation. Clearly, I am the only one presenting the possibility of disagreement between the two men and thus it is me against all of you (meaning... everyone at WUG). For that, I have no problem, but in this thread, I'm sure there is more we can attribute our conversation toward with regards to LOTR or Harry Potter. JTW was kind enough to pull up the "Paul vs. James" thread from weeks back that we might continue on in the same dialogue there, but as for this thread, I have pretty much stated to Luke that the "Paul vs. James" discussion is a no win debate for the moment. If you'd grant me the favor, please let it go. You're saying the exact same thing that Luke said and I'm sure everyone else here would agree with (Except me, of course ).

Anyways, sorry to chastise you rudely, I'm just not sure that reiterating the same thing over and over is really going to alter any one of our minds at this point.

Thanks for again being a contributor to this and many other threads in which your tone admits your humility, kindness, and wisdom. You're a great asset to the WUG forums and I always look forward to a good chat with king Phlo.

In Christ Alone,

Mercy

JTW,

"Before stepping back aside, there is another possibility for the "conflict" that Mercy perceives between Paul and James, although I agree with your take. That possibility is that the conflict was real; that James and Paul actually quarreled over their differences; and that the texts have been overwritten to harmonize this seeming difference. Something not addressed."

I'm sure you can assume that I disagree, but indeed, you were not addressing me. Though, it is nice to know that considering the potential for the unconventional possibilities of logic are not outside the grasp of your attention.

Thanks for the added bump of the "unaddressed."

Enjoy your night,

Mercy

my dear brother King MercyBreeze,

again, i would say to you (for your sake) so be it!

because it seems that we are not seeing or receiving each other's aspects on this matter, it may be wise to end it!!!
not that we (mainly you and Sir Luke) can't come to a conclusion but more so on the fact that it may just not be edifying to potential readers! (just maybe)

but mind you, this is exactly how debates go!
for however so long possible until a union (of some sort) or an agreement has been formed!!!!

i must say, Mercy, there is one good reason why i enjoy such conversatons!!!!
because it seems to open up a deeper sense of studying!!!!
and at times, thru it all, i learn something that i probable haven't noticed before!!!!!

but wisdom tells me to be cautious in debates!
ultimately, because debates aren't always edifying!
neither, encouraging!
quite drainging, too, if i may say!!!

so, again, i do thank you for your input of info!
something to think about!!!!!

(somewhat of what the Bereans did as Paul taught and presented the gospel to them)(it made them search and think about what was being said)

note:

oh, just to let you know, it very well could be quite a exaggeration on your part to think that you are the only one who believes as you do!!!!
there are some readers who don't respond and better yet, some of them are simply reading to learn/know what they can................

in other words, i'm sure that you are not alone!!!!

in Love........

Hi everyone,

It's refreshing for me to see others' input again, thanks!

Hi MercyBreeze,

Thanks to you again for your patience. Re.: "I have pretty much stated to Luke that the 'Paul vs. James' discussion is a no win debate for the moment. If you'd grant me the favor, please let it go." I think I've said what I felt obligated to say on the topic; so no problem, I am inclined to let it go. (I don't mean that I agree on the "no-win"; both sides of the argument have been presented, so all of us who read can prayerfully consider and determine which arguments work. An argument can suffice without everyone acknowledging it.) My thanks again for your very gentlemanly manner throughout the discussion. I have tried to "listen" and address all the points you brought up, not in the spirit of Bible-verse-numbers one-up-manship, but quoting a minimum of verses which were directly pertinent and informative to the problem at hand. Regarding my failings, again, thanks for your patience.

Regarding the article I've been bringing to your attention so often, it's 3/4 of the way down page 4, right before your response, "Praise[Warrior], You rock! That was a great article you captured."

Hi Phlo,

You bring a fresh joy to the theology being discussed, and I thank you for this! I look up to you. Thanks.

Hi JTW,

Thanks, and very interesting on the matter of statements having to be true or false. From an epistemological standpoint, I must say you are right. For if we do not know what a given statement means, we cannot judge its truth or falsehood. And when a statement is beyond our means to verify, we cannot judge its truth or falsehood. That being said, may I propose that statements are true or false in themselves, regardless of each of our abilities to judge. This considers statements (propositions) from the point of view of mere logic rather than epistemology. Regarding statements which are partly meaningless, e.g., a statement about square circles, some philosophers would say these are false; others would say that they do not meet the requirements of a proposition. I honestly don't know which classification is more fitting.

Could Paul and James have disagreed on something without stating that disagreement in the teaching of their letters? Indeed I grant this possibility. As you say, I did not address this; I addressed the claim that Paul and James contradict ("argued with" each other, "vs.", however we want to word it) in their teachings as found in the New Testament. For what it's worth, I doubt that there would ever have been any serious disagreemnt. Not only are Paul's and James' letters in agreement with each other; they are agreement with the teachings of Christ on the subject (I can draw up a list of relevant passages of Christ on the topic of salvation if anyone needs me to).

God bless, and have a great day, everyone!

In Christ,

Luke

Just a note. I havn't read any of the recent postings on this topic. (so if someone already said this sorry)

I was thinking about this topic the other day. I'm sooo excited to see the 2nd movie of LOTR. BUT I realized that I was bringing it up alot more almost more than the Lord. My ONLY fear is that me bringing up the symbolism that I LOVE is almost discounting the message of Jesus to those I share it with. Hopefully if anything it magnifys his name. Just a thought.

God bless all ya LOTR fans I hope and pray that God will reveal a great truth to you that J.R.R. Tolkin experianced that CAUSED him to write this book about the "I feel" the symbolizm of the Lord in the Christians walk.

Covered in the blood,
<img border="0" alt="[King]" title="" src="graemlins/king.gif" />