Hee hee hee...

I'm just getting this mental picture of JTW sitting there in front of his computer, popcorn in hand, 'beverage' nearby, ready and waiting to watch MercyBreeze and Luke duke it out...

And in this corner....

Susan:

Basically all I have to say about this issue is that they are really two types of people who read books- those who read a book for enjoyment and possible enlightenment and those who read a book to interpret every single word. As for me, I'm one who will read science-fiction books for fun and enjoyment. I see the movies too, but to me it's all a bunch of makebelieve and helps to keep our imaginations going. Sometimes, seeing a sci-fi movie will help getting your creative juices flowing. Say what you will, but please, don't start going against people in sci-fi clubs... I just happen to be in one...

Peace and God bless!
Grace

Susan,

More like... JTW sitting patiently awaiting dialogue with a bowl of popcorn while MercyBreeze dips his hand in the same bowl. Luke's a busy man. Your thought cracked me up, though.

Mercy

Hi MercyBreeze,

Thanks for replying. I'm glad that you found work! I'll first say about, "Well, believe it or not, Luke, it has been a respectful debate..." I have no doubt that it has been, and so remains. As I said before, I credit you especially for this. I wish to address an issue head-on, as I usually do, but I assure that I too intend full respect for you while I do it.

"More later unless you choose to respond today..." I was waiting for the later, since you have responded to just a little of what I brought up to you. But now I understand that you are waiting for me. Sorry to have kept you waiting. I guess it's popcorn time for JTW. :p

Your reply needs clarifying; in fact, I find that a number of your posts assert something and also deny it, and also try to find a middle way between really believing something and yet really not, and the wording gets magnificently elusive. The following examples are from this topic (your last main post to me, esp.) and past posts, incl. on Paul vs. James:

For reasons stated, I find that throughout this discussion, apparently contrary to what you now say, you have argued more than that Christian bookstores' endorsement of LoTR is "interesting." Again I ask you, do you really mean that you have been arguing all this time only that something is "interesting?" Clearly not. As for "James vs. Paul," you wrote at one point, "Paul vs. James. Contradiction? No." If that were all, then good, but: "James challenges the message [of Paul in Romans 3:28]." Again, "Paul indirectly argues back." These contradictions in your message need to be resolved. Hense the elusive statements like: "Anyone ever notice that Paul and James were not exactly 'the best of friends.'" Now in your recent post in this topic: "I tend to 'endorse'..." Do you endorse it or not? "there was likely a conflict..." Was there, or wasn't there, a conflict, according to the view you propose? "he suddenly begins to tease the Gentiles" Tease? Not exactly. "This 'change in attitude' suggests..." Does it do no more than suggest? Why the quotes around "change in attitude"? And is it attitude or, rather, a belief? This one is very good: you embrace "the theories of dispensationalism for their methods of study..." Are you accepting the theories or the methods, or both, or neither? If some theories and some methods, why not just say this and give the details? "[W]e can get a taste of why..." Hmmm, a taste. "I do not consider myself to be limited by ANY theology through which another can aptly suggest that they know everything about what I believe." A clearer endorsement of systematic elusivity almost cannot be made; for again I had said nothing about "everything" that you believe, only about something you believe. Your response was this. But perhaps Charles Finney as quoted at the end of many your recent posts does better in systematizing elusivity: "I have not yet been able to stereotype my theological views, and have ceased to expect ever to do so. The idea is preposterous. None but an omniscient mind can continue to maintain a precise identity of view and opinions." If an opinion is not precise, than it is not an opinion; it is a mood or something else. For no one can have an opinion that is not exactly a position taken about something.

So, either James contradicted Paul in doctrine, or he didn't. Either the article saying LoTR promotes witchcraft, which you approved without qualification, was right in this, or wrong. Either you have been arguing all this time something more than that the bookstores did something "interesting," or nothing more. Which is it? If something more, then is it what I have understood (according to my page 5 posts)? If not, then what have we been debating? No opinion on any of these questions can have it both ways. That is why I recenly quoted at the end of my posts to you:
<blockquote>"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
-Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

"Nobody's that large."
-Jonathon Barnes, The Presocratic Philosophers</blockquote>

Again respectfully, please come clean on exactly what your positions on each of these issues are, and would you reply more fully to my page 5 and page 6 posts to you? (Thanks.)

I have been asked why I write at length on such things, so I'll bring this up here. I have been concerned about the LoTR topic enough to write on it several times here because our having good approaches to literature is so important, for three reasons in particular: first, that the Bible contains poetry, parables, fascinating genres, etc.; second, that literature is a powerful way to communicate views of the human condition, incl. profound Christian views; third, that literature corresponds in a special way to the life and use of the imagination, and the Christianizing of the imagination is a wonderful and important activity. I have been concerned to write about Paul vs. James dispensationalism because clearly Biblical inerrancy must be defended. If Paul contradicts James, then the Bible isn't inerrant. I have defended the theological unity of their letters in other posts, esp. with Crusader/Brother Love/Cubed Mellon, but you argue the point differently, in a way related to your argumentation here in this topic.

God bless, and have a great day,

Luke

Luke,

"If Paul contradicts James, then the Bible isn't inerrant."

Not that this will do justice to your response, but I am short on time...

Why is the Bible limited to either being errant because of a conflict or inerrant because there was NO conflict? Does not the book of Romans challenge and "contradict" everything in the books of the Law? As in, does not Romans teach things that go "contrary" (Acts 21:21) to the obedience to Mosaic Law? Why? Is it not because God gradually ushers in a change in man's understanding of truth?

I have often used the word "contradict" in my explanation of Paul vs. James because they are two individuals that hold great weight in the history of the church. I'm sure you've read the book of Acts from time to time and found that "conflict" and "contradiction" was one of the frustrations of the early church.

The Galatian church was one of the more unique examples of Paul's exasperated frustration with mixing "another gospel" which is not "really another gospel." (Galatians 1)

No. The Scriptures are not limited to being "errant" or "innerrant." Rather, Scripture itself is greater than that, for indeed, we are reading a Book that spans a great change in the history of mankind. From Adam to Christ, the stories have built upon each other and built upon each other. The conflicts of men within those 66 books are obvious. Though I suggest one that makes you uncomfortable (and others as well), it is not required that Scripture be "errant" simply because a conflict exists.

Now. You're killin' me here, cause I have a long day at work and its like 5:45am (I have to be there at 6). You've written so much and I've been so busy (as have you), so I'll either leave you to respond to this or you can wait for me to respond later tonight (which I will do more in detail). Thank you for sharing your intelligent thoughts on the things that I have shared and more specifically, for "calling me out" on things that I have shared. I do not limit myself to any theology that cannot be changed as I continue to study, hence, my "opinions" continue to merely reflect the current things that I notice.

In Christ Alone,

Mercy

Luke,

Hopefully this will be a more thorough response, but my wife is due home soon and I've been working all day. (You have to know what that means. ) Okay, that sounded really personal, but I didn't mean it that way .

Anyways, between covering your "page 5 and page 6" response and responding to your response from the response I gave to your response in the first response, I'm kind of stuck having to stick to the more recent things you bring up rather than the 15,000 things I probably overlooked in pages past.

You've surfaced a very fair question regarding my intentions of discussion here in this thread and others. Having looked back over my own words, I can see that any onlooker would believe me to be more passionate about certain things than I actually am. I won't even deny that I write with incredible boldness from time to time on things that are likely to evoke someone's strong opposition.

One word that I'd like you to mentally note about my tone is that of "consider." Notice that nearly every longwinded post I offer usually provides that word for the reader to challenge themselves on a thought, a theory, or a theological concept.

"Again I ask you, do you really mean that you have been arguing all this time only that something is "interesting?" Clearly not.

Why "clearly not?" Is it not possible for someone to speak boldly, but not necessarily live and die by their own words? As in, isn't it possible for someone to provide a convincing argument that they themselves do not necessarily fully support? Isn't that what some would define as the American Justice System (our popcorn eater is dying to speak)? Indeed, it is possible to get into dialogue over something that the debator doesn't feel emotionally attached to.

"As for "James vs. Paul," you wrote at one point, "Paul vs. James. Contradiction? No." If that were all, then good, but: "James challenges the message [of Paul in Romans 3:28]." Again, "Paul indirectly argues back." These contradictions in your message need to be resolved. Hense the elusive statements like: "Anyone ever notice that Paul and James were not exactly 'the best of friends.'"

Servant and JTW have at times called me out on my tendancy to "draw out" things from the text that do not exist. Admittedly, these two comments:

"Paul indirectly argues back."

and...

"Anyone ever notice that Paul and James were not exactly the best of friends?"

do not hold any water in Scripture, for they are not validated by anything. Again, admittedly, I have chosen to use phrases that evoke opposition for a reason, but they are truly not personal convictions of passionate frenzy. If I could prove that John the Baptist ate fireflies, would it hold any weight in your spiritual growth? Only in the sense that you would pick up your Bible to challenge the theory and better yourself.

That's what I do, Luke. One of my favorite lines from the movie "Dangerous Minds," is during a scene when the students begin wondering what prize they will receive for studying poetry.

She says, "Knowing how to think is the prize."
To which a student says, "I know how to think right now."
She says, "Well sure you do. You know how to run too, but not like you would if you trained. Your mind is a muscle. If you wanna make it stronger, you've got to work it out."

One of my favorite things to do in this life is get people thinking about the opposite of what they believe. Its not that the opposition is correct, but what happens when the opposition shows up and the convicted individual is not prepared to share truth from a Scriptural standpoint?

Though there are many things that I strongly believe to be true in Scripture, I tend to argue just to argue most of the time. Often times, I learn ways in which arguing a point can actually "hurt" the case I may be presenting at that present time. Personally, though Christmas is not a holiday that I am fond of, Servant has made subtle comments that have given me reason to believe that there are better ways to express myself on that issue than the means I chose to write in a few recent posts.

While I hope to have offered you insight from time to time on certain issues, it is always a joy for me to get challenged on the things that I present. Were I to never get "contradicted" or "challenged," I would never grow. Hence, if I continue through forums, personal dialogue, and regular interaction always taking the "conservative" position, I would never be contradicted and obviously never grow.

"Now in your recent post in this topic: "I tend to 'endorse'..." Do you endorse it or not?"

Why must this be a black and white issue in your mind? For me to say, "I tend to endorse" is simply to say, "I have not arrived at a point in my life where I fully support one theology that limits my ability to obtain new information (of which I am always receiving). Do I endorse dispensationalism? A yes or no answer suggests that I am only one sided and am not a free thinker outside the box. Often I encourage people to read particular dispensational books, but though I am not theologically Baptist, I also tend to "endorse" the works of Chuck Swindoll. Does this mean that if he suddenly wrote a book implying that the rapture already took place, that I would have to recount my previous endorsement? No it would not. Why? Because I "tend to" endorse his writing, but I do not put myself in a box that suggests his every word is fully and innerrantly my adopted theology.

"This one is very good: you embrace "the theories of dispensationalism for their methods of study..." Are you accepting the theories or the methods, or both, or neither? If some theories and some methods, why not just say this and give the details?"

Luke, the "theories of dispensationalism" encourage a different method of study than that of say, "theories of Baptists." How? Dispensationalism, as a whole, encourages one to look at Scripture as God "revealing Himself in different ways over different periods of time." If this theory is taken into account, it completely alters one's previous study methods, for it introduces a considerable challenge to mainstream theology.

"If an opinion is not precise, than it is not an opinion; it is a mood or something else. For no one can have an opinion that is not exactly a position taken about something."

Interesting, but I disagree. My father's early belief that wearing jeans to church was wrong took residence in our home growing up. Over the years, though he considers himself to have remained in the same theology and doctrine, he has altered his position on MANY things simply because he has continued to observe life. He no longer believes that dancing is a sin. He no longer believes that jeans in church is a sin. These things are the evidence of someone (a typical someone at that) who verbally holds themselves to a theology or doctrine, but over time ceases to admit to themself that they have changed their beliefs. Rather than limiting myself to hypocrisy in a similar way, I make a point to live outside the box. If I share an opinion, it does not become my identity unless you (or whoever I'm speaking with) considers it so. My identity is a constantly changing growth spurt in which I often must pull back and admit that I was wrong, incorrect, or inconsistent. One whose opinion defines their identity cannot allow themselves to be wrong or they will indeed lose their identity. My identity is in Christ and the daily change that is accomplished in me confirms that I am never the same as the day before. Hence, my opinions are invalidated in the moment the Lord opens my eyes to apprehend a new truth or undeniable observation.

"No opinion on any of these questions can have it both ways."

So the only answer that is acceptable to you, in order to achieve truth according to your questions, is to say yes or no. Why is that? Why can there not be balance in between the extremes that want me to accept?

Well anyways, I'm sure I've given enough popcorn chewing moments to JTW for the night. My wife is home and I need to get off this thing. May the Lord continue to guide our conversation in ways that we may not see at present. You have been a great companion of intelligent dialogue. I continue to applaud you in this very RARE friendly debate we've been having now for a few months (off and on ).

Enjoy your weekend and I look forward to your response.

Mercy

Hi MercyBreeze,

Thanks for the reply and kind wishes. I hope your week-end is going well, and my best to your family.

On to our debate. Of your last two responses, I'll address the first first:

The law of non-contradiction is the cornerstone of Logic; it states, "it is impossible for a thing to be and not be at the same time and in the same respect." (Jacques Maritain, Formal Logic [Sheed and Ward, 1937], p. 159) You have asserted that the Bible contradicts itself, with James and Paul (book of Romans) contradicting each other, and Acts contradicting the Old Testament.

You write, "Why is the Bible limited to either being errant because of a conflict or inerrant because there was NO conflict?" Because the Bible teaches. Any teaching, any statement at all for that matter, is either true or false. Surely you must see this, and agree to the law of non-contradiction. <font size=-1>(That's why.)</font>

"Does not the book of Romans challenge and 'contradict' everything in the books of the Law?" No. The law of non-contradiction contains the qualificaiton, "at the same time." The dietary laws, purification laws, ceremonial precepts, etc. were commanded to one time, not to another. James in his letter of the New Testament, does not bring these back; if he does, I can't find where.

"As in, does not Romans teach things that go 'contrary' (Acts 21:21) to the obedience to Mosaic Law?" The word "contrary" is not in Acts 21:21, but even if it were, what would be addressed in such a statement would be the debate about the present status of the Mosaic Law in its various aspects, esp. ancient details of expression.

"Why? Is it not because God gradually ushers in a change in man's understanding of truth?" There is a change in terms of addition; as you know, Christ said that He fulfilled the Law, meaning all its substance, not all its ancient outward expression. The outward expression was not kept by Christianity, but the substance of it, with the great commandments of love and ensuing ten commandments, and teaching about creation, what God is like, and so on, were kept.

"I have often used the word 'contradict' in my explanation of Paul vs. James because they are two individuals that hold great weight in the history of the church." Two individuals can be very influential without contradicting, and people without any influence can contradict each other. I don't see the connection you are making.

"I'm sure you've read the book of Acts from time to time and found that 'conflict' and 'contradiction' was one of the frustrations of the early church." Our disagreement is not about whether anyone in the very Early Church conflicted or contradicted; our question is whether one part of the New Testament contradicts another. This is about Biblical inerrancy, not apostolic impeccability.

"The Galatian church was one of the more unique examples of Paul's exasperated frustration with mixing 'another gospel' which is not 'really another gospel.' (Galatians 1)" That was a problem. But St. James was not the Galation 1 alternative-gospel fabricator. Paul vs. James was the issue you raised, which we have taken up here.

"From Adam to Christ... [t]he conflicts of men within those 66 books are obvious. Though I suggest one that makes you uncomfortable (and others as well), it is not required that Scripture be "errant" simply because a conflict exists." I have no discomfort in ackowledging that Cain killed Abel, that Saul opposed David, or even that Paul corrected Peter's behavior in Galations 2. If you mean that these things make me uncomfortable, I'm not sure why you would say this. That is quite off topic; our topics again are James vs. Paul and LoTR vs. Christianity.

From your second post: "[I]sn't it possible for someone to provide a convincing argument that they themselves do not necessarily fully support?" Yes, but when they do so, they should be clear about whether they are supporting it, i.e. advocating it, or not. If they advocate a system partly, it is easy to say what part they accept and what part they do not accept or hesitate to accept. If you write in such a way as would persuade others to reject either the book of James or the book of Romans, saying later "I didn't mean what I said, of course, I just wanted to ask people how they would refute it" doesn't quite satisfy. If I were to start posting around that Jesus contradicted himself, and only much later admitted that I didn't believe what I said, would this be fine? If you only meant to ask how a dillema could be solved, you could have put it that way, rather than saying that James and Paul, in their NT books, were arguing against each other. For until someone reads you say that you didn't mean to endorse the position, might damage to weeker faiths not have been done? Forgive me, I worry about such things.

"Admittedly, these two comments: 'Paul indirectly argues back.' and 'Anyone ever notice that Paul and James were not exactly the best of friends?' do not hold any water in Scripture, for they are not validated by anything." Many thanks for saying this, sincerely.

I like the quote from Dangerous Minds.

"One of my favorite things to do in this life is get people thinking about the opposite of what they believe. Its not that the opposition is correct..." One of my favorite thing to do is see both sides of an argument presented fully. Having only the incorrect side argued reminds me, well, of temptation. In fact, that might almost be a good definition for the word "temptation."

"Why must this be a black and white issue in your mind?" Again, any given statement is either true or false. Some sentences are really two or three or more statements, of course; of these, perhaps some are true; some are false. If an expression is neither true nor false, then it is not a statement.

I do not understand what you said concerning the nature of the challenge Dispensationalism's methods or doctrines make to mainstream theology, beyond that Dispensationalism, so I am often told, asserts that Paul contradicted at least James, if not also Christ (Mt 25 on judgment day). Mainstream theology, as I understand it, admits as common knowledge that several precepts of legal systems, including the Mosaic Law, apply to particular times and places and peoples and are subject to modification, cancellation, and addition, in accordance with the needs of the time.

"One whose opinion defines their identity cannot allow themselves to be wrong or they will indeed lose their identity." I hope I didn't seem to call into question your identity or essence. I called into question an elusiveness and apparent self-contradiction common to your treatments of Paul vs. James (with respect to their NT teachings) and LoTR.

"[M]y opinions are invalidated in the moment the Lord opens my eyes to apprehend a new truth or undeniable observation." This confirms what I have been saying, that an opinion is a position taken on something, such that when you change your position, you reject the first opinion and accept another. (I use the word "opinion" losely here, meaning any kind of belief.) That being the case, no one can assert one thing, then assert its contrary, and insist that both are true. "'No opinion on any of these questions can have it both ways.'" As you said with the word "invalidated."

Finally, "So the only answer that is acceptable to you, in order to achieve truth according to your questions, is to say yes or no. Why is that? Why can there not be balance in between the extremes that want me to accept?" There is nothing extreme in saying that a statement is either true or false. It is a fact of Logic. Sloth and obsession are two extremes, between which is the virtue of moderation. What virtue do you assert exists between true and false? There is nothing between true and false in the case of any given statement, unless that statement contains more than one statement, in which case we break it down into its components, and then the question is the same: true or false / yes or no?

Sorry for the length of this post. I try make sure I cover everything. We're making JTW eat a lot of pop-corn! Take it easy, JTW! (Just kidding.) I look forward to your reply, and thank you for your patience. Have a great rest of the week-end!

Best wishes,

Luke

This is a very interesting discussion.

Indeed this is a very interesting discussion. And Luke, we're gonna have to find a way to somehow loop this back around to LOTR and Harry Potter (seeing as we, or I more specifically, have taken another detour ).

Luke,

I'm guessing that in the majority of your posts, JTW is dying to step in, but you take his words from him.

"it is impossible for a thing to be and not be at the same time and in the same respect."

Undeniably correct! Absolute truth was a thing that I recently ushered into discussion because it was evident that the world we live in did, in part, not believe that absolutes existed. I do. But what I don't understand about your use of this quotation with me is that the understanding of absolute truths ALWAYS changes due to our humanity as imperfect beings without full knowledge of "what is and what is not." While the "thing" referred to will thoroughly always BE what it is, our understanding of it will not be.

For instance, JFK was assassinated. We know that as an absolute. JFK was assassinated by one man named Lee Harvey Oswald. Perhaps? Perhaps not? Does the absolute exist? Yes it does. Indeed, the man was assassinated, but the complete and utter truth as to "who" is not within our witness of evident fact. We can presume to know what we study, but we cannot know fully what took place on that day with 100% surity. Why? Because we are limited as humans to know the whole truth until it is FULLY revealed to us.

In another instance, it has been said that Jimmy Swaggart continued on in his affairs even after his public confession of tears. Though he may have confessed again to fleshly desires, I do not know the details of what "is" or "is not" within his life. I do not know what "is" in his heart or what "is not" within his heart.

"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," in order that they might recognize how God Himself has designed His Word as something that has two truths that coexist within the same great Book. What I have also encouraged in my assertion of Paul and James is that the "differences" between the two men present the possibility of very RIGHTEOUS division in Scripture. Each side of the division holding its own as truth, but not necessarily being directed at the same audience. It has been my intention in presenting (though I was probably poor at doing so) the Paul vs. James issue to present that each has a Divine inspiration, but that each has a distinct audience that potentially should not be meshed. As in, we tend to read the whole of Scripture and apply to ourselves the things that feel comfortable, but indeed, we do not often consider the things which "may" or "may not" apply to us specifically.
Assuredly, you do not study the book of Leviticus to comprehend the nature of how you should eat, but you recognize the book of Leviticus as Divinely written. Why? Because the audience was not you.

"You write, "Why is the Bible limited to either being errant because of a conflict or inerrant because there was NO conflict?" Because the Bible teaches. Any teaching, any statement at all for that matter, is either true or false. Surely you must see this, and agree to the law of non-contradiction. (That's why.)"

I like your "that's why" at the end, but I'm not sure if you were assuming that I would suddenly say to myself, "Dear heaven! I see the foolishness of my ways!" Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you were trying to say with this paragraph. No offense, though.

"Does not the book of Romans challenge and 'contradict' everything in the books of the Law?" No. The law of non-contradiction contains the qualificaiton, "at the same time." The dietary laws, purification laws, ceremonial precepts, etc. were commanded to one time, not to another. James in his letter of the New Testament, does not bring these back; if he does, I can't find where."

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all." James 2:10

Perhaps in this "whole law" that James is referring to, he just means the "law" that consists of "loving your neighbor as yourself." Perhaps.

"For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not commit murder." Now if you not commit adultery, but commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law." James 2:11

Perhaps not. Indeed, James is referring to the Mosaic Law of commandments that have always existed in Jewish understanding.

"...to the twelve tribes scattered abroad." James 1:1

The audience specifically is addressed as Israel. Israel KNOWS the Mosaic Law, where as the Gentile audience is not being taught Mosaic Law as are not the Jews with them (Acts 21:21).

"You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world MAKES himself an enemy of God." James 4:4

Assuming that the "audience" is the Body of Christ, we can assume that James is saying it is possible for "us" to become an enemy of God by having attachments to the world.

"And although you were formerly alienated and enemies in your own mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach." Colossians 1:23

Indeed, we (as the Body of Christ) WERE enemies of Christ without Christ, but "now" have been "reconciled" "in" Him. In the instance of I Corinthians 5 (the man sleeping with his mother), we know that a man can be "turned over to the world," and yet be "saved" by the grace of the Lord and the "seal" of the Holy Spirit. James would seem to teach that the grace of God does not extend to someone who becomes a "friend of the world." Does this mean that James is not inspired of God? That's not what I'm saying. You conclude that I am simply because I am pointing out something that "seems" contradictory.

"As in, does not Romans teach things that go 'contrary' (Acts 21:21) to the obedience to Mosaic Law?" The word "contrary" is not in Acts 21:21, but even if it were, what would be addressed in such a statement would be the debate about the present status of the Mosaic Law in its various aspects, esp. ancient details of expression."

You are correct that Acts 21:21 does NOT contain the word "contrary." Unfortunately, the passage DOES say,

"...teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to FORSAKE Moses, telling them not to circumsise their children nor to WALK ACCORDING TO THE CUSTOMS." Acts 21:21

Its not as though Paul is saying, "You can still follow the Mosaic Law and walk according to the customs if you want." He is teaching them to FORSAKE Moses. ???

"The outward expression was not kept by Christianity, but the substance of it, with the great commandments of love and ensuing ten commandments, and teaching about creation, what God is like, and so on, were kept."

I'm not sure that I understand what you're trying to say here. What do you mean by the "outward expression" not being kept?

"Two individuals can be very influential without contradicting, and people without any influence can contradict each other. I don't see the connection you are making."

I agree that two individuals can be very influential without contradicting. But historically and realistically, two individuals can ALSO be influential and still contradict each other. Regardless of Paul vs. James, you cannot deny that the latter potential is possible as well.

"our question is whether one part of the New Testament contradicts another."

I have not said that the New Testament contradicts itself, but that two individual characters OF the New Testament say things that potentially do not line up.

"But St. James was not the Galation 1 alternative-gospel fabricator."

Or so you assume.

"If you write in such a way as would persuade others to reject either the book of James or the book of Romans,"

Here again, I think you presume that I am advocating someone's "rejection" of one book of Scripture vs. another. This I am not doing. Would you assume that because I observe the book of Leviticus applies to those under the law, I am advocating that believers should "reject" Leviticus? "Rejection" implies that something does not have ANY learning value, or inspirational potential. We study the book of Numbers for the sake of comprehending the "history" of mankind according to Scripture, but we do not study it for personal application. The reason I suggest that using a challenge of James vs. Paul makes you "uncomfortable" is because this is yet another issue where EACH book and EACH author has the inspiration of God, but EACH book has a different audience and different direction. You don't study history in order to understand geometry, though geometry exists in history. You don't study literature to understand algebra, though algebra exists in literature.

"I like the quote from Dangerous Minds."

Me too.

"Having only the incorrect side argued reminds me, well, of temptation."

Seems you are indirectly saying that the "incorrect side" is me. The problem I see with this is that you are assuming that my "incorrect side" is more "temptation" toward mistruth. What I miss usually in your posts (though I respect our debate) is the humility that you might admit to being potentially wrong about something. Rather, you assume that I am always the incorrect one.

"Admittedly, these two comments: 'Paul indirectly argues back.' and 'Anyone ever notice that Paul and James were not exactly the best of friends?' do not hold any water in Scripture, for they are not validated by anything." Many thanks for saying this, sincerely."

Once again, you applaud my humility (which I do not ask for), but contend to disprove everything that I say without considering the potential that you also may be incorrect. I'm not saying that you are indeed wrong, but rather, that you do not usually consider that you may be.

Please forgive me if that last paragraph was rude, for it was not my intention. Sometimes its tough to "call someone out" on something without losing them in offensiveness and defensiveness. Bear with me.

"Dispensationalism, so I am often told, asserts that Paul contradicted at least James, if not also Christ (Mt 25 on judgment day)."

Let me explain something that may be potentially unbelievable, but you'll once again have to bear with me. What I have come to believe about things has been on my own efforts of study, not the dependancy of what organized theological doctrine might change through the years. A few years ago, before becoming an avid fan of Scripture, I noticed ON MY OWN that James 2:24 and Romans 3:28 seemed oddly unique in that they were strangely opposite. In the years since, I have heard men say, "James 2:24 regards justification before man while Romans 3:28 regards justification before God." I still don't see the jump in conclusion thus far.

In the meantime (same number of years), I have continued to see random things that suggest I am not the only one to make such observations. Often times, dispensationalists assert that James contradicts Paul, but I did not study dispensationalism in order to notice such potential. In the same light, I have noticed that some Calvinists tend to agree with me on things regarding salvation as do certain Arminiasts. Why? Because I have not narrowed myself to one or the other. Balance exists in between different theologies of men. Truth is not balance between two extremes of God, but we, as men, do not have the full knowledge of that truth. Thus, we continue to assume that each other's extreme viewpoints are either true or false. This I cannot adhere to.

Until the next response, I continue to enjoy the discussion and look forward to the insuing debate.

Enjoy your afternoon,

Mercy