| Author |
Message |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2694
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 8:43 am: |     |
Raven, I see communion the way you described it, and I agree with your statement that we can't use Luther as our final interpreter any more than we can use EGW as our final interpreter. While I believe Luther really was raised up of God and used and inspired by Him, as opposed to Ellen, still God didn't give Luther the final word on Biblical intepretation in all areas, either. Luther even felt the book of James shouldn't be in Scripture.
I really see James differently from the way Luther saw the book...
Praying for you in your search for a church...
Colleen |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 899
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 12:15 pm: | |
Raven,
You expressed my belief much better than I could ever do. When we say we receive grace through the bread and wine, it is not a work to be saved, but it is another means of receiving grace, just as reading the Bible is for me. You expressed beautifully John Calvin and the Reformed or Presbyterian view, and that the elements are far more than symbols, but this is a legitimate area for Christians to disagree. But the Roman view is heresy, and is not in the pale of orthodoxy, and is part of another gospel.
Stan |
Cy
Registered user
Username: Cy
Post Number: 24
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 3:46 pm: | |
Colleen,
Could you perhaps expound on your statement?
quote:I really see James differently from the way Luther saw the book...
We are studying the epistle of James in the Adult Christian Education class at our Presbyterian church. I can really see why Luther called it the 'epistle of straw," but I also see value in it as James makes plain the obvious works that result from our relationship with Christ.
Cy |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 904
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 4:16 pm: | |
I think Luther changed his view on James later in life. He could not reconcile Justification by faith with Paul and James. It is very interesting to me that James was the very last book accepted into the canon, and it was controversial. James was also written before Paul wrote his exposition on justification by faith. But the two books are reconcilable as James was looking at the horizontal relationship, so that others would be able to tell that we are Christians by our works.
I think James is a good balance to have. There are some "professing" Christians who take Paul in Romans and interpret it as if they just believe in Christ, then they can go out and live the way they want, and no change is evident. That is why James says "your faith is dead o vain man" That is what easy-believism is defined as today in Christendom, where someone raises their hand one time at an emotional evangelistic meeting, and then they are told that they are saved forever, and their lives have no evidence of repentance, or bear any fruit. James addresses this well.
Stan |
Goldenbear
Registered user
Username: Goldenbear
Post Number: 122
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 7:43 pm: | |
Another thought about communion:
When Jesus broke the bread and shared the cup, was he breaking his body and bleeding? He told the disciples that the cup was his blood and the bread his body, did trasubstantiation take place then? Does a priest have more power than Jesus? Or maybe I just don't understand their teachings on this.
I believe that he established a system that would remind His followers in the future what He did for them on Calvary. God had long used types and shadows to predict and to remember important principles.
I don't know exactly how a Catholic would explain the first communion, but I would be interested to hear. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2697
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 8:53 pm: | |
Cy and Stan, I agree with your analyses of James. When we studied the book in women's Bible study a few years ago, I learned some historical "stuff" that helped me understand the book, also.
For example, it was probably the second NT book written--preceded onlyópossiblyóby Galatians. While some people date the book as the early 60s, there is internal evidence to suggest that it was written before AD 50--roughly 15 years after Jesus' ascension.
The James who wrote the book is the half-brother of Jesus. Its distincly Jewish flavor suggests that it was written while the church was very new and still predominantly Jewish. There's no mention of the controvery of Gentile circumcision. It reflects a rudimentary church structure, and the Greek term "synagogue" is used to identify the meeting place of the church--something that would not have happened later when the church was more Gentile. (This paragraph derived from the opening notes on James in the NIV Study Bible.)
Back to the nature of this epistle. It was written to "the twelve tribes scattered among the nations," or Jewish believers. (Texts in the book make it clear that the recipients were Christians.) Remember, at Pentecost Jews from many foreign countires were in Jerusalem and heard Peter preaching in their own languages. They left their countries Orthodox Jews, and they returned to their scattered homes converted Christians. Imagine what they faced, returning to their Jewish communities believing in Jesus the Messiah--and having few to none around them who shared their convictions.
Further, Jewish persecution was heating up in Jerusalem, and Jews, both Christian and non, were fleeing to various countries to escape. The audience of the book was Jewish, but they were specifically recent converts.
Remember that James had no Scripture but the OT--Paul's letters (which Peter identified as Scripture) were not yet available. His audience was deeply versed in the OT and also isolated from one another. James wrote this letter to encourage them and to help them understand how to live as Christ-followers among people who shared their background but did not share their faith.
In the second chapter James refers to the "royal law found in Scripture" and tells them they are doing right if they "Love your neighbor as yourself" (v. 8). Then he reminds them that if they sin, they are guilty of breaking the whole lawóand by implication, are worthy of death.
In verse 12, however, he says this: "Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful."
Now, what law "gives freedom"? The Mosaic law--the 10 Commandments--was a minister of death. Everyone was under a curse who tried to keep it. The law that gives freedom is not the 10 Commandments; it's the royal law that Jesus said was His new commandment to them: love God with all their hearts, and their neighbors as themselves.
Even though Paul had not yet written his explanation of the role of law and grace and faith, James was reminding these Jewish converts--using the only Scriptures they would have known--that their standard was not the list of requirements that promised death for disobedience but rather was the law that called them to love one another.
Throughout the book James describes what a Christ-follower will "look" like. He will live by faith, like Abraham (verse 20-24), and that faith will result in obedience to Jesus. It will result in saying "Yes" to God's will. A life of faith will be filled with self-denial and love and respect and single-mindedness and living by the Spirit and intercessory prayer (4:7-8; 3:13-18; 5:13-18, etc.).
Where many people have misread James is in saying that IN ORDER to be a Christian, one must DO these behaviors. James, on the other hand, is saying that living by faith will produce this sort of life. He is calling them to integrity, not to observance of the law. He is reminding them that they are now in submission to God, not friends of the world (4:4-10).
This book is also a reminder of God's compassion and mercy (5:11; 4:6, etc.)
When I understood the identity and circumstances of the recipients of James and also the chronological timing of it (preceding most of Paul's work), the book suddenly made sense to me. It is not opposed to grace and faith. It is a call to people who only know the law and now understand the Messiah has come to live with integrity without sniping and quarrels and boasting and jostling for superiority among themselves and between themselves and the Jews around them.
It is a practical book for inbred law-keepers to begin to understand that they are called to live by the royal law of liberty that brings freedom instead of death. They are to remember the compassion and mercy of God and to identify with the faith of Abraham who trusted God's promises and therefore obeyed when He led.
I hope that helps!
Colleen |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1991
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 9:11 pm: | |
Raven, You said you attend a Misouri Synod. Have you checked out their policys about holding church office, voting in church elections, wmen becomming ministers, etc.? I do not remember which denomination it is, Wisconson or Missouri but one of them has closed communion just like most Catholic churches do and women not only can't be ordained they cannot even hold church offices or even vote in church elections. I chose the ELCA because even though it is extremely liberal in a lot of social positions as least the women can become priests and vote and hold church elected positions and so on. Let me know about the Missouri Synod on these issues. I am courious. BTW, Stan, thank you very much for the offer but I am going to pass on it. I know I would never bother listening to it so there is no reason to waste your money. And, if it's a video cd then I for sure couldn't view it as I don't own a computer, a dvd player or even a playstation. Likewise, as courious as I have been about that EGW cd I've seen advertised on some of these anit-SDA websites I just wouldn't want it either. However, I do appriciate the kind offer. |
Patriar
Registered user
Username: Patriar
Post Number: 205
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 11:06 pm: | |
Colleen:
Thank you for that synopsis on James.
In reference to James 2:24, I was doing some searching on blueletterbible.com. I just found this cross-reference in Romans 2:13:
"For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified."
Could someone help me out here. How exactly DOES this work together with salvation by faith alone?
Patria
|
Patriar
Registered user
Username: Patriar
Post Number: 206
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 11:15 pm: | |
Ok...I just read James 2:26. He seems to clarify in that verse. Context Patria, context!
"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
(Also a good verse for supporting soul life after body death)??
Patria |
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 306
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 4:56 am: | |
Susan,
It's the Wisconsin Synod that is extremely restrictive. The Missouri Synod allows women to vote and hold many church offices, (not sure if they can hold all church offices). The main thing is they don't let women be pastors. I'm not dogmatic about it either way, and if that's the only "issue", I can let that slide.
The Missouri Synod is supposed to be closed communion, which is where our potential problem lies. However, this particular church prints their communion beliefs in the bulletin and asks that you only participate if you agree with those beliefs; if you come up for communion, they give you communion without question We know, because Ric_b went up our first visit. (The way it was worded in the bulletin, it did not have the word "physical" presence, and Ric_b rationalized that we believe it spiritually. Afterward, we figured it would be best to clarify things with the pastor and be totally up front.)
Ric_b's parents are Wisconsin Synod, and we know enough about their beliefs that we could never consider their church. At Wisconsin, you don't get communion unless you're a member of their church and/or you have previously received permission from the pastor, and women are not even allowed to vote. As a credit to my in-law's Wisconsin Synod pastor, he did tell us that if our kids want to be baptized by immersion, he'll do it anytime, any place, whether or not we're ever members of their church--so we have that one covered!
We'd probably be happiest with the ELCA, but contemporary services are extremely important to us, and those are nearly impossible to find among any Lutheran churches. This Missouri Synod has a beautiful contemporary service, that's also reverent enough that we'd feel comfortable inviting family if they'd ever come. |
Esther
Registered user
Username: Esther
Post Number: 252
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 8:04 am: | |
Last night I was listening to a Sojourner Ministries tape on the Sabbath. For those of you who don°¶t know, Sojourner Ministries is run by a Jewish Christian by the name of Stephen Gerr and focuses on the Jewish heart of Christianity. Now, several years ago if I°¶d thought about Jewish Christianity I°¶d have thought of those in my church who kept all the Jewish holidays and didn°¶t use electricity on the Sabbath. Our brand of SDAism elicited distain from their more °ßgodly°® views of how to observe religion. Ɇ But I digress.
I love listening to his productions because I°¶m given a window into how the Jews thought and felt and all the little innuendos that Jesus implied or spoke directly to°Kbut in the past have flown right over my head because even though it°¶s right there in the text, I°¶m missing that background. (He in no way teaches that observance is mandatory, btw. He insists that Christ is the end of the law of Moses). Well, so I°¶m listening to him talk about Sabbath observance, and all the Pharisaic rules and how Jesus just seemed to cross them whenever He could. And he made this comment about how James was the brother of Jesus and in the epistle, he°¶s writing to the Jews of the time and using all the language that they would know. He said that Jews were taught weekly, sometimes daily, in the law and they were all experts. He succinctly said that when James referenced breaking one law, you break them all°Khe knew that his audience would know this to be true. Stephen discussed how this wasn°¶t meant to support the law, but compare and contrast the old and the new. It was a very good lecture and I°¶d highly recommend his materials.
Thanks Colleen also for your great thoughts on the book. The book of James was one of the last things that fell into place for me, so to speak. It°¶s helped a lot to understand the background.
|
Dinolf
Registered user
Username: Dinolf
Post Number: 12
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 9:22 am: | |
Colleen: Just a remark about James as the half-brother of Jesus. I made a study on that matter resently and found now Biblical answer to that statement. The position about James as a half-brother could have the origin in virgin-teology about Mary from Catolic positions. It is also stated by EGW.
If James was a elder brother, brougt in by Joseph in the marrage, then there is not even a biological connection to Jesus. In evangelical litterature the position that Mary had several children is common. From Matt 1:25 we read that Joseph had no union with Mary *before* the birth of Jesus, but then we are left in the assumption that they had a normal marriage, and probably what follows - childern.
/Dinolf |
Dinolf
Registered user
Username: Dinolf
Post Number: 16
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 9:55 am: | |
The weekend in Sweden with Ken and Nancy Eirich was much in the direction discussed above. To start with the Eirich has been thru a remarkable journey, and their story is full of situations with a great inpact of spiritual guidence. They still need a lot of prayer to sort out wounds that is still unheald.
I wold say it is true they are now used as PR persons for SDA. Using the same technique as Finley, Ken puts up a lot of quotes from the Bible and from churchleader from the fallen Babylon that is very hard to examine or test. Probably many of them is out of context. His outline for what is the SDA mission made no other conclusion but stating the 3angels. Not one sentence about the gospel of grace or to serve in the kingdom for the poor and disabled.
The PR situation made almost a comic situation when the church was almost looking like a TV studio where everything was directed by the producent (a branch of 3ABN). It was hard to belive it was a sabbath worship. Add to this that the fuses was burning out every tenth minute :-). But even this had it¥s explanation - Satan was causing all this problems...
Pray for the Eirich that their spiritual journey would not stop here, but grow into a more balanced and Pauline gospel.
/Dinolf |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 734
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 11:10 am: | |
Dear Dinolf, we will pray for guidance and growth for the Eirich, but much more for you as you walk the razor's edge every Sabbath. May God's grace be ever with you from day-to-day.
Belva |
|
