tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post4328325162919522167..comments2023-07-02T22:13:53.050+12:00Comments on Theo Geek: The Three WaysAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-61385852504551008842007-12-05T11:49:00.000+13:002007-12-05T11:49:00.000+13:00I take the view that James is defending Paul's vie...I take the view that James is defending Paul's view against misunderstanding.<BR/><BR/>James highlights the fact that these people have taken 'pistis' to God to mean "belief in the existence of one God". This is an easy mistake to make because 'pistis + proposition' means belief in that proposition whereas 'pistis + person' means steadfast loyalty to that person. This is the exact mistake made by many modern Christians.<BR/><BR/>James complains that these people have disconnected faithfulness from works, and that you can't validly do that, and points to the incident of Abraham sacrificing Isaac (which was proverbially famous within Judaism) where Abraham proved his faithfulness through his action.<BR/><BR/>Thus I see James as saying "if you have a correct understanding of 'pistis', you will see that it implies and cannot be separated from action".<BR/><BR/>In my view this agrees with Paul, who says his goal is the promotion of "the obedience of faithfulness" (Rom 1:5, 16:26) and who talks sometimes about justification by faithfulness and other times about how God will give a positive judgment to those who "do good" (eg Rom 2:6-10, Gal 6:9, 2 Cor 5:10) etc.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-2977620271927535632007-12-05T11:22:00.000+13:002007-12-05T11:22:00.000+13:00OK, so I suppose James is writing to people who ha...OK, so I suppose James is writing to people who had misunderstood Paul's teaching in more or less the way that conservative protestants now misunderstand it? That makes sense. 2:19 shows that some people even then thought "faith" meant having the correct theology - and James corrects them. The misunderstanding may be ancient, but it may still be a misunderstanding!Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-87698192852097412072007-12-05T09:15:00.000+13:002007-12-05T09:15:00.000+13:00I would say in James that they are distinguished b...I would say in James that they are distinguished but related. He denies that it is possible to have proper faith without works.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-84735148943387190652007-12-05T07:17:00.000+13:002007-12-05T07:17:00.000+13:00So, what would you make of James 2:14-26, in which...So, what would you make of James 2:14-26, in which faith and works are explicitly contrasted?Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-31895179874920171572007-12-04T15:58:00.000+13:002007-12-04T15:58:00.000+13:00Sure, I'll post it tomorrow.Sure, I'll post it tomorrow.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01904922191977808104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7760102.post-34581843670248039492007-12-04T05:35:00.000+13:002007-12-04T05:35:00.000+13:00I am intrigued to hear you say that proposal #3 be...I am intrigued to hear you say that proposal #3 better reflects the ante-Nicene Fathers. May I encourage you to write a post on this subject.Striderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07859685939890312325noreply@blogger.com