R
RollTide1987
Guest
My best friend is the same way. He is a Christian but does not believe in religion itself. He firmly believes that we don’t need a Church, just a “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ.
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
But he probably believes fully in the bible - - and the bible speaks against this idea.
Of course, again this will get into how one understands “religion” and “church”.
Peace
James
I
Ignatius
Guest
You could point out to him that the King James Bible the Letter of James 1:27 says that religion before God and the Father is to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself undefiled from the world. Those things should be an intimate part of his"personal relationship" with God, assuming he wants to follow The Bible.
R
RollTide1987
Guest
He is of the idea that we are all part of the “invisible church” of Jesus Christ. Of course this idea falls apart when you bring up Matthew 18.
J
JRKH
Guest
Yes - and Acts and each of Paul’s letters and…
Jesus did not instruct us to tell it to an invisible church.
Acts 15 is not an invisible council
Each of Paul’s letters were written to a specific and visible community…
But again - some of this will get into how this person understands the terms “religion” or “church”. I’m that in their mind religion and church both equate in some way or another to “rules” (man made) and “ritual” (acts of “Law”) etc.
It is definitely possible to help this person but it will take time and patience.
Peace
James
R
RollTide1987
Guest
I’m in the process of trying to learn my faith so I can evangelize Protestants as well as properly answer their objections to the Church. Michael Voris has been a big help to me in that regard but I won’t be quite as militant as he is. I’m not a big believer in the Church of Nice but I am no St. Paul either. I can’t go around calling people stupid for refusing to adhere to Church teachings. Instead I am going to model myself after Pope St. Clement I. I’m going to show political restraint, but be firm enough to get my point across.
T
TxGodfollower
Guest
To which most would reply that James isn’t directed to Christians. "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings. " James 1:1. It was a letter written to Jews.
D
dmar198
Guest
Don’t forget James 2:1 – “My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.”
Still think it wasn’t written to Christians?
Also, should the messianic Jews have a religion, or a relationship with Jesus Christ? If both, is a religion good or bad? If bad, why should they have it? If good, why shouldn’t we?
T
TxGodfollower
Guest
Romans 10:12 “For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,”. Christ is Lord over all, even those that aren’t Christians.
D
dmar198
Guest
I think James 2:1, James 2:7, and James 5:14 are evidence that the Book of James was written to Christians. Do you think that is a reasonable interpretation? If not, do you think it is reasonable that James would write to non-Christians that “you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ”, that they must not “blaspheme that honorable name which was invoked over you,” and that they must “call for the elders of the church” and have them “pray over [you]…in the name of the Lord”?
T
TxGodfollower
Guest
James 2:1 is interesting, but there is a distinct contrast when compared to verses such as Colossians 1:4, 2:5 and Galatians 3:26 (“Faith IN Christ” compared to “Faith of Christ”). What the contrast means I’m not 100% sure, but it is noteworthy.
James 2:7: see Numbers 6:27, Deuteronomy 12, 14, 16 (where God says there will be a place where He puts his Name), Isaiah 4:1, Isaiah 48:9). Israel was called by God’s name.
James 5:14: See Acts 7:38 “This is he that was in the church in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on mount Sina, and with our fathers; who received the words of life to give unto us.”. Just because it say’s “Church” doesn’t mean it is referring to the Christian Church we know today.
J
JRKH
Guest
TxGodfollower,
I don’t think your original assertion that the letter of James was directed at “Jews” (read: Those not of faith in Christ). After all, why would the Holy Spirit include this letter in Holy Scripture if it were not directed at believers? I think it is fair to say that it was directed at those “Christians” who were of Jewish descent, many of whom would have still considered themselves Jewish at that time.
I believe that the resolution to the confusion lies somewhat in semantics and also in the different approaches taken when evangelizing Jews and Gentiles. The different groups would require somewhat different approaches, language and examples given their particular backgrounds and world views. This would explain the different flavors in the letters of each evangelist.
There is also the fact that the Church, in her early days, was trying to discern what to do about the “Law”. This is seen quite prominently in the issue of the so called “Judaizers”, in Paul’s confrontation with Peter (also a “law” thing), and ultimately, in Acts 15, the council at Jerusalem.
But ultimately we must remember that James is an integral part of “God’s holy word”, placed there by the Holy Spirit of God Himself. As such it has the same weight and the same truth as any of Paul’s letters regardless of who it was specifically addressed to.
So it behooves us all to be like the Bereans and to study and search so that we may understand even better how James and Paul fit together.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Peace
James
I don’t think your original assertion that the letter of James was directed at “Jews” (read: Those not of faith in Christ). After all, why would the Holy Spirit include this letter in Holy Scripture if it were not directed at believers? I think it is fair to say that it was directed at those “Christians” who were of Jewish descent, many of whom would have still considered themselves Jewish at that time.
I believe that the resolution to the confusion lies somewhat in semantics and also in the different approaches taken when evangelizing Jews and Gentiles. The different groups would require somewhat different approaches, language and examples given their particular backgrounds and world views. This would explain the different flavors in the letters of each evangelist.
There is also the fact that the Church, in her early days, was trying to discern what to do about the “Law”. This is seen quite prominently in the issue of the so called “Judaizers”, in Paul’s confrontation with Peter (also a “law” thing), and ultimately, in Acts 15, the council at Jerusalem.
But ultimately we must remember that James is an integral part of “God’s holy word”, placed there by the Holy Spirit of God Himself. As such it has the same weight and the same truth as any of Paul’s letters regardless of who it was specifically addressed to.
So it behooves us all to be like the Bereans and to study and search so that we may understand even better how James and Paul fit together.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
TxGodfollower,
I would be very interested in your thoughts on the matter of the view expressed in the Thread title.
What do you think is usually meant by such a statement. Surely it doesn’t mean one cloese themselves in their house and says to Jesus, “Me and Thee and the KJV”…I’m sure many such people have some sort of group affiliation…
or am I wrong???
I’d really like to gain some insight on this if you can help.
Thanks.
Peace
James
I would be very interested in your thoughts on the matter of the view expressed in the Thread title.
What do you think is usually meant by such a statement. Surely it doesn’t mean one cloese themselves in their house and says to Jesus, “Me and Thee and the KJV”…I’m sure many such people have some sort of group affiliation…
or am I wrong???
I’d really like to gain some insight on this if you can help.
Thanks.
Peace
James
T
TxGodfollower
Guest
James,
Just because something is in Scripture doesn’t mean it is direct doctrine for us. God commanding Noah to build an ark is Scripture, but isn’t doctrine for us so we aren’t building arks in our backyards. Also, God’s command to Adam and Eve to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil would be kinda pointless to us, and it would have been pointless to the Jews in the days of the Old Testament (I personally, would have burned the tree down, but that’s just me).
You make a good point on the effect a person’s background has an effect on how we reach out to them (1 Corinthians 9:20-22). That could be a part of the story; especially when you consider the effect that some pagan traditions tend to remain in Christian converts in 3rd world countries.
James is as true as any other book of the Bible; but that doesn’t mean it must play the same role in my life. I believe Leviticus is Scripture and True, but I don’t follow many of the rules it outlines, because it doesn’t apply to me as a Christian.
I gotta say, the ‘me and thee and the KJV’ got a LOL.
I believe that most people who would make a remark like that view religion as man reaching up towards God to ‘earn’ salvation. The is no way for man to achieve God’s standard. It is our relationship with God that saves us,
J
JRKH
Guest
hhmmmm - some good points. Of course the examples you give were all OT and thus old covenant - or they were specific commands given to specific individuals. I don’t see old Covenant Jews picking and choosing which parts of their Scripture applies to them personally - and I really don’t think that we, as Christians can do that with the NT.
But - Assuming you are correct and can pick and choose which books or teachings of the NT apply to you - how does one go about deciding that this book applies and another doesn’t. Your original idea was that James doesn’t apply because it is to the “twelve tribes” and thus was to the Jews (but obviously believing Jews)…Shall we discount Romans because we do not reside in Rome or previously worship Roman gods - or Corinthians because we do not live in Corinth?
I don’t mean to be trite…but the reasoning would be the same…
I am truly interested in how it is you believe one can discount one book or one teaching because one somehow discerns that it “should not play the same role in my life”…
Glad you liked it…
Thanks for this. So this has been your experience - that people somehow tie organized religion to “earning” salvation. Interesting…
Peace
James
I
idolatry
Guest
How do you get through to Baptists,
who think that a personal relationship with Jesus is enough
and believe in one mediator, instead of a church?
M
michaelhager
Guest
Well, technically Baptist is not a religion, it is a denomination of Christianity which is the religion.
Just to clarify, ClearWater…
Sorry, just couldn’t resist…
M
Midwest88
Guest
I don’t think that even makes sense – I mean, isn’t the person a Baptist? Unless he’s s secular Jew or something. Oh modernism. Logic escapes thee.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Catholicism is the nominal religion from which all others have de-nominated themselves.Well, technically Baptist is not a religion, it is a denomination of Christianity which is the religion.
Just to clarify, ClearWater…
Sorry, just couldn’t resist…
-Tim-
- Status