[cheekopekman]

Exactly! We can't make generalizations about pharisees and tar every single one of them with the same brush. There are self-righteous pharisees with an elephantine ego and there are unpretentious, down-to-earth pharisees with a healthy ego.

For most of us, however, the word 'pharisee' has negative connotations. We read in Luke 18:9-14 that the Pharisee was self-centered, a characteristic of self-righteousness. He trusted in his own righteousness, however illusory; he "prayed with himself" (verse 11), warped up in his own words instead of directing his prayers and supplications to God. The pharisee felt superior to others, namely the tax collector praying nearby. Self-righteous people are so wrapped up in their lives that they degrade and disdain everyone else. Despising others stem from the practice of comparing ourselves with them.

The Pharisee thanked God for making him different from the tax collector, but this sort of comparison is unscriptural. He must have used a tailor-made set of rules to justify his righteousness, mostly a list of negative behaviors he didn't engage in - instead of a list of positive practices. He wasn't unjust, he wasn't prone to vice like gambling, greed; didn't beat his wife, didn't commit adultery, extortion, etc. Plus he believed his biweekly fasting, faithful tithing and his living in compliance with his little list of rules reinforced his righteousness.

Jesus was sharply critical of the sin of hypocrisy, esp in the clergy of His day - the scribes and pharisees. On almost every occasion where Jesus is found rebuking hypocrisy in the N T, His words are directed against the clergy. It is the clergy He addresses in the most stinging terms, saying: "Woe
unto you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites!"

Why does Christ take such a stern stance against hypocrisy? In His encounter with sinful people, we find Him speaking with gentleness and tenderness.
But when He confronts the hypocrites, the tone of His remarks turn sharp. He spoke of the clergy of His day as analogous to whited mausoleums, painted white on the outside but inside filled with dead men's bones.

Maybe it has something to do with the considerable damage hypocrisy causes. One hypocrite can cause the loss not only of his own credibility but the
credibility of his brethren and all they stand for. Jesus warned of leading the "little ones astray" while Paul spoke of people blaspheming because of the bad conduct of the church. When the fraud of the hypocrite is exposed, many may be hurt, disappointed, and disillusioned.

There's no denying that hypocrisy, as a fraud, does exist in the church. But not all pharisees of yore and not all modern-day clergy, ministers are hypocrites. Because all Christians sin does not mean that all Christians are hypocrites. There are hypocrites in the church but the church is not full of hypocrites.

Agree with you lah!  Many modern Christians are also hypocrites lah! Woe to them lah!

[S I M T A N]

Agree with you lah!  Many modern Christians are also hypocrites lah! Woe to them lah!

Actually, I feel that virtually all of us are hypocrites of sorts to some degree. Fraud or the lie of any kind are forms of hypocrisy. We're practicing hypocrisy when we pad our resume, bills, expense account, answer, etc. or twist the figures a bit on our income tax form. When we cheat on an exam in school, we're giving a fraudulent account of our knowledge to the grader. When we seek to present a public image of ourselves that's better than we're, we play the game of the hypocrite.

Now are all ministers hypocrites? Clergypersons are often singled out as being the most hypocritical of all people. The church pastor is often required to preach about the holiness of God and perfect obedience long before he himself is perfectly obedient. I can imagine he has to live with high expectations from his congregation.

Obviously, to preach at a higher level than he performs isn't hypocrisy, but to claim a higher level of performance than he has attained is hypocrisy. I don't think there's any minister in the world who practices perfectly what he preaches. So if the pastor only could preach about what he himself has mastered, he would have precious little to preach about. Ministers face enormous pressure to exhibit a higher level of righteousness than they've attained, and the temptation to fake a kind of piety that isn't genuine is a great one. That's one of the most difficult dimensions of being a minister. Indeed, the preacher's job of "practicing what you preach" isn't as easy as ABC.

Some disbelievers are wont to criticise Christians sinning. They reason within themselves, "That fella professes to be a Christian. Christians aren't supposed to sin, and therefore he's a hypocrite." They assume a Christian is one who claims he doesn't sin. In reality, the opposite is true. For a Christian to be a Christian, he must first be a sinner. Being a sinner is a prerequisite for being a church member.

The Christian church is one of the few organizations in the world that requires an acknowledgment of sin as a condition for membership. In a sense, the church has fewer hypocrites than any institution because by definition the church is a haven for sinners. If the church had claimed to be a refuge for perfect or holy people, then her claim would be hypocritical. No such claim is made by the church. Still, Christians are branded hypocrites. Remember how Oyk, who had pulled a vanishing act, countered this statement from the critics?

[cheekopekman]

Actually, I feel that virtually all of us are hypocrites of sorts to some degree. Fraud or the lie of any kind are forms of hypocrisy. We're practicing hypocrisy when we pad our resume, bills, expense account, answer, etc. or twist the figures a bit on our income tax form. When we cheat on an exam in school, we're giving a fraudulent account of our knowledge to the grader. When we seek to present a public image of ourselves that's better than we're, we play the game of the hypocrite.

Now are all ministers hypocrites? Clergypersons are often singled out as being the most hypocritical of all people. The church pastor is often required to preach about the holiness of God and perfect obedience long before he himself is perfectly obedient. I can imagine he has to live with high expectations from his congregation.

Obviously, to preach at a higher level than he performs isn't hypocrisy, but to claim a higher level of performance than he has attained is hypocrisy. I don't think there's any minister in the world who practices perfectly what he preaches. So if the pastor only could preach about what he himself has mastered, he would have precious little to preach about. Ministers face enormous pressure to exhibit a higher level of righteousness than they've attained, and the temptation to fake a kind of piety that isn't genuine is a great one. That's one of the most difficult dimensions of being a minister. Indeed, the preacher's job of "practicing what you preach" isn't as easy as ABC.

Some disbelievers are wont to criticise Christians sinning. They reason within themselves, "That fella professes to be a Christian. Christians aren't supposed to sin, and therefore he's a hypocrite." They assume a Christian is one who claims he doesn't sin. In reality, the opposite is true. For a Christian to be a Christian, he must first be a sinner. Being a sinner is a prerequisite for being a church member.

The Christian church is one of the few organizations in the world that requires an acknowledgment of sin as a condition for membership. In a sense, the church has fewer hypocrites than any institution because by definition the church is a haven for sinners. If the church had claimed to be a refuge for perfect or holy people, then her claim would be hypocritical. No such claim is made by the church. Still, Christians are branded hypocrites. Remember how Oyk, who had pulled a vanishing act, countered this statement from the critics?

Christians are sinners saved by grace and we are imperfect people just like others lah!  You can never find a perfect church lah! No one is righteous, not even 1 lah! But Jesus told His disciples, "You must be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." Very high standards hard to achieve lah!

[Ali Imran]

Christians are sinners saved by grace and we are imperfect people just like others lah!  You can never find a perfect church lah! No one is righteous, not even 1 lah! But Jesus told His disciples, "You must be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." Very high standards hard to achieve lah!

According to whose standard? 

Paul or God? I ask because the standards are different. Paul's standard is like you've said, no one is righteous, not even one. If according to God's standard, many are deemed righteous, like the parents of John the Baptist pbuh. Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly - (Luke 1:6) 

So I must ask you the question. Whose standard do you follow?

[cheekopekman]

According to whose standard? 

Paul or God? I ask because the standards are different. Paul's standard is like you've said, no one is righteous, not even one. If according to God's standard, many are deemed righteous, like the parents of John the Baptist pbuh. Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly - (Luke 1:6) 

So I must ask you the question. Whose standard do you follow?

Good question lah, Ali!  "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Romans 3:10-12) "God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Everyone has turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Psalm 53:2-3) Not sure if my answer is helpful to you lah! Apostle Paul wrote an epistle to the Roman Church and quoted King David in Psalm 53:2-3. Paul interpreted David's message lah!

[Ali Imran]

Good question lah, Ali!  "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Romans 3:10-12) "God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Everyone has turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Psalm 53:2-3) Not sure if my answer is helpful to you lah! Apostle Paul wrote an epistle to the Roman Church and quoted King David in Psalm 53:2-3. Paul interpreted David's message lah!

That is why I clearly distinguished between the two different standards, one of Paul and the other of God.

Let me ask you in a different way. Do you believe the parents of John the Baptist were righteous people? If you say yes they were righteous people, you disbelieve Paul. If you want to believe Paul, you must say they were not righteous people, going against God who deemed them righteous people.

[cheekopekman]

That is why I clearly distinguished between the two different standards, one of Paul and the other of God.

Let me ask you in a different way. Do you believe the parents of John the Baptist were righteous people? If you say yes they were righteous people, you disbelieve Paul. If you want to believe Paul, you must say they were not righteous people, going against God who deemed them righteous people.

Let me read up on John the Baptist and his parents then come back to you lah, Ali!

[S I M T A N]

Haha, the theological dispute pitting Paul and James against each other over the question of whether man is justified by faith or works has extended to our forum talking shop. Theologians and scholars have cudgeled their brains for a better understanding of these problematic verses. I believe "disagreement" exists primarily because some have failed to read the Scriptures in context. As we laypeople come to understand what these passages by Paul and James actually mean in context, we see that the supposed contradiction between them is no contradiction after all.

Both are in agreement that believers are to produce evidence of their faith, not by obeying the unmodified law of Moses (as part of the Mosaic covenant) but by obeying the law of Christ (as part of the New Covenant). First of all, what is faith? Well, it's something we do rather than think with our mind or feel in our heart. It's to trust and obey; not just something to be professed in words, but practiced in deeds. "I'll show you my faith by what I do," says James (2:18). 

One is looking at the roots of salvation while the other is looking at the fruits of salvation. Both quoted from the same scripture, Gen 15:6, which says that Abraham "believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness (or justification)" But Paul said that justification comes "by the faith of Christ, not by the works of the law" (Gal 2:16) while James said that "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only (James 2:20-21, 23-24).

"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without work is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." Terms like faith and works can have more than one sense or application. When Paul spoke of the dichotomy between faith and works, what exactly did he mean? Ditto James. When we explore further, we find that Paul and James did use the terms in different ways and settings.

[cheekopekman]

Haha, the theological dispute pitting Paul and James against each other over the question of whether man is justified by faith or works has extended to our forum talking shop. Theologians and scholars have cudgeled their brains for a better understanding of these problematic verses. I believe "disagreement" exists primarily because some have failed to read the Scriptures in context. As we laypeople come to understand what these passages by Paul and James actually mean in context, we see that the supposed contradiction between them is no contradiction after all.

Both are in agreement that believers are to produce evidence of their faith, not by obeying the unmodified law of Moses (as part of the Mosaic covenant) but by obeying the law of Christ (as part of the New Covenant). First of all, what is faith? Well, it's something we do rather than think with our mind or feel in our heart. It's to trust and obey; not just something to be professed in words, but practiced in deeds. "I'll show you my faith by what I do," says James (2:18). 

One is looking at the roots of salvation while the other is looking at the fruits of salvation. Both quoted from the same scripture, Gen 15:6, which says that Abraham "believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness (or justification)" But Paul said that justification comes "by the faith of Christ, not by the works of the law" (Gal 2:16) while James said that "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only (James 2:20-21, 23-24).

"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without work is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." Terms like faith and works can have more than one sense or application. When Paul spoke of the dichotomy between faith and works, what exactly did he mean? Ditto James. When we explore further, we find that Paul and James did use the terms in different ways and settings.

Well said lah, bro!

[Ali Imran]

Well said lah, bro!

Paul said you only need faith and no need to obey the law. James disagreed. James said you need faith and you must also obey the law. 

Clearly, there was a disagreement. How would Jesus pbuh rule on the disagreement? Jesus would say Paul was wrong and James was right.

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:19

[cheekopekman]

Paul said you only need faith and no need to obey the law. James disagreed. James said you need faith and you must also obey the law. 

Clearly, there was a disagreement. How would Jesus pbuh rule on the disagreement? Jesus would say Paul was wrong and James was right.

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:19

Disagreements and arguments were very common during those days among the Christians lah!  Even during Jesus' times, His disciples never stopped arguing and quarrelling lah! James and other apostles were still very steep and deep in the Law but Paul's stand was on the grace of God, not those legalistically binding laws lah! That's why they couldn't agree that Paul was a disciple of Jesus lah!

[Ali Imran]

Disagreements and arguments were very common during those days among the Christians lah!  Even during Jesus' times, His disciples never stopped arguing and quarrelling lah! James and other apostles were still very steep and deep in the Law but Paul's stand was on the grace of God, not those legalistically binding laws lah! That's why they couldn't agree that Paul was a disciple of Jesus lah!

The dispute is not about the grace of God. It was about obedience to the law. Paul said no need. James said must.

[cheekopekman]

The dispute is not about the grace of God. It was about obedience to the law. Paul said no need. James said must.

Do you know what the dispute was about leh?  What's so big deal that Paul must see James at the Jerusalem Council leh?

[Ali Imran]

Do you know what the dispute was about leh?  What's so big deal that Paul must see James at the Jerusalem Council leh?

Obedience to the law is the path to salvation. Paul said no need to be obedient to the law. Is that a big deal?

[S I M T A N]

Paul said you only need faith and no need to obey the law. James disagreed. James said you need faith and you must also obey the law. 

Clearly, there was a disagreement. How would Jesus pbuh rule on the disagreement? Jesus would say Paul was wrong and James was right.

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:19

Let's look at the connection between faith and works. Paul and James quoted from the same scripture, Gen 15:6, which says that Abraham "believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness (or justification)." Paul said that justification comes "by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law" (Gal 2:16). James, however, put the cat among the pigeons when he wrote "..by works a man is justified, and not by faith only (Jas 2:24).

This seems like a direct contradiction of Paul's teaching by those who have a phobia about "works," notably Luther, who was one of the most vocal sceptics, as he dismissed James' letter as a "right strawy epistle," and he later made "By faith alone" one of the key slogans of the Protestant Reformation.

It's clear that Paul is talking about works of the law (any human activity) done to earn salvation (which is a big no-no) while James is talking about works of faith (continual works of faith) to receive salvation (thus ensuring a continual supply of saving grace). While Paul is stressing the root of justification (faith), James is stressing the fruit of justification (works). But each man acknowledges both.

After affirming that we're saved by grace through faith" (Eph 2:8,9), Paul adds, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). Again, right after declaring that it's "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us," Paul urges that "those who have believed in God should be careful to maintains good works" (Eph 2:8).

When James says that we've been born again and justified by faith, he doesn't think that we're born again by our works. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. He was dealing with errorists who said that if they had faith they didn't need to show their love by a life of faith (2:14-17). James countered this error by teaching that true, saving faith is alive, showing itself to be so by deeds of love (James 2:18,26). The author of James taught that justification is by faith alone and also that faith is never alone but shows itself to be alive by good deeds that express a believer's thanks to God for the free gift of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ.

In summary, there's no conflict between James and Paul. They each have a different focus, a different question they're answering, a different error they're correcting. These two Apostles in fact taught a harmonious view of the gospel of Jesus Christ, albeit to different audiences with different circumstances.

[S I M T A N]

Obedience to the law is the path to salvation. Paul said no need to be obedient to the law. Is that a big deal?

The idea that we can save ourselves by our own good works or moral efforts is common to most other religions, including yours. Hence, I can understand your great insistence of the need to be obedient to the law and your rejection of being saved by grace through faith in Christ. In Christianity, it's just as impossible to separate faith and work as it is to separate heat and light from fire.

[cheekopekman]

Let's look at the connection between faith and works. Paul and James quoted from the same scripture, Gen 15:6, which says that Abraham "believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness (or justification)." Paul said that justification comes "by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law" (Gal 2:16). James, however, put the cat among the pigeons when he wrote "..by works a man is justified, and not by faith only (Jas 2:24).

This seems like a direct contradiction of Paul's teaching by those who have a phobia about "works," notably Luther, who was one of the most vocal sceptics, as he dismissed James' letter as a "right strawy epistle," and he later made "By faith alone" one of the key slogans of the Protestant Reformation.

It's clear that Paul is talking about works of the law (any human activity) done to earn salvation (which is a big no-no) while James is talking about works of faith (continual works of faith) to receive salvation (thus ensuring a continual supply of saving grace). While Paul is stressing the root of justification (faith), James is stressing the fruit of justification (works). But each man acknowledges both.

After affirming that we're saved by grace through faith" (Eph 2:8,9), Paul adds, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). Again, right after declaring that it's "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us," Paul urges that "those who have believed in God should be careful to maintains good works" (Eph 2:8).

When James says that we've been born again and justified by faith, he doesn't think that we're born again by our works. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. He was dealing with errorists who said that if they had faith they didn't need to show their love by a life of faith (2:14-17). James countered this error by teaching that true, saving faith is alive, showing itself to be so by deeds of love (James 2:18,26). The author of James taught that justification is by faith alone and also that faith is never alone but shows itself to be alive by good deeds that express a believer's thanks to God for the free gift of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ.

In summary, there's no conflict between James and Paul. They each have a different focus, a different question they're answering, a different error they're correcting. These two Apostles in fact taught a harmonious view of the gospel of Jesus Christ, albeit to different audiences with different circumstances.

Good explanation lah, bro!

[cheekopekman]

That is why I clearly distinguished between the two different standards, one of Paul and the other of God.

Let me ask you in a different way. Do you believe the parents of John the Baptist were righteous people? If you say yes they were righteous people, you disbelieve Paul. If you want to believe Paul, you must say they were not righteous people, going against God who deemed them righteous people.

Let me read up on John the Baptist and his parents then come back to you lah, Ali!

OK Ali, I found the parents of John the Baptist in Luke 1:5-25 and 57-66 lah!  But it's so long to quote every word lah! In short, both Zechariah and Elizabeth were from the priestly line lah! "Both of them were upright in the sight of God..." (1:6) Do you equal upright with righteous?

[Ali Imran]

OK Ali, I found the parents of John the Baptist in Luke 1:5-25 and 57-66 lah!  But it's so long to quote every word lah! In short, both Zechariah and Elizabeth were from the priestly line lah! "Both of them were upright in the sight of God..." (1:6) Do you equal upright with righteous?

It's a choice of words. Most Bibles translate it to "righteous". Only 1 or 2 other Bible translate it to "upright".

Paul was trying to tell people why it is pointless to keep the law. No matter how hard you try, you will never be 100% righteous. That's probably why he said no one is righteous, to push his idea of sola fide. Jesus already said the one who comes after him with this idea "will be called least in the kingdom of heaven".

Yet, you still believe him and his idea of sola fide.

[cheekopekman]

It's a choice of words. Most Bibles translate it to "righteous". Only 1 or 2 other Bible translate it to "upright".

Paul was trying to tell people why it is pointless to keep the law. No matter how hard you try, you will never be 100% righteous. That's probably why he said no one is righteous, to push his idea of sola fide. Jesus already said the one who comes after him with this idea "will be called least in the kingdom of heaven".

Yet, you still believe him and his idea of sola fide.

Thank you for your reply lah! Paul said that Peter was with the Gentiles, non-Jews, before men from James came, but when they came Peter chose to sit with the Jews (Galatians 2:11-16) lah! That's why Paul decided to see James to question him lah! Christians are saved by grace of God, not by the Law lah! That's Paul's stand on his gospel truth lah!

[Ali Imran]

Let's look at the connection between faith and works. Paul and James quoted from the same scripture, Gen 15:6, which says that Abraham "believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness (or justification)." Paul said that justification comes "by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law" (Gal 2:16). James, however, put the cat among the pigeons when he wrote "..by works a man is justified, and not by faith only (Jas 2:24).

This seems like a direct contradiction of Paul's teaching by those who have a phobia about "works," notably Luther, who was one of the most vocal sceptics, as he dismissed James' letter as a "right strawy epistle," and he later made "By faith alone" one of the key slogans of the Protestant Reformation.

It's clear that Paul is talking about works of the law (any human activity) done to earn salvation (which is a big no-no) while James is talking about works of faith (continual works of faith) to receive salvation (thus ensuring a continual supply of saving grace). While Paul is stressing the root of justification (faith), James is stressing the fruit of justification (works). But each man acknowledges both.

After affirming that we're saved by grace through faith" (Eph 2:8,9), Paul adds, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:10). Again, right after declaring that it's "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us," Paul urges that "those who have believed in God should be careful to maintains good works" (Eph 2:8).

When James says that we've been born again and justified by faith, he doesn't think that we're born again by our works. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. He was dealing with errorists who said that if they had faith they didn't need to show their love by a life of faith (2:14-17). James countered this error by teaching that true, saving faith is alive, showing itself to be so by deeds of love (James 2:18,26). The author of James taught that justification is by faith alone and also that faith is never alone but shows itself to be alive by good deeds that express a believer's thanks to God for the free gift of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ.

In summary, there's no conflict between James and Paul. They each have a different focus, a different question they're answering, a different error they're correcting. These two Apostles in fact taught a harmonious view of the gospel of Jesus Christ, albeit to different audiences with different circumstances.

Your attempt at reconciling this apparent dispute in the NT between Paul and James is based on the premise that James wasn't referring to the work of the law. Your premise is inaccurate. James referred to obedience to the law or God's commandments as the criterion, together with faith. Abraham's obedience to God's command was cited, proving once and for all that faith alone wasn't enough. 

Let's say you believe God asks you to do something. Is having that faith enough to make you a righteous person? Is that faith enough to earn your salvation? No, definitely not. Not yet anyway. You must also do that something and if you didn't do it, you have disobeyed God. 

Perhaps that will jot your memory of a saying from Jesus, on the importance of the Law. Without the Law, faith is pointless.

[S I M T A N]

Your attempt at reconciling this apparent dispute in the NT between Paul and James is based on the premise that James wasn't referring to the work of the law. Your premise is inaccurate. James referred to obedience to the law or God's commandments as the criterion, together with faith. Abraham's obedience to God's command was cited, proving once and for all that faith alone wasn't enough. 

Let's say you believe God asks you to do something. Is having that faith enough to make you a righteous person? Is that faith enough to earn your salvation? No, definitely not. Not yet anyway. You must also do that something and if you didn't do it, you have disobeyed God. 

Perhaps that will jot your memory of a saying from Jesus, on the importance of the Law. Without the Law, faith is pointless.

How could a small fry like me ever succeed in reconciling the theological dispute between Paul and James? I merely expanded the issue as seen from the vantage point of Scripture, with the accompanying biblical texts. In fact, copious scriptural quotes have been posted over the past few months to put us wise to the dichotomy between faith and works.

Yet you have continued to ignore the foundational truth of Christianity - that's salvation is received by grace through faith rather than achieved through works. This we know is antithetical to your Islamic beliefs. Not content to not acknowledge this core belief of Christianity, you're always harping on Christians' lawlessness, and lack of obedience and good works even after we'd laid stress on the need for maintaining good works after receiving salvation.

As mentioned earlier, it's just as impossible for us to separate faith and work as it is to separate heat and light from fire. Let me explain the issue in more simplified terms: The Bible says in order to enter the kingdom of heaven we must be born again (John 3:3). It doesn't say in order to enter the kingdom of heaven we must attend church and do good works. This doesn't mean people should not go to church nor do good works.

Yes, the Bible says for Christians to assemble together, and yes, the Bible shows us as our example Jesus going around doing good. The point is doing these things won't put us in the kingdom of heaven. We can't enter the kingdom of heaven based on what we do, but we do these things because we're part of God's kingdom. Our motivation is very important to God. He wants us to do what we do for Him out of a heart of love and sincere desire.

Simply put, works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life. Sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works. Jesus Himself accepted that faith was a "work" (John 6:29). Jesus and the apostolic Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of love.

[S I M T A N]

James referred to obedience to the law or God's commandments as the criterion, together with faith. Abraham's obedience to God's command was cited, proving once and for all that faith alone wasn't enough. 

Let's say you believe God asks you to do something. Is having that faith enough to make you a righteous person? Is that faith enough to earn your salvation? No, definitely not. Not yet anyway. You must also do that something and if you didn't do it, you have disobeyed God. 

Perhaps that will jot your memory of a saying from Jesus, on the importance of the Law. Without the Law, faith is pointless.

Let's examine how Abraham, a man who lived over 2 thousands years before the coming of Christ, obtained salvation. Paul was convinced that only through Jesus Christ could anyone escape God's judgment. "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to anyone who believe, to the Jews first and also to the Greek." (Rom 1:16")

This message of Paul enraged his fellow Jews, who were convinced that their whole-hearted commitment to the Jewish law and rituals was sufficient to put them in a right relationship with God. The Jews pointed to Abraham, the deeply-revered father of their nation, as a supreme example of someone who achieved righteousness (a right standing with God) through his good works. "But wait a minute," Paul warns. "What does the OT have to say about Abraham's righteousness? Was it obtained by good works or by faith?" If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

Paul is speaking about justification before God while James is talking about justification before humans. This is indicated by the fact that James  stressed that we should "show" (2:18) our faith. It must be something that can be seen by others in "works." (2:18-20) James further acknowledged that Abraham was justified before God by faith, not works. "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." When he adds that Abraham was "justified by works," he's speaking of what Abraham did that could be seen by people, namely offer his son Isaac on the altar. (2:21-22)

Paul states that Abraham's salvation wasn't obtained through his good works, as the Jews believed, but through his faith. He went to great lengths to demonstrate that Abraham's works and rituals weren't sufficient to make him right with God. Even the animal sacrifices commanded later under the Mosaic law were powerless to remove the permanent stain of people's sins. "It's impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." (Heb 10:4) The animal sacrifices in the OT simply serves as constant reminders to the Israelites of their need for a once-for-all solution to their sin problem. The blood of Jesus Christ is the only "spiritual detergent" that can remove the stain of sin. When Abraham demonstrated faith in the revelation God gave him, God exchanged that faith for righteousness - a right standing with God. The bill for righteousness was paid by Christ.

[Ali Imran]

Yet you have continued to ignore the foundational truth of Christianity - that's salvation is received by grace through faith rather than achieved through works. This we know is antithetical to your Islamic beliefs. Not content to not acknowledge this core belief of Christianity, you're always harping on Christians' lawlessness, and lack of obedience and good works even after we'd laid stress on the need for maintaining good works after receiving salvation.

You cannot be saying I am ignoring that when I am here having a discourse with you on the foundational doctrines of Christianity. I think what you mean to say is, "Yet you have continued to disbelieve the foundational truth of Christianity".

I have no problem believing the "salvation is received by grace" part. We Muslims believe the same. Our Lord is most gracious. We always say the Bismillah, which means "In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful". Our good deeds don't merit Paradise. We enter Paradise because our most gracious Lord is pleased with us as we are pleased with our Lord.

I reject Sola Fide (faith only), a teaching brought by Paul, which is going against the foundational truth of Judaism, the religion of Jesus, the son of Mary, peace be upon him.

[Ali Imran]

Paul is speaking about justification before God while James is talking about justification before humans. This is indicated by the fact that James  stressed that we should "show" (2:18) our faith. It must be something that can be seen by others in "works." (2:18-20) James further acknowledged that Abraham was justified before God by faith, not works. "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." When he adds that Abraham was "justified by works," he's speaking of what Abraham did that could be seen by people, namely offer his son Isaac on the altar. (2:21-22)

What if it is God who is asking you to show your faith?

[Ali Imran]

Cheekopekman.

Do you believe faith is a gift from God? Yes you must because the Bible will tell you that.

So use your logical sense. Imagine God giving you the faith that you must do something. Are you already right? Or you must first do that something before you can be right?

[pinkpanther]

No.It is not true

Moses was the one who advised Muhammad to ask Allah to reduce the number of namaz from 50 to 5. So does that mean Moses was more intelligent and wiser than both Allah and Muhammad? So shouldnt Moses be considered the true prophet instead of Muhammad?

So Allah is not all knowing because he puts himself on the table for negotiations!

[S I M T A N]

You cannot be saying I am ignoring that when I am here having a discourse with you on the foundational doctrines of Christianity. I think what you mean to say is, "Yet you have continued to disbelieve the foundational truth of Christianity".

I have no problem believing the "salvation is received by grace" part. We Muslims believe the same. Our Lord is most gracious. We always say the Bismillah, which means "In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful". Our good deeds don't merit Paradise. We enter Paradise because our most gracious Lord is pleased with us as we are pleased with our Lord.

I reject Sola Fide (faith only), a teaching brought by Paul, which is going against the foundational truth of Judaism, the religion of Jesus, the son of Mary, peace be upon him.

For me, ignoring or disbelieving the core of the Christian message amounts to the same thing, though not written directly. Atheists, heretics, and liberal theologians have been known for rejecting the belief that personal faith in Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Consider how salvation is obtained. The Bible teaches that salvation is a gift given by a gracious God to all who receive it by faith. The Qu'ran teaches that people obtain salvation if they submit themselves to Allah and His laws, and their good works outweigh their bad works. (Surah 23:102-3)

Islam and Judaism requires adherence to a list of dos and don'ts to satisfy their God. Their followers keep God's commandments and do good deeds to stay in God's good graces. These various religions all share a common denominator: it's man who's responsible for appeasing God or the gods through rituals, self-improvement, or rule-keeping. Their concept of "grace" is on a collision course with the church teaching of grace.

The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that man is morally incapable of earning his way into the kingdom of God and that our noblest efforts at self-reformation or human virtue fall short of what God's holiness requires. The apostle Paul states it succinctly when he declares, "No flesh shall be justified by the works of the law" (Rom 3:20). "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:7). The NT describes us as being "flesh" by nature. If God deals with us ultimately on the basis of justice alone, we will perish. We're born in a fallen state of corruption and bondage to sin. Because we're fallen we need grace. The unique message of Christianity is that Jesus Christ alone is capable of offering a sufficient sacrifice to atone for our sins that have offended a holy God.

[Hope]

Moses was the one who advised Muhammad to ask Allah to reduce the number of namaz from 50 to 5. So does that mean Moses was more intelligent and wiser than both Allah and Muhammad? So shouldnt Moses be considered the true prophet instead of Muhammad?

So Allah is not all knowing because he puts himself on the table for negotiations!

Namaz  is not the correct word for Salah/Solat even though it is used by Muslim in South Asia.
Allah gave 50 times prayer to demonstrate how much we humanity owe him.
We owe him so much that 50 times prayer was considered fair obligation and even that would do nothing to repay Allah’s favour.


Quran 16:18”If you tried to count Allah’s blessings, you would never be able to number them. Surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

Moses became a prophet Before prophet Muhammad.He knew how difficult it was making Jews to adhere to commandments. Based on his experience with his followers, it is fair him to advise Prophet Muhammad to get 5 times prayers.

[Hope]

OK Ali, I found the parents of John the Baptist in Luke 1:5-25 and 57-66 lah!  But it's so long to quote every word lah! In short, both Zechariah and Elizabeth were from the priestly line lah! "Both of them were upright in the sight of God..." (1:6) Do you equal upright with righteous?

John the Baptist is called Prophet Yahya in Islam.
Mother of Jesus ,Mary and Prophet Yahya are cousins.
It mean Yahya was an uncle to Jesus.