Quote:
Originally Posted by Zezima
No, the whole premise for his argument is the opening lines of the letter. James writes to the 12 tribes and . . .
Also, James didn’t receive the vision that Peter received in Acts 10 which was one of the main components to the acts 15 decision.
Just because James addresses just the Jews and not the gentiles is a weak argument and in my opinion doesn’t discredit the rest of the book.
James didn’t fit into the God’s Economy framework WL interpreted the Bible from, which is in hindsight a red flag. If your predisposed box you try to fit the Bible into doesn’t fit the Bible, maybe the box is wrong.
|
I think Z summarized the bulk of the issues well.
To me, the real issue is that outside of the Gospels and Acts, the writings were really not written to everyone. Not saying they were not to be applicable or meaningful to everyone, but that they were writing to a specific audience, not to everyone. And don't forget, outside of occasional references to the Gentiles (as dogs) and the Samaritans, the Gospels themselves do not really address anyone outside of Israel. Should we distrust them for it? Of course not.
As for the James v Paul controversy, it is really evidence of the problem of using the term "infallibility" to discuss it. What do we mean by infallible? That the original writings (which we no longer have) are perfect, but not clearly anything else? That our understanding of what the words we read (in our language, possibly with the help of biblical language scholars) mean is right and therefore part of what is infallible? (Has anyone bothered to see what Paul was telling those various letter recipients to do — works — as a result of the spiritual things that he told them? I think he might have written James' letter for him if he had half the inclination.)
If infallibility only applies to the words as originally written in their native language (at that time), then it is not very meaningful. We have so little of those writings. Even if you apply all the presumptions about how the scribes copied and recopied, when you get to the Septuagint, which was in Greek rather than Hebrew and/or Aramaic, there are passages that really do not say the same thing. Or hinted that it was the "breath" in the words that mattered, not the specific words.
In any case, it is an argument of faith, not of structure, grammar, linguistics, and so on.
Seems that if you believe in the God of Abrahan, Isaac, Jacob, Peter, James, John, etc., then the bible is what it says it is. It is "scripture," comes from the breath of God, and is profitable for teaching . . . . It is really not important that we determine that everything it says is literally, historically, scientifically, etc. true as we know things to be. It is only important that we approach it as the revelation of God in the manner in which he revealed himself. And that was in stages over centuries.
The whole James v Paul controversy is what being dogmatic about infallibility produces. It layers one set of presumptions about the scripture over it and declares anything that even hints at being different heretical. Paul seems to preach faith while James seems to contradict Paul and preach works. That is only true in an understanding of the scripture in which there is no place for works. Further, there is nothing in the letter from James denying that the salvation we receive is not based on the work of Jesus and not ourselves. But rather, having claimed to receive that salvation, the works we do, or fail to do, say a lot about our claim to having actually had faith to receive that salvation.
Most of the time that I see any actual use of "infallibility," it is not in reference to some doctrine about what the Bible is, but in reference to it as supporting doctrine X over doctrine Y. The "infallible" Word of God supports doctrine X, not doctrine Y. And in making that claim, the whole "infallibility of the Bible" ceases to be about the origins of the Bible and becomes about who has the correct understanding of the Bible.
While I do have a problem with any who want to claim real faith in Christ while dismissing part or all of the Bible as irrelevant, the understanding of or belief about the Bible is not a prerequisite for faith.
The only real infallibility of the scripture is that it correctly reveals God through people who were inspired to write (or tell) what was revealed to them at their time and place.