Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassidy
Igzy,
Here is my 50,000' view.
Witness Lee had many glowing things to say about the book of James and those may be found in the footnotes on the RcV for anyone interested in looking into the matter.
The book of James is like other books, some more, some less, in that it contains things that are God's speaking and things that are not. One can argue about specifics but there are some things which are obviously not God's speaking such as Peter's speaking, Satan's speaking in Gen 3, Job's friends. Another example is the quoting of the uninspired as Holy Writ book of Enoch in Jude.
The things that are not considered God's speaking are very specific and they have to do with keeping the law. James apparently held a view that Christians must keep the law. That is a mixture for we know very clearly from Paul's writing that keeping the law is not in a believer's remit. That mixture about the law is recorded there for good reason and we can see the negative results in the book of Acts and Galatians and the problems that the mixture created.
To regard the book of James as somehow exempt from other books in the Bible which have a portions that are not God's speaking is not rational or logical.
|
Well, again, you are blurring the distinction between historical record and direct teaching to try to hold your point together.
An example of historical record that does not constitute teaching is when in Acts 1:26 the disciples cast lots (dice) to choose the successor to Judas. Does the fact that is part of the inspired record imply that their lot casting was inspired? Not necessarily. In fact, most believe that practice was improper, but regardless that's how Matthias was selected. (This is an example of why pattern theology (the basis of the local ground) is a little dicey (pun intended).)
But a direct teaching is something else. I believe we should take those as instructive and inspired as much as we can.
When you say that Christians need not keep the law, the question is what do you mean by "keep the law." Do you mean ceremonial law, civil law, or moral law? If the first two, I agree. If the last, I disagree. Jesus himself said that none of the law would pass away. But since Paul said ceremonial law had been done away with, we can conclude that's not the law Jesus was referring to. Since civil law governed a culture so foreign to ours that it cannot be followed specifically, we don't need to keep it. Though we can gain general wisdom from it.
But the moral law continues. Adultery was wrong 3000 years ago, and it is wrong now. We need to keep that law.
So James was not wrong to say we need to keep the law. What's wrong is interpreting what he said to include the ceremonial and civil law, and then using that to say he was off in some way. Unfortunately, that's what you and WL are doing.
The perfect law of liberty is the moral law. It is the truth that sets your free. Of course, the Spirit is the reality of truth of the law.