The book of James and the LRC

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Cassidy, your whole line of thinking is off-base and reflects very poor reasoning.

Just because certain things which do not reflect God's nature are recorded in the Bible as matters of record, it does not therefore follow that a whole book of direct teaching could in the same manner not reflect God's nature.

Things that are said or done in a biblical retelling of history are one thing. Direct teaching and decree are something else.

We have to surmise that when a writer of a book of the Bible, especially a NT book, in the first person makes a direct declaration of truth and decree then that declaration reflects God's thought, nature and command.

What you are doing is, again, a form of equivocation. You are mixing multiple meanings of "inspired." Yes, the entire telling of a story is inspired. No, Peter's actual claiming the Jesus should not go to the cross was not inspired. But the telling of the story and the overall lesson the story is trying to teach us is inspired. But when it comes to direct teaching, we have to conclude it is inspired, whether Solomon taught it or James taught it.

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 in the book of James 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 mixture created.

To regard the book of James as somehow exempt from the same considerations as other books in the Bible, that is, having parts that are not God's speaking is not rational or logical.