The book of James and the LRC

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

You're dismissing again.

Ohio, I am sympathetic to folks who have concerns about dissing the book of James.However, those concerns are irrational and unfounded. Not all words in the Bible are God's, that is clear, so on what basis is the book of James held to a different standard as if everything in it are God's words?

Concerns about dissing a book of the Bible are not "irrational and unfounded concerns." You have an errant thought about what is God's word. God's word is not just the red letter words of Jesus. God's word exhausts every avenue of thought and speech. God's word even includes the words of Satan and Judas. Imagine that!

I am not holding the book of James to a different standard. Matthew is God's word, and so is James, from the first word to the last.

Cassidy, I do wish you would apply your critiques of the book of James to the many writings of Lee instead. It was Lee who was not clear about God's New Testament Economy.

[Cassidy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Concerns about dissing a book of the Bible are not irrational and unfounded concerns. You have an errant thought about what is God's word. God's word is not just the red letter words of Jesus. God's word exhausts every avenue of thought and speech. God's word even includes the words of Satan and Judas. Imagine that!

I am not holding the book of James to a different standard. Matthew is God's word, and so is James, from the first word to the last.

Cassidy, I do wish you would apply your critiques of the book of James to the many writings of Lee instead. It was Lee who was not clear about God's New Testament Economy.

Igzy, I like your last question and will get to that. First, I want to address this point Ohio made as follows.

" God's word is not just the red letter words of Jesus"

What is your point here? I never said, suggested, nor remotey implied that. Are you trying to distract from the train of thought?

"God's word even includes the words of Satan and Judas. Imagine that!"

Let's clarify. All 66 books of the Bible are inspired by God and that includes every word from the first verse in Gen 1 to the last verse in Revelation. We call this Holy Writ the inspired Scripture or God's Word or the Bible.

The Scripture even includes words right out of Satan's mouth, it includes the vain and dark human counsel from Job's friends, it includes the uninspired ideas of Peter to forbid Jesus from going to the cross or his suggestion to make three tents for Jesus, Moses and Elijah. We can find thousands of such examples in the Bible where human thought, Satanic ideas, misguided opinions are expressed. Those few examples are sufficient to confirm that. The Bible even quotes books that were determined not inspired and not included in of the Canon of Scripture such as the book of Enoch quoted by Jude. These are not God's words though they are included in God's Word.

Now for some reason you want to treat the book of James as if it could not possibly contain something other than God's words. Recall, I did not say James is not inspired nor did I say that the book is not part of God's Word (capital as in the Holy Writ of Scripture). As I said all 66....

James was one of the most pious brothers in the early christian church. He was faithful in martyrdom too. He will have his faithful reward. However, many things in the book of James were not God's words. We also know from the scripture and from history that there were problems from Jewish christian teachers and leaders. Even Peter was intimidated and withdrew from eating with the Gentiles when some "came from James". Paul openly confronted Peter for this and this also indicates there was an issue.

The book is there for a good reason. I have not torn it out of my Bible and I read it too. Unlike Luther who thought it should never have been included at all, Witness Lee taught it has its proper place and of course it does. Like many passages that serve to instruct us by command, encouragement, exhortation, or contrast the book of James accomplishes that.

Yet, there is no logical nor biblical basis for holding the irrational belief that every word in the book of James, all of them without exception, are all also God's words.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Igzy, I like your last question and will get to that. First, I want to address this point Ohio made as follows.

" God's word is not just the red letter words of Jesus"

What is your point here? I never said, suggested, nor remotely implied that. Are you trying to distract from the train of thought?

No, brother Cassidy, it's you who have distracted us from the train of thought starting with your post #45.

We were discussing the ground of the church, and now we are picking up the pieces of this train wreck, needlessly defending the scriptures as the word of God.

Let me state again that the plain words of the book of James are surely God's word, but that Lee's speculations about the "ground of locality," so obviously missing from the plain text of the Bible, are merely the improvised teachings of man, promoted for selfish gain.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Yet, there is no logical nor biblical basis for holding the irrational belief that every word in the book of James, all of them without exception, are all also God's words.

As Igzy said, unless the Bible provides us with a guide on how to distinguish what is and is not "God's speaking" within His word then it is very irrational to make this judgment.

After being trained by WL I was under the impression that James was placed in the Bible as a test to see if we understood God's economy. How arrogant and idiotic is that? It treats WL's interpretation of the Bible as gospel and Bible itself as a red headed step child. However, I was never able to find even the slightest hint that this was so. True, the passage in Galatians does state clearly that James is off, but this error could be the basis for a repentance and a vision expressed in the book of not having the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons.

Paul had a failure that was the basis for his vision of the Body. Are we to say that what James did was more heinous than Paul? (Paul persecuted saints unto the death which led to his vision that they were the Body of Christ, hence his sight couldn't be restored until one of these saints laid hands on him).

Peter had a failure that was the basis for his vision. (He denied the Lord to his shame, so that when the Lord spoke to him later in the dream he feared to deny Him again).

Referring to Galatians only supports that James had a critical vision, similar to Paul and Peter. An assertion that is supported by the clear word of the Bible which refers to the Lord appearing to James (1Cor 15:7). So when WL says that James doesn't have a clear vision he is directly contradicting the word of God. The Book of Galatians helps us to realize how critical this vision of not having the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons is. An error that is clearly manifested in the LRC. Instead of despising the word of God why not receive it in meekness?

Who better to have this vision and share this vision of not having the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons than the brother of Jesus?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

After being trained by WL I was under the impression that James was placed in the Bible as a test to see if we understood God's economy. How arrogant and idiotic is that? It treats WL's interpretation of the Bible as gospel and Bible itself as a red headed step child. However, I was never able to find even the slightest hint that this was so. True, the passage in Galatians does state clearly that James is off, but this error could be the basis for a repentance and a vision expressed in the book of not having the faith of our Lord Jesus with respect of persons.

WL loved to point out the various failures of the men of God in the Bible -- from James to Barnabas to Apollos to Noah to Peter etc. -- yet never once did he ever own up to his own failures which have robbed and stumbled the saints and slandered the prophets whom God raised up to rebuke him. WL loved to keep the saints wondering which Psalm was the word of God, while no one spent the time to examine Lee's books to determine which was merely human sentiment. Most people call this hypocrisy. Some call it criminal.

Cassidy balked when I mentioned the red-letter words of Jesus being the only words of God, but where does his "inquiry" end? Is Biblical history, e.g. Kings and Chronicles, the word of God? Cassidy says all scripture is inspired by God, but all scripture is not God's word. Then can God only speak to us thru His own words in the Bible? How many times in history has the Spirit of God convicted His children using James' word, "faith without works is dead?"

[Cal]

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.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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

But isn't this a case in point? UntoHim and others argued that those in the LRC are told what to think. Doesn't Cassidy reasoning here support that assertion?

[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.

[Cal]

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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

Here is my 50,000' view. 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.

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.

James said, "whoever keeps the whole law, yet stumbles in one point, has become guilty of all." (2.10)

That doesn't sound like an exhortation that Christians must keep the law. In fact, it sounds like the opposite.

Please come down to earth and provide some scripture to support your view.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Cassidy

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.

Witness Lee, Life Study of James, Chapter 10 Sect 3
To say, “If the Lord wills,” is rather objective and is quite much according to the tone of the Old Testament. But to be led of the Spirit, to walk in the Spirit, and to do what our spirit constrains us to do are subjective and are much more according to the New Testament.

"I certainly have no intention of belittling James or his Epistle. However, I must truthfully point out that after many years studying this book, I have learned that this Epistle is very Jewish and has a strong color, tone, taste, and atmosphere of the Old Testament. If we did not have the fourteen Epistles of Paul, we might be influenced by the book of James to go back to Judaism. Although we appreciate and need James’ emphasis on practical Christian perfection, we still need to be very clear that much of his Epistle has the tone, color, and atmosphere of the Old Testament."

This is WL's take on the expression "If the Lord wills" in the book of James, chapter 4. It is a good example of how WL belittles the book. The burden of James is clearly for those having trouble making the transition from the OT to the NT (it is written "to the 12 tribes in the dispersion"). So the governing principle here might be Paul's word in
1Cor
9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

This is clearly a lesson that WL did not learn. He feels that it "belittles" the book that the book is "Jewish" and has the taste of the Old Testament.

So then the next question is "who understood Paul better, Witness Lee or James?"

Perhaps one reason the book of James is in the Bible is because people may think they understand Paul when they really don't.

Perhaps, instead of "not intending to belittle James" it might have been better if he had "intended to learn from James". The arrogance of this "Bible teacher" is repulsive.