Question For The Christians Of The Board

[Sola_Fide]

What does this mean?

James 2:10

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

[Jamesiv1]

What does this mean?

James 2:2-13 KJV

For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment. And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, "Sit thou here in a good place"; and say to the poor, "Stand thou there" or "Sit here under my footstool."

Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

Hearken, my beloved brethren.

Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", ye do well. But if ye have respect to persons*, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

For he that said, "Do not commit adultery", said also, "Do not kill". Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.

Judge not, lest you be judged.

Being merciful is a good thing.



* "respect to persons" is most often translated in modern bibles as showing favoritism, prejudice or partiality

[Sola_Fide]

If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones.

Judge not, lest you be judged.

No. That's certainly not what it is talking about at all.

But, taking the verse as it stands, what hope do you have to stand before God on the last day if you've broke even one of God's laws?

Do you have hope?

[fisharmor]

Reading Scripture in context. What a great idea. Maybe it'll catch on.

[otherone]

But, taking the verse as it stands, what hope do you have to stand before God on the last day if you've broke even one of God's laws?

[Sola_Fide]

Reading Scripture in context. What a great idea. Maybe it'll catch on.

Great. Let's talk about the context. The context of James 2 is a warning against showing favoritism.

James2:8-11

If you really keep the royal law stated in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

Whoever keeps the whole Law but stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

So James is warning about showing favoritism to rich and important men as opposed to poor and less influential men. If you love your neighbor as yourself, you are following the law, but if you show favoritism, then you are convicted as a transgressor.

He goes on to say, if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, it doesn't matter that you didn't commit adultery, you still committed murder and are a lawbreaker.

That is why the principle that undergirds his entire point is: "Whoever keeps the whole Law but stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

So my question is: What do the people who call themselves Christians here think that God does to the ones who break His law. In fact, given the standard that James just annunciated, who can be saved? Who has ever not sinned and become a lawbreaker?

[ChristianAnarchist]

Ya, I believe we are ALL guilty of every sin (it says so). So next time you feel better than someone else because they did something you think you could never do, just remember we ALL fall short and it's only through divine forgiveness we can stand at all. This is one of the reasons I believe in universal salvation...

[Anti Federalist]

What does this mean?

James 2:10

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

God is as unjust as a typical $#@! cop?

[Sola_Fide]

Okay. What do mean by that?

What is the cross for?

I ask because there are several different ideas out there. Given the principle that God has wrath against sin, and He punishes lawbreakers if they've stumbled and broken even one law, how does the cross play in to that?

[Jamesiv1]

No. That's certainly not what it is talking about at all.

But, taking the verse as it stands, what hope do you have to stand before God on the last day if you've broke even one of God's laws?

Do you have hope?

Without more research, its difficult to say what he meant by, "keeping the whole law".

My gut says he is pointing out the obvious, odious burden of trying to observe 600+ Old Testament laws. Sounds a lot like "A Felony a Day", doesn't it?

I stand by my original interpretation.

[fisharmor]

So my question is: What do the people who call themselves Christians here think that God does to the ones who break His law. In fact, given the standard that James just annunciated, who can be saved? Who has ever not sinned and become a lawbreaker?

I don't do theology by dialectic.

I am perfectly content to spend the rest of my days reading the opinions of those who forsook Earthly things in their attempt to foster a better relationship with Christ.

[Sola_Fide]

Ya, I believe we are ALL guilty of every sin (it says so). So next time you feel better than someone else because they did something you think you could never do, just remember we ALL fall short and it's only through divine forgiveness we can stand at all. This is one of the reasons I believe in universal salvation...

I get that you are saying forgiveness, and I actually agree with that.

But there is a principle that is being expressed here. The principle is that God never ever ever adjusts the demands of His law. God will judge every man on the basis of His law. To be in God's presence, you must be holy as He is holy, you must be without sin.

So HOW does God show forgiveness to a man who is a lawbreaker, given the fact that He always requires a perfect lawkeeping from him?

[ChristianAnarchist]

I get that you are saying forgiveness, and I actually agree with that.

But there is a principle that is being expressed here. The principle is that God never ever ever adjusts the demands of His law. God will judge every man on the basis of His law. To be in God's presence, you must be holy as He is holy, you must be without sin.

So HOW does God show forgiveness to a man who is a lawbreaker, given the fact that He always requires a perfect lawkeeping from him?

"How"?? He just does. I don't claim to understand things that are above my comprehension level. I know (in my heart - sorry, sounds like a cop-out) that God forgives everyone. Seems the Bible even says so (I could look it up for you but I'm sure you've heard it). I believe that the Lamb took every mans sin and paid the price for them. That includes the sin of even the "non-believers". So if all the "sins" are paid for, what exactly are you afraid of at judgement??

[otherone]

Okay. What do mean by that?

What is the cross for?

I ask because there are several different ideas out there. Given the principle that God has wrath against sin, and He punishes lawbreakers if they've stumbled and broken even one law, how does the cross play in to that?

Christ died to redeem man's sins. What am I missing?

[Jamesiv1]

...what hope do you have to stand before God on the last day if you've broken even one of God's laws?

I believe it's more about the journey than the destination.

[Sola_Fide]

"How"?? He just does. I don't claim to understand things that are above my comprehension level. I know (in my heart - sorry, sounds like a cop-out) that God forgives everyone. Seems the Bible even says so (I could look it up for you but I'm sure you've heard it). I believe that the Lamb took every mans sin and paid the price for them. That includes the sin of even the "non-believers". So if all the "sins" are paid for, what exactly are you afraid of at judgement??

So here's the principle: God requires a perfect lawkeeping from a man. A man must be holy as God is holy to be in His presence. God will not allow sin in His presence. God is just to punish those who have broken His law.

So for salvation to occur, a man who is a lawbreaker must have a life of perfect lawkeeping applied to him. And the man's life of sin and lawlessness must be applied to another in his place. Remember, God always punishes sin.

These are the concepts of imputed righteousness and penal substitution. This is what Paul and others talk about in the books of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and others.

2 Corinthians 5:21

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Galatians 3:13

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—

[Jamesiv1]

So here's the principle: God requires a perfect lawkeeping from a man. A man must be holy as God is holy to be in His presence. God will not allow sin in His presence. God is just to punish those who have broken His law.

So for salvation to occur, a man who is a lawbreaker must have a life of perfect lawkeeping applied to him. And the man's life of sin and lawlessness must be applied to another in his place. Remember, God always punishes sin.

These are the concepts of imputed righteousness and penal substitution. This is what Paul and others talk about in the books of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and others.

sounds pretty complicated lol

[ChristianAnarchist]

So here's the principle: God requires a perfect lawkeeping from a man. A man must be holy as God is holy to be in His presence. God will not allow sin in His presence. God is just to punish those who have broken His law.

So for salvation to occur, a man who is a lawbreaker must have a life of perfect lawkeeping applied to him. And the man's life of sin and lawlessness must be applied to another in his place. Remember, God always punishes sin.

These are the concepts of imputed righteousness and penal substitution. This is what Paul and others talk about in the books of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and others.

Ya, sorry... I reject ALL that... NEXT!

[Sola_Fide]

sounds pretty complicated lol

Here it is written out:

1. God is holy, and won't allow sin in His presence. God requires a life of perfect lawkeeping.

2. Man has broken God's law and made himself a lawbreaker.

3. Jesus is the only one to live a perfect life with out sin.

4. For a man to be saved, the perfect life of Jesus must be applied to that man.

5. For God to be just, He must punish the lawbreaking. So the sinful life of the man is applied to Jesus on the cross.


This is what the gospel of Jesus Christ is.

2 Corinthians 5:21

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Galatians 3:13

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—

[Sola_Fide]

Ya, sorry... I reject ALL that... NEXT!

Right, I already knew you did. But that wasn't my point.

[Jamesiv1]

No. That's certainly not what it is talking about at all.

That's not what you want it to be about but the reality is, that's what it is about.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Right, I already knew you did. But that wasn't my point.

And why wouldn't we (God's creation) be able to use our minds to accept or reject parts of "the Bible". The Bible is a collection of works written by many men in the past whom we revere as wise men (I think they are). I reject that they were men who could make no errors though. I also reject that somehow (magic maybe?) these words they wrote have survived the years unaltered. How can that be?? It would require a miracle to have them survive in their own tongue unaltered. Even if you could say they are unaltered in their own tongue you cannot say the translations are as accurate as what was written in original tongue. Even "original" tongue cannot be properly understood because many changes have occurred in that language over the many years. My wife is Chinese and believe me, things get lost in the translation between current day Chinese and current day English. Imagine how different Greek was 2000 years ago from current Greek...

[Sola_Fide]

That's not what you want it to be about but the reality is, that's what it is about.

No, it is in no way shape or form talking about "judge not", or whatever you said.

Do you read the words on the page when you copy and paste them? Here's a suggestion: Try a modern version of the text that doesn't have thees and thous in them. It's easier to understand.

[Jamesiv1]

No, it is in no way shape or form talking about "judge not", or whatever you said.

Do you read the words on the page when you copy and paste them? Here's a suggestion: Try a modern version of the text that doesn't have thees and thous in them. It's easier to understand.

Of course I do. I probably read it more carefully than you as I'm reading for context rather than searching for ammunition. Plus the exercise of putting it into meaningful paragraphs also enhances comprehension.

There's nothing difficult about the thee's and thou's. I love the language of the KJV. It makes you slow down and ponder what you're reading. It often requires one go back and re-read it a few times. Hell, might even have to do some research!!

I read your post and immediately opened 3 tabs:

1. KingJamesBibleOnline.org - because KJV is awesome
2. Bible Hub - because I love being able to read 20 different translations side-by-side
3. Bible Gateway - meh. Have it in my bookmarks. Opened it just in case.

Because I had a sneaky suspicion you were indulging in your favorite pastime which is pluck a verse out of context and condemn the rest of humankind with it. Lo and behold, I was right

[Sola_Fide]

Of course I do. I probably read it more carefully than you as I was reading for context rather than digging for ammunition. Plus the exercise of putting it into meaningful paragraphs also enhances comprehension.

There's nothing difficult about the thee's and thou's. I love the language of the KJV. It makes you slow down and ponder what you're reading. It often requires one go back and re-read it a few times. Hell, might even have to do some research!!

I read your post and immediately opened 3 tabs:

1. KingJamesBibleOnline.org - because KJV is awesome
2. Bible Hub - because I love being able to read 20 different translations side-by-side
3. Bible Gateway - meh. Had it in my bookmarks. Opened it just in case.

Because I had a sneaky suspicion you were partaking of your favorite pastime which is pull a verse out of context and condemn the rest of humankind with it. Lo and behold, I was right

I described exactly what the context was. You don't know what the context of James 2 is. You just showed you didn't.

[Jamesiv1]

I described exactly what the context was. You don't know what the context of James 2 is. You just showed you didn't.

You sir, are no lover of liberty.

Anybody who doesn't interpret it the way I do can get the hell out.

[Jamesiv1]

Another interesting thing just caught my eye.

I find it very interesting that in verse 2:12 James instructs his brethren to "Speak and do as men that are to be judged by the law of liberty", rather than the 600+ Judaic laws.

On BibleHub, pull up that verse and get 24 different translations: 9 use 'freedom', 14 use 'liberty'.

Anybody still not think Jesus was a rebel with a cause?

[Sola_Fide]

Another interesting thing just caught my eye.

I find it very interesting that in verse 2:12 James instructs his brethren to "Speak and do as men that are to be judged by the law of liberty", rather than the 600+ Judaic laws.

On BibleHub, pull up that verse and get 24 different translations: 9 use 'freedom', 14 use 'liberty'.

Anybody still not think Jesus was a rebel with a cause?

Liberty, when it is used there, means nothing like the political liberty you are talking about.

[Jamesiv1]

Liberty, when it is used there, means nothing like the political liberty you are talking about.

In Jesus' day there was no distinction between politics and religion. They were one and the same.

The point of the bit about the "law of liberty" is forget about that insanely huge volume of laws in the Synagogue. Instead, follow the ones written in stone, plus "Do unto others" and "Love your neighbor".

The similarity to modern times fascinates me.

[Sola_Fide]

In Jesus' day there was no distinction between politics and religion. They were one and the same.

That has nothing to do with it. Liberty, as it was used in that sentence, and as it is used in the New Testament, has to do with freedom from the judgment of God's moral law, not anything about earthly political liberty.