Do James And Paul Contradict?. . . . . . . Biblestudy July 2007

[Kat]

Bible Study July 1, 2007 - Audio #1
http://bible-truths.com/audio/07-01-07_Part1.mp3

                          DO JAMES AND PAUL CONTRADICT?
                [If so which one is right or is both of them right?]

Today's study is a study I thought of giving numerous times through the years. Why I didn't I don't know. I guess in some ways I thought well I don't know if that's interesting enough to people or whatever my reasons were. Then I got to thinking about it this week when I received two emails. This is God's way of timing things,  He wanted me to give this today. I've received emails in the pass on this same thing, but this week I received two emails. One was very short, just a couple of little short paragraphs and the subject was, 'Was Paul the first heretic?' 

The other email was from a fellow that wrote pages and I didn't even deem to answer him. He wrote pages of material, it was a young man from Texas. He said, 'oh how I like your site and I'm learning... it's terrific... it's wonderful... But come on Ray (he used terms like that, 'come on Ray.') you know Paul was a heretic. You know that he was no good... You know that don't you Ray, surely you can see that.' 

He just went on for pages like that. I didn't even deem to answer the guy. But I got to thinking about it and this is a really very important subject and I need to cover it.

Do James and Paul in their basic theology contradict each other? Have you ever heard that controversy? Two thousand years they have been debating this. Most of them siding with Paul and putting James in the category as heretic. 

Remember we are talking James the brother of Christ. James who in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem conference, when Paul and Barnabas and those came to meet with everyone. I mean everybody was there, all the believing Pharisees that was converted and all of the elders, the Apostles and the chief people and the whole congregation. They were all there and James was there. Who gave the final summation of what was to be done with what was discussed at that conference? Who gave the final summation? James.

Yet, Martin Luther who started 'the' Reformation, he is attributed to others too, but this was the primary one, what they called The Protestant Reformation. He calls James "an Epistle of straw" and the main reason being that James emphasizes 'works,' good works. Dr. Martin Luther, of course was by "faith ALONE." 


                              WHO TEACHES 'FAITH ALONE'

This faith alone... the word alone, this is something that has been interjected at the time of Martin Luther and I'm going to show you that it was him that did it. I just looked up a few, but I mean there are hundreds. So I just looked up this few.

Joe Tkach in the Worldwide Church of God, because most of us came out of there. Tkach says, now that he's following in the ranks of Hank Handegraph and all of those heretic, he says "we are saved by faith ALONE, without resort to works of ANY KIND."

James Dobson says, "we are justified by faith ALONE." Where did he get that word alone.

Billy Graham, "faith ALONE." Now I believe it was Billy Graham, I don't know how many years ago when he had one of his really big or first rallies in Berlin, he was sure to emphasize that we are justified by faith ALONE. Why did he do that? Well he wanted to get in good with the Germany, because it was their great reformer Martin Luther who introduced this word alone.

Listen to this, I'm going to read this now about the same way that theologians would try to. How Billy Graham and Dobson and Tkach would try to show you how they are right on this 'faith ALONE.' They might quote Paul in Galatians 2.

Gal 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law...

Well there you go. Paul says...

Gal 2:16  ...but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.  (also 17-21)

Now that is pretty clear, isn't it. I mean it sounds pretty clear, doesn't it. Will anybody be justified in the eyes of God by doing works of the law? Paul say no. James says...

James 2:21  Was not Abraham our father justified by works...

v. 24  Ye see then how that BY WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFED...

Is that a contradiction? It sure sounds like one if you read it like that, doesn't it. One place says, not by works but by faith in Christ and then not by works of the law. Then James comes along and says was not Abraham justified by works, you see then that a man if justified by works.

Okay, it's not a contradiction. Now follow me closely. I so help me God think the worse offenders of Christian hermeneutics are the Christian theologians. They are the worse. They say that difficult Scriptures must be interpreted by simpler, more to the point Scriptures. They've got all these principles and context context context. Yet when they try to ensconce their heretical teaching, they break every rule in the book and they do it with impunity.

We started off with this word 'alone.' We are justified, saved by faith alone. Justification is by faith alone. Faith alone. 

I read you two verses, one by Paul and one by James. Did you see the word 'alone'? It's not there. Well where in the world did it come from? I'll show you.   


                    MARTIN LUTHER INSERTED THE WORD 'ALONE'

This I have is a very old translation of the Bible by Martin Luther, from back in the 1500's. Now I'll take you to Romans 3:28. In says in there;

Roemer 3:28 German: Luther (1545)
So halten wir es nun, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben.

"Allein" means alone. "Glauden" means belief or faith.  That's Martin Luther's from the 1500's.

Now let's read that from the King James.

Rom 3:28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds (or works) of the law.

Do you see the word 'alone.' No. No you don't. It's interesting that Martin Luther puts little margin notes. He puts them actually not in the margin, but he puts them right next to the verses. He has Galatians 2:16.  Maybe it is just to help people see another reference.

Gal 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ...

Now it doesn't say 'alone' does it. But he uses that as a reference. But in Romans 3:28 he puts the word 'alone.'

Biased Bible Translation

Martin Luther translated the New Testament into German. He translated Romans 3:28 as follows:
We hold that the human will be justified without the works of the law but only by faith.

[Ray's comment: They give the King James text and show that it is not there]

Luther admits to adding the word "only" in the text but insists that his reasons for doing so are good ones. [Ray's comment: Isn't this incredible.] Notice that he is using his doctrine of Sola Fide (faith only) to guide his translation rather than being faithful to the text. Here are his words:

I was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word "solum" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul's meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it. He is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine in this passage - namely that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law.

I also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present in either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text[/u] - if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there.
http://www.northforest.org/CatholicApologetics/Luther.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So why did he put 'alone' there?... "It belongs there." Why anybody can tell that, right,  because it belongs there. Now he didn't put it in Galatians 2:16, but guess who did? Now I will extol the virtues of the Concordance's translation when that is deemed fair, but let me show you something. This is the reference that Martin Luther gives in his Scripture Romans 3:28, when he says 'alone.'

Concordant Literal Version
Gal 2:16 having perceived that a man is not being justified by works of law, except alone through the faith of Christ Jesus,

That is just sheer spurious nonsense. They do show you, they always put the words from the Scripture in bold face and if they add words... and sometimes you need to add words to make it idiomatically correct, you know in reading it. They do put the word 'alone' in light face. But the point is, why did they put it there at all? It is not suggested and it is not in the original, so why did they put it there? Well A. E. Knoch... is that not a good German name. I think he's got a heritage back to Martin Luther if you ask me. Where else did he come up with that? It's not there, he just stuck it in there. Martin Luther just stuck it in there. Where did this 'alone' come from? It didn't come from the Scriptures.

So although what I read you, and I didn't read you the whole verse, I just read an excerpt from a verse from Paul and in James. I did that on purpose, so you could see how you could make it sound like it's a absolute contradiction. You see?

So there is no Scripture that uses the phrase 'faith alone' or 'only by faith' or 'faith only.' Or 'works alone' or 'only works.' Neither one of those is used, you don't find the word alone. Now you will find 'faith alone' one place in the Bible and it is in James. But guess what you find with that "faith alone"? You find the word "not." 

James 2:17  Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.


                                  THE FAITH 'OF' CHRIST

Now why would Dobson and Tkach and Billy Graham and Martin Luther and all, why would they insert this word 'alone'? What is there point? Why is it so important to them to pervert the Scriptures, to pervert the Word of God, to add to the Word of God, when God says, woe be to those that add to it? Why is it so important to them to do that? 

[Comment from someone: Well I've heard you talk about, that they are trying to make it sound like it's our faith and not Jesus Christ's faith.] That's one thing and you do find that some translations talk about faith 'in' Christ, even Rotherham. It's plainly the faith 'of' Jesus Christ and he inserts the word 'in' (Gal. 2:16, 3:26; Php. 3:9; Col. 1:4). I know that Rotherham's translation is pretty consistent, just like Concordant. But sometimes the human element gets in there and they just think, 'it's our faith in Christ.' No it's not, it's the faith 'of' Christ.  Big difference. That's one point.


                           FAITH ALONE - NEEDS NO GOOD WORKS

[Comment from someone: Well if it says 'faith alone,' it gets them out of works.] Well yea, there you go, it gets you out of works. Now not only does it get you out of good works, but it actually pardons you for bad works. Because it's faith alone. 

Boy I'm telling you that man that sent me an email... remember he just so stretched that 'alone.' I mean he just went berserk, he was over the top with that. Of course he is also a practicing homosexual and you can probably see why he would want to do that. 

Now let me show you something, there are several reasons why. It's simple. It's easy. I mean how do you just die and go to heaven? Just believe on Jesus, just faith in Jesus. Just believe in Jesus and you die and go to heaven. 

But as I have said many times, you realize that almost all the prisoners in jail, who beat little old ladies... like that man who beat that one hundred year old woman for cryin out loud... who rape little children and cut their heads off, 90% of those people are Christians. You just ask them, do you believe in Jesus? 'Yes, absolutely.'  Well then if you believe in Jesus your saved and yet you feel sorry for what you did, but it is immaterial. Whether you're sorry or not sorry... you believe, that's the main thing. You believe in Jesus. That's why they add the word 'alone.' That's where the perversion comes in. 

I could give you many examples where you could say the fact and it would mean one thing, but then if you add the word on the end, alone, it would totally change the meaning. Because then you negate any other possibilities except this one. That may not be what the context of your conversation is at all. 

So it's easy, it's simple, it just doesn't require much. I'll just give you one more reason. I mean there are many, but I'm just going to pick this one little one out, for a specific reason. Your conscious won't be tortured when you can't stop lusting after women. Now you think, 'well where did you come up with that Ray?' 

You know about thirty five years ago, when I was reading different evolutionists and so on and I was reading 'The Deluge Story' by Nelson. I ran across this one evolutionist and he is almost as big a name as Darwin. He is another generation removed or pretty close to Darwin, but big name in evolution. Someone ask him once why he was so passionate about trying to convince the world that there is no God and how we just evolved out of sea slime. Why? Okay if that's what you believe, but why are you so passionate about it. Do you know what his answer was? He said, 'I didn't want to feel guilty. I didn't want there to be a supreme being or a God telling me how to live my private sex life.' One of the biggest name in evolution and what was his reason for his obsession with trying to prove there was no God? Because he didn't want anybody telling him how to live his private sex life. That is if he wanted to cheat on his wife and have five concubines or whatever on the side, that's nobody's business but his own. That is quite an omission, but he did say it, it's history.


                         "THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY"   

Let me show you something.  Sometimes it takes me years, I study the Bible and then I (finger snap) I see something. (Snap) well what is this. Wait I saw that before, (snap) but what is this. This is just the way my mind works.

Mat 5:27  Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Well duh, that was the seventh commandment.

Mat 5:28  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Why did Christ pull that one out? Why didn't He talk about stealing? Why didn't He talk about murder? Why didn't He talk about something like that? Because there are lots of men who don't steal, there are lots of men that don't murder. The man hadn't been born who doesn't lust after women. That's why. Watch this.

Mar 10:17  And when He was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to Him, and asked Him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
v. 18  And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
v. 19  Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery...

What?  Here is a rich man, with lots of money and what is the first thing that Christ smashed him with, "You know the commandments, don't comment adultery." Why do you think He started with that commandment? That's not number 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6, that's number 7. Why did He start with that one?  Well he's rich, he's young, he's probably handsome... this guy has got women. Maybe he's married, but I guarantee he has got some women on the side. 

I've told this story before, Garner Ted admitted at a ministerial conference, that he conservatively had at least two hundred women. He had a nice wife, I mean she was not glamorous, but she was very sweet. She was the sister to Molly Anthon, who was married to Dr. David Anthon. I was good friends with them. When we would go to the conference, Dr. Anthon would have us stay at his house, which is now worth about 2 or 3 million by the way. It's about a long stones throw from the Wrigley Mansion on Orange Grove Boulevard.

But conservatively he had 200 women and of course a lot of the ministers were shocked at that. But this was a time when you know you just put the cards on the table. Now he didn't say that in front of the whole conference, that was among just a select group actually. But it got out, you know something like that would get out. 

But then he said, the only reason that there were not more in his ilk and that more of the men right there were not doing the same thing, he said, 'was a lack of opportunity.' Ted was rich, young, handsome and extremely charismatic. Boy that's the kiss of death right there. Any where he went... everywhere he went, it was just like picking apples off a tree.

So Christ said to this young, rich, handsome man, "You know the commandments, do not commit adultery..." Sometimes only one or two carry the story in the gospels. We find this one in all the synoptic gospels.

Luke 18:20  Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery...

Now let's go to Romans 2, here is a man that never married, but he knew something about the male psyche.

Rom 2:22  Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery?

Now he talks about other sins as well, but he just starts off with that, adultery. Because every man can identify with that.

Rom 13:8  Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
v. 9  For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal...

He starts off with adultery, you see what I'm saying? Why does he put that number one, why does he put that first? 

James 2, we'll go to the epistle of straw here and we'll see if it's an epistle of straw.

James 2:10  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
v. 11  For he that said, Do not commit adultery...

What is this, do you see a pattern here? Do you see a pattern of how these men bring this in, "do not commit adultery." That is the seventh commandment (Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery), it's not the first or second or third or fourth, that's the seventh commandment and they started off with it first.

Rom 7:14  For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

The law is spiritual. How did he know that? Well if we back up to verse 7, we'll learn why.

Rom 7:7  What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Now that was different. Committing adultery is an act of the flesh. Coveting is an act of the mind. So Paul said coveting, the commandment says thou shalt not covet. Shalt not covet WHAT? "Thy neighbor's WIFE" (Exo 20:17 ). Do you see it? Now it does say, "nor his ox..." too. But isn't that interesting. 

[Kat]

Now luckily women don't have any of these problems, right? Wrong paleface.

Men want that sexual power over the women, where as women just mostly want power over the men. Men want sexual power, women just want power. Men earn the money, right. Yet, it's an statistical fact... who controls the money? Woman. Women control most of the wealth of America. Women, not men. Men earn it, women control it. Men and women both have a spiritual problems based on physical lusts.

So, not that women don't lust after young men and so on, they do. But not to the extent that men lust after women. Now it's a known fact, that at least every few months, we have a woman molesting a boy in school, right. I mean there was another one just a week or so ago, right. This was a elderly woman fifty something years old and a boy, fourteen. 

But let me say this. I mean there is opportunity and of course you get familiar with your students. However I don't think we have ever heard of a woman raping a little five year old boy and killing him. Have you ever heard of that in the history of your life? I have not, okay. So we can plainly see, yes women can lust after sex and even boys and so on, but not to the extent that men do. 

Some men who have no morals and have no control, when their testosterone kicks in, we have what happened with that woman up in Ohio. The man is in a bar drinking Coronas all night and he's getting horny, so he starts calling these women. He's obviously not a very good looking guy or anything, you know, so nobody at the bar is going to go home with him. So he's calling women, old girl friends or whatever, trying to make a contact for the night, because he's getting horny. He can't make a contact with anybody or at least no one wants to see him, because they checked his cell phone. So he goes to his old girl friend, who is nine months pregnant and he ends up killing her.  Now why did he go there at midnight?  She probably said no, your not coming over here drunk and fornicate with me or whatever. I don't know, but this is the implication as to why he went over there... and then killed her. 

So it is a very powerful drive and unless you have some scruples that really prevent you from doing this and so on... those people do it. 

Then of course we come to the place where you not only stop doing those things, but you come to the mental attitude where you don't even want to think about doing those things. That's what we call spiritual conversion.  It's one thing when you say you believe certain principles, it's another thing when you internalize them. You don't just say you believe in it, you live it. You know what I'm saying? You live it now, to where a man can look at a beautiful girl in high heels and a mini skirt and just say well that's a pretty girl and look away. 

Of course we have to understand from the Scriptural point of view that most of these teachings are to men. Because the principle is that the women are to learn from their husbands at home. So Paul does not bring up all these things about women. There are a few places where he talks about women, they should honor their husband, take care of their children, be good example to the younger women and so on.


Audio #2
http://bible-truths.com/audio/07-01-07_Part2.mp3

                         DID JAMES AND PAUL CONTRADICT?
                 [If so which one is right or is both of them right?]

Well we just have to learn to pay closer attention to what the Scriptures say. To just punch this point home a little bit, this is an email I got this week. It's called Adam and Eve.

Dear Ray,

In Genesis 2:16 the Lord tells man the rules regarded the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In Genesis 3 it says it is the woman that the subtle serpent chooses to approach and question. In Genesis 3:3 the woman misquotes the Lord. This is the first time that the commandment, found in Deut. 2:4, Moses to Israel was not kept.

[Ray comment: That's where it says you should not add unto My word.]

This is the first time this commandment was broken. At this point I suspect that the serpent, hearing this misquote, knew it could get her to touch the fruit and she would see that nothing happened to her. Then it would be easy to get her to eat it. She then gave to her husband who was with her and he also ate it, according to what's here in Genesis. God never told Eve directly the rules, but probably left that to Adam, being he was her husband. Have a great day.

Dean

What is his point?  I'll just give you my comments.

In Genesis 2:16 the Lord tells man the rules regarded the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In Genesis 3 it says it is the woman that the subtle serpent chooses to approach and question. In Genesis 3:3 the woman misquotes the Lord.

[Comment: That is sheer speculation on your part. Many dozens of time in Scripture, we are told specifically what happens in any given occasion, in one account of the incident. But in another account with the same incident, we are told more information than was given in the first account. Especially this is true throughout the gospel accounts. That does not mean that the new added information contradicts what actually happens. Therefore you can not say with any authority whatsoever that Adam did not tell Eve, not only not to eat of the tree, but not even to touch it. So you can't say that. On what authority?]

This is the first time this commandment of adding was broken.

[Comment: Well that is just speculation again on your part.]

At this point I suspect that the serpent, hearing this misquote, knew it could get her to touch the fruit and she would see that nothing happened to her. Then it would be easy to get her to eat it.

[Comment: Now it is you Dean who is adding to the word of God (and this is what he is accusing Eve of doing). Nowhere does the serpent suggest that Eve should just touch the tree first to see that nothing would happen. Therefore before she even ate of the tree she lusted for the fruit. She lusted with her eyes and she lusted for something to make her wise. Furthermore just how would the serpent know what God instructed Adam. Does God always have a snake following Him around? No. God didn't give that instruction to the serpent, He gave that to Adam, after He created him.] 

She then gave to her husband who was with her and he also ate it, according to what's here in Genesis. God never told Eve directly the rules, but probably left that to Adam, being he was her husband.

[Comment: Well duh, and since this is undoubtedly how she did learn, then she did not misquote God. But rather honestly and truthfully stated exactly what God declared to her husband. So your argument contradicts itself and doesn't even have a point. I don't mean to embarrass you, but sometimes we need to think more deeply before we speak. It's okay though, we all are a little incoherent at times.

God be with you,
Ray ]

But he took the time to write me an email, trying to show me that Eve misquoted God. Because he did, Satan took advantage. It's not there, it's sheer fabrication. Not only is it unscriptural, then it becomes anti-scriptural.

Do you know the difference between unscriptural and anti-scriptural? [Comment from someone: Unscriptural is just not even mentioned.] Right. [Anti-scriptural is something against something that is already there.] Very good, that is as precise as you can say it. Unscriptural means it's not in the Scriptures. Anti-scriptural means it goes against what is in the Scriptures.


             SOMETIMES THINGS ONLY APPEAR TO BE A CONTRADICTION

Pro 26:4  Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

So don't answer a fool in his folly. 

Pro 26:5  Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Then the next verse, answer a fool in his folly. Now there is a contradiction, right? Don't answer a fool... answer a fool, it's a contradiction, right? No. It's an apparent contradiction, but it's not a contradiction when you understand that they are both true. How can "answer" and "don't answer" both be true? Because there are times when you should and do answer a fool according to his foolishness and there are other times when you should not answer him. In other words sometimes the answer will put him in his place and sometimes by not answering, you put him in his place. They are both true.

So what I read in the beginning, what Paul said, we are not justified by works, but by faith in Jesus Christ (Gal. 2:16). James says, you are justified by works (James 2:24).

James 2:21  Was not Abraham our father justified by works...

But we didn't find the word 'alone' did we. Now let's look a little deeper.


                               PAUL AND THE GALATIANS

Gal 1:6  I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
v. 7  Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
v. 8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

So what is the premise here of this book? The Galatians were being turned to a PERVERTED gospel. What was it about? In Galatians 2 he gives a little history of how God called him into the ministry.

Gal 2:1  Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

This is what we find in Acts 15, called the Jerusalem Conference.

Gal 2:2  And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
v. 3  But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

Now this (Titus) was a full grown man and he was a Greek, he was a Gentile, he was not a Jew. So he was not circumcised on the eighth day of his birth, like little Jewish baby boys are, right. But he said they did not compel Titus, who was a Greek, although he did have a Jewish mother... they didn't compel him as a full grown man to have the foreskin of his penis cut off. 

So we are talking about 'things' that were being taught to the Galatians, that Paul said are nonsense. This is his prime example, circumcision. It's a physical ritual. Now it doesn't mean that circumcision doesn't have a spiritual lesson. It's does. But if you can understand what the spiritual lesson is, you don't have to go through the physical ritual.

Col 2:10  And ye are complete in Him (Christ), which is the head of all principality and power:

Notice this is the pagan Galatians over here and these are the pagan Colossians. These are heather Gentile nations.

v. 11  In whom also ye are circumcised...

What?  I thought it said Titus who was a Greek and was not circumcised. He wasn't physically circumcised. Notice this.

v. 11  ...with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Without hands... no hands, no knife, no skin. 'You mean you can be circumcised without hands, knife or skin?' Yes you can. 'You mean you can be baptized into Jesus Christ without getting wet?' Yes you can. But there aren't too many that know it or believe it. This is what he is talking about these "works of the law."

Gal 2:9  And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
v. 10  Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

Here is James and Paul together and it says, when they perceived the grace that was given to me and Barnabas, they gave us the right hand of fellowship. Does it sound like they have some giant theological difference? They exchanged the right hand of fellowship, they were brothers in spreading the gospel.

                         
                                THE WORKS OF THE LAW

Now Paul has a little confrontation and he says...

Gal 2:11  But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Peter would met with and he would sit down and eat with the Gentiles and so on. But when those Jews from James came, then he, 'oops I've got to go to the bathroom.' He got up and got out of there, he didn't want to be seen sitting and eating with the Gentiles. Paul as much as called him a hypocrite.

Gal 2:14  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
v. 15  We who are Jews by nature (meaning Paul, Peter, John and James), and not sinners of the Gentiles,
v. 16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Now let's notice what it says and what it doesn't say. Paul is not saying that there is no such thing as good works. First of all he doesn't even use the term works or good works, he is using the term "works of the law." What kind of works of the law? He just brought up the biggest single example he could, circumcision. That was a work of the law. He is saying we are not justified by circumcision and works of the law.

In Galatians 4 he gives us another example of where he is talking about works of the law. The example he brings up here first is circumcision, he doesn't bring up murder or adultery or honoring your father and your mother. He doesn't give those as examples as works of the law that won't do you any good, no... circumcision, a physical thing. Then Paul goes on to teach the Corinthians, we are circumcised without hands, spiritually.  GOOD WORKS are never referred to as "works of the law." Now chapter 4.

[Kat]

   
                        THE WEAK AND BEGGARLY ELEMENTS

Gal 4:9  But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements...

Is Paul calling; thy shalt not murder, they shalt not steal, thy shalt honor thy father and mother... is he calling those "weak and beggarly elements"? Is that what he is calling weak and beggarly elements? Let's notice it.

v. 9  ...whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?  (How so?)
v. 10  Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

There it is, another example of just these physical physical physical rituals, you know that you pay so much attention to. Just like the Pharisees who say, you are suppose to tithe, that's fine. So we have pepper pods and they will get tweezers and we will count these darn pepper pods to be sure we give God His tenth. But then when it came to justice and mercy and treating the people and the widows and the fatherless and the orphans and the homeless right, they just threw it to the wind. The weightier matters of the law they just threw to the wind. 

He's not talking about the weightier matters here, he talking about the weak and beggarly elements. This observation of days and months and times and years and seasons and all of that.

Okay we never see the word 'alone.' Yes we're justified by faith, but be careful now, nowhere do we find the word 'alone.' We only find that with A. E. Knoch and Martin Luther, that is the only place we find that. The rest of protestantism teaches it, they teach it, but they got it from the heretics.

[Comment: In the Concordant, it didn't quite have that same meaning did it, of 'alone'?]
 
Oh absolutely. I'll read it to you again.

Gal 2:16 having perceived that a man is not being justified by works of law, except alone through the faith of Christ Jesus, (CLV)

'Alone'... only alone, faith alone.

Now I'm going to start bringing this works and faith together here. First I want you to understand, good works are never referred to as 'works of the law.'  See you could assume, that since Paul said "that by the works of the law shall no man be justified." James said, "a man is justified by his works," that it's a contradiction. It's not a contradiction. James is talking about works (and we are going to see what kind of works). Paul is talking about the works of the law. Now these are two different things. Paul tells us what works of the law are... circumcision, this observing of times and days weeks. And in other places touch not, eat not, all these dietary laws and so on. Paul talks about that through all his writings, works of the law, physical, carnal, beggarly, weak things, you see. 

Now we are going to see what James talks about, when he talks about works, not works of the law. We are going to see what he talks about and see if he is talking about these days and times and circumcisions and washings and cups and eating and touch not and this endless array of laws that Israel had to do. 


                                       GOOD WORKS

Before I go to James I want a little bit yet on Paul.

Rom 13:8  Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
v. 9  For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
v. 10  Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
v. 11  And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

Paul says "love is the fulfilling the law." Does that sound like, "how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements"? He says love is the fulfilling of the law, now that would be a contradiction, wouldn't it. These weak and beggarly elements of the law is not what is meant by love, where it is the fulfilling of the law. You can't love somebody by keeping new moons and Sabbath days and holy days and different seasons. You can't really show love towards somebody by... 'well I'm physically circumcised, would you like to see, would you like to see my good works.' I mean come on, it's gross. GOOD WORKS are never referred to as "works of the law."

1Tim 2:10  But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

He talks about women that they should have good works. No one is going to be justified... but it says the women, with good works. But he doesn't say good works of the law, does he... "good works." He says what those good works are, take care of your home, take care of your children, be a good example to the younger women, don't be a busy body, don't be a tattle tale. These are all good things that a woman should do.

1Tim 6:18  That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

2Tim 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Titus 1:16  They profess that they know God...

Okay this is a strong admonition.

v. 16 ...but in works they deny Him...

It doesn't say in works of the law did he. What kind of works is he talking about? Good works. Works of the law? No. Good works.

v. 16 ...being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

How in the world can these theologians believe that the Apostle Paul did not believe in good works and that it wasn't a necessary part of the Christian life? Just faith alone... just believe?

If you don't have good works, he says you are abominable and a reprobate. That's pretty strong.

Titus 2:7  In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works:

Titus 3:8  This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

Titus 3:14  And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.


                      "BY GRACE ARE YE SAVED THROUGH FAITH"

In Ephesians 2, here Paul puts it all together for us.

Eph 2:8  For by grace are ye saved through faith (alone?)...

Is that what it says? That's what Martin Luther would have you think it says. That's what A. E. Knoch would have you think. That's what Dobson and Billy Graham and all the rest of these guys, the modern Worldwide church of God, would have you believe. No!

Eph 2:8  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that ('this' would be a better word)... 

Now I've always said 'that,' that being the faith. That that faith is not your own it's the gift of God. But I think it is talking about 'this' or 'these.'

v. 8  For by grace are ye saved through faith...

'This' grace and 'this' faith, both of them, not just the one, but both of them.     

v. 8 ... not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
v. 9  Not of works...

Here it is, here we get to bring it on down. It's "not of works," it's of FAITH. But it's not your own faith, it's this gift of God faith and this gift of God grace. That's how you're saved, not by your works. Not by works, because that is something you do. This faith and this grace, it's not yours, it comes from God. It a gift, that's not yours, it's God's, but He gives it to you. That's what is going to save you, not your own works. Your own works will not save you, it takes this gift of grace, gratuitous, free, favor, love from God and the faith of God as a gift to you. That's going to save you, not your good works, lest you boast. 

v. 9  ...lest any man should boast.

Then you would say, 'well I earned it, I did it, I deserve it, I did it and I earned it.' It's not of works. Now get the context here. Sometimes we read these verses and we don't put them all together in one thought, in one sentence. This grace and this faith of God is given to you as a gift and that is what is going to save you, not your own works.

v. 10  For we are HIS workmanship...

Now if you read that, for WE are His workmanship, well then you lost it. No no no, you've got to know how to put the emphasis on the right words. 

From Eph. 2:8-10, it's grace and faith from GOD, a gift from GOD, not of yourself, from GOD, that saves you. Not your works, this gift is from GOD, for we are HIS workmanship... 

What kind of workmanship?

v. 10  ...created in Christ Jesus unto good works...

Now are good works absolutely essential to this thing called salvation? Absolutely, you just have to get it straight in your mind. It's not your faith, it's Christ's faith, it's God's faith. It's not your grace, it's God's grace. It's not your works, it's GOD'S works in you. Do you see it? It's God's works in you.

v. 10  ...which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

This is ordained, it's got to be. This is not like, 'well it's nice if you have some, but it's okay if you don't, because you're saved by faith alone.' No, this is essential. Do you see how he brings faith and works together? They are both essential, they just come from God.

But this idea that Paul taught faith and James taught works, is nonsense. If you believe that you can add the word 'alone.' It's not faith alone, it's faith and God working in you through Christ Jesus to do the good works that He's declared you have to do. 


          DID JESUS CHRIST HAVE ANYTHING TO SAYS ABOUT "GOOD WORKS?"

Two other important Scriptures. Did Jesus Christ have anything to say about good works or was He one of these faith and grace people like Paul supposedly was.

Mat 5:15  Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
v. 16  Let your light so shine before men...

Now He is talking to His Apostles this is the Sermon on the Mount, if you read my last installment you know that the Sermon on the Mount is for us. This is for us, His disciples.

v. 16 ... that they may see your good works...

Works of the law? It didn't say works of the law, it said "good works."

v. 16  ...and glorify your Father which is in heaven.


                                 WHAT DOES PETER TEACH?

What about Peter?  Peter is the one that teaches a different gospel? We already saw what Paul had to say about good works. What about Peter, did Peter have anything to say about good works? 

1Peter 2:12  Having your conversation (conduct) honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

Peter also... "good works." Yes they talked about faith and grace, but good works, it's there, it's every where.


                              JAMES AN EPISTLE OF STRAW?

James 2:14  What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

The heretic Luther called James an epistle of straw. Let me tell you something this is one of the most profound little books in the whole Bible. I mean you talk about somebody nailing it like James does, he brings in a physical analogy and the dispute is gone. He just nails it. Now notice this ..."can faith save him" that means belief, just a belief. Is a belief important? It's very important. Can it save you? Listen, we read by grace through faith we're saved, but not alone. Paul brings in the good works, that's all part of it you see. Now can faith save you? In other words can faith alone save you is what he is saying here. Can faith alone save you? You've got faith, can that save you?

v. 15  If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
v. 16  And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

But you have faith. But James says what good is it if you don't exercise it, see, what good is it? Will it save you? If someone is in need of something and you say, 'bless you my child, go in peace, be warm, be happy and healthy.' If he says, 'I could use a sandwich' and you reply, 'later dude'...

I just want to show you how you can tie stuff in together. Notice what he says.

James 1:27  Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

He says that's pure religion is to visit the fatherless and the poor and so on. There are different ways to do that and I don't have time to get into that... I mean I would like to think that I am visiting the poor and the destitute and the widows and so on by Bible-Truths.com. I mean maybe I am not placing sandwiches on people, but we are giving them a spiritual meal, it means a lot to a lot of people. I just wish we had more people supporting it, but people don't care enough to support it. Well we have a dozen or so, but that's not many.

Now he says that's "pure religion." Can you see how James has a heart for people who are suffering? He said here's pure religion, have mercy upon your fellow man in their poverty and in their weakness and their fears or whatever. Then over here when he gives an example, he says if you say unto them "depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled," but you don't give them what they need, what is that? What kind of faith is that? James always thought like this, this was always on his heart, to take care of the poor and the needy and the destitute.

Now let's go back to Galatians 2, I read this before, but I just read over it so that you wouldn't catch it. Does any body know what I'm going to? I read this same thing, but I read it and I know you didn't catch it, because I didn't emphasis it. I didn't want you to catch it, because I wanted to come back to it and say look at this. Remember we read where Paul talked about the weak and the beggarly things of the law and circumcision and all of that. 

Gal 2:9  And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
v. 10  Only they would that we should remember the poor; (then notice what Paul says) the same which I also was forward (eager) to do.

They are talking about these works of the law that profit nothing and what do they throw in there? Good works. "Which I was eager to do." They reminded us, don't forget the poor. There was apparently a famine at this time in Jerusalem and all Judea, maybe. So some of the surrounding churches, Gentile churches that were not in this famine, were to take up a collection.

1Cor 16:1  Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.

You know lay up a store, so when we go up to Jerusalem we can take this stuff up to the poor Saints up there. So he said, "I was eager to do that," good works. It's Paul who uses the term, that we should be "zealous."   

Titus 2:14  ...zealous of good works.

That's Paul. Now back to James.

James 2:17  Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

So is faith alone a good thing? No, it "is dead." But we are told that James contradicts Paul. I get emails that say, 'Paul was a heretic. I mean come on Ray, you know he was a heretic.' 

I mean you can't get more... he gives you an example, he says I've got faith. He says, look if somebody comes up to you and says, 'I need a sandwich or a drink' and you say, 'well good luck to you.' He says how is that faith, will that kind of faith save you? 

James 2:18  Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.

Man I tell you this James is a smart cookie. I mean he knows how to bring about an analogy or example or a way of stating it. He say, "show me your faith without your works" show me, if you have faith, show me. 'Well I don't have to show you, it's in my heart.'  Did you ever hear that kind of nonsense. 'I love the Lord in my heart, what I do on the outside is none of your damn business. I have love in my heart.' James says, "show me." Put your money where your mouth is, show me. 

You know I feel like saying that sometimes. I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but we have so many hundreds and hundreds of people say, 'Ray I tell you this is just the greatest thing, I'm so thankful.' Well I feel like saying, show me. I don't want your money, I don't spend your money. Show God, if this is so great, well then show somebody else. You don't have to contribute a lot, maybe just a dollar a week or something.

Show me, that's what James is saying here. He said you "show me your faith without works," which he's saying, you can't do it... then he says, "I'll show you my faith by my works." I put my money where my mouth is, James says I do what I say, I not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.

James 2:19  Thou believest (Strong's 4100)...

The word is faith. There are two words, one is 4100 - pisteuō  and then we have 4102 - pistis. One is used as a noun and one is used as a verb. It's the same root word. Faith is a noun, I have faith 4102. How do I have faith, because I believe 4100, that's a verb. My faith (noun) believe (verbs).

v. 19 Thou believe (or you have faith) that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Wow, James doesn't mince words does he. He says, so you believe and you've got this uppity yucky lovey dovey kissy kissy huggy huggy faith in your heart, right? Well let me tell you something, so do the demons, so do the devils. Now he could have said it again, what does it profit them without works, because they believe? 

v. 20  But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

He does say it again.

v. 21  Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

[Kat]

     
             ABRAHAM JUSTIFIED BY FAITH - JUSTIFIED BY WORKS

People say, James used Abraham to prove that we are justified by works and then Paul used Abraham in the same example to show we are justified by faith. It's a matter of emphasis.

We find this 'by faith alone' stated twice in Galatians 2, because he's talking to these people who want to revert back to following the Jews and all that they had to do. Paul says is that how you were called, by these heretic Jews at Jerusalem? Is that how you learned about Jesus Christ or did you learn it form me? So now you want to circumcise your eighty year old men and keep days and months and years and washings and eat this and don't touch that and you want to go into all that kind of nonsense.

But here you see an example, Abraham. Paul said look at Abraham he was justified by faith... James said, look at Abraham he was justified by works.  What's the truth of the matter?  They are both right.  One in just emphasizing one over the other. James is coming along and says, we know it's faith. Paul taught a lot about faith and faith is important, but let me tell you something, "faith without works is dead."

Gen 15:6  And he (Abraham) believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.

Righteousness and justification are pretty much the same word. If you are just you are right, justified - righteous, almost the same word. So he believed God and it was attributed to him, "counted to him for righteousness."

So now let's see if we can bring this together.

Gen 22:1  And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt (or prove, try, test) Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
v. 2  And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Wow, He said go up there and kill him and burn him on a fire, wow. So he went and took him. So in verse 12 when he is ready to do it...

Gen 22:11  And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
v. 12  And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from Me.

There it is.  He believed God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness. He said go up and sacrifice your son. He believed God and he went up, right. Now he's in the act of going to put a knife through his son and the angel says, STOP! Now I know your faith is real. How did He know? By the work that he was about to do. Now of course this was for Abraham's sake and ours more than it was for God's, God knew what was going to happen, but it was preserved for us.

1Cor 10:11  Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition,

So until he did some kind of a work Abraham's faith was as good as dead. Now back where he said he believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Gen. 15:6). Then He said okay now I'm going to really put you to the test Abraham, I want you to kill your son. WHAT, are you crazy! I wouldn't even do that for God. 

Well now what are we going to do with all this great faith? Faith is trusting God when you don't know the specific outcome. You may know the plan and all, but you don't know the specific outcome, you just don't know. So we talk about stepping out in faith. What does that mean? Not knowing specifically what is going to happen, but trusting God that He will see you through. That's faith. 

Boy I'm telling you that it doesn't get any tougher than this. He was going to do it and the angel said stop, now I know that your faith is real. Isn't this what James is talking about? Of course it is and Paul is talking about the same thing, it's just a matter of emphasis. 

Gen 22:16  And said, By Myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast (faith alone? That isn't what He said, notice it).

...for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

"Done" that is an act, that's a work. "You have done this thing." That's what proved his faith. Can you see it? Isn't it as clear as the noon day sun. 

So if you go around saying, 'I'm a Christian and I believe.' Well what do you do when the chips are down? What do you do when the temptation is there? What do you do when somebody needs you and you're not going to be there for them? It's, 'oh I got faith in God.' No you don't, you just talk. It's one thing to believe in God, it's another thing to act it out. We don't always do the best job, I know that. But certainly we shouldn't argue about it, we shouldn't try to defend our carnal ways, as though it is good to not do what's right.  I mean that is pretty stupid.

We read in Ephesians that it was this grace, this gift of God through the faith, believing in God, that we will be saved. That our works will not save us, but God through Jesus Christ will perform good works in you. It's all part of the same package. It's all within two verses there (Eph 2: 8-9). We already read that. Now notice what James said.

James 2:20  ...faith without works is dead?
v. 21  Was not Abraham our father justified by works,

We just read it, "because you have done this thing," that's a work. But was there no faith involved? Of course he wouldn't have done this "thing" except what? He believed God. He said, "through your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed" (Gen 28:14), and Abraham believed that. Now Isaac is that seed. He thought maybe Ishmael was that seed, remember, by his wife Hagar and he said, 'oh yea Ishmael.' Not Ishmael, you are going to have another son. Abraham said, what? Are you crazy, I'm 100 years old and my wife is 95?  God says, we're going to do it anyway and she gets pregnant... she is blown away, she is pregnant at 95. Of course they lived to be 200 back then, but...

God told Abraham it was through Isaac and then Jacob, who was changed to Israel and there was twelve tribes, one of which was Judea and out of Judea came Jesus Christ. He said it's through Isaac. Now when He said, I'm going to bless all the families of the earth, through your son Issac, not Ishmael, Isaac. Abraham believed Him, he says he did. 

How can He bless all the nations of the world through the descendants of Isaac, if he kills him? Are you following? Boy what a test.  God says one thing, then He says do another. I'm going to bless the whole world through this son and his descendants, now kill him.  WHAT? Are you crazy God? How is he going to be a blessing if you... He didn't know what He meant. He didn't know if maybe God would resurrect him right after he killed him. But he did it and God said "because you have done this thing." You see? He said whoa, don't kill your son, he's going to live, he's going to give birth to Jacob, Jacob is going to have twelve sons, they are going to be the children of Israel, Judea is going to be one of them, Christ is going to come out of Judea in the line of David and so on.

Can you see how you can not separate the deed from the faith behind it, you can't separate it. It is utter stupidity to do it, yet the whole world and Christianity... it's faith alone. Well we are going to see what faith alone is going to do for this world.

James 2:21  Was not Abraham our father justified by works...

You have done this things, God says.

v. 21 ...when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

He didn't actually kill him, but in his own heart and mind he offered him, he did. He did that thing.

v. 22  Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

There it is!  Why can't people read that, there it is. That's what Paul says in Ephesians 2, not by your works, but by works of God, you're His workmanship, He's going to do good works through you. Here he says, "See you how faith wrought with works, by works was faith made perfect." Did Paul cast away good works? No, he said he was eager to do them. He said we should be zealous of them.  He mentioned good works in the two page book of Titus about six times. Paul in Ephesians 2, you can't separate faith and the good works that God will do in you. Can you see now that it's faith BY works, was faith made perfect? 

Did James throw away faith? No! He's telling you how it's made perfect. Here's how to tell if you have faith; how do you live... what do you do... what do you accomplish in life... what are your goals... What is there about you that proves that you have this faith and belief inside of you? What? 

v. 25  Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot (he goes into her deeds) justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
v. 26  For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Does anybody still see a giant contradiction between Paul and James? There is no contradiction. They both believed in faith and they both believed that faith would manifest itself and perfect itself and complete itself in good works. Both of them thought the same thing. They both used the example of Abraham which proved that Abraham had faith. How do we know that? God said; "because thou hast done this thing..." - works. There it is.

Two thousand years of debate by thousands and thousands of theologians. Whole movements of millions of people brought about because of Martin Luther and this faith alone, without doing good works and so on. 

We covered it in a hour and a half. Was it that hard? Did I lie, did I contradict, did I twist and pervert the Scriptures? I don't think so. I think it's so easy. Just have an open heart and mind and don't fight the Scriptures.


                          FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD!

One other thing that just nails this again... Jesus Christ nails it. But notice what James says here.

James 2:17  Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead...

That is the exact teaching of Jesus Christ. He was one of the Apostles and he ought to know what Christ taught. Here is what Christ taught.

Luke 6:46  And why call ye Me, Lord...

That's faith! If you call Christ Lord - Master that means you believe that He is a Lord or a Master. That's faith. That's belief, right. Did Christ say that's all you need? That's it? "Why call ye Me Lord," why do you say you have faith in Me, as your Master... 

v. 46 ...and do not the things which I say?

Isn't that what James said? Isn't that what Paul said?

Rom 3:31  Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid:

Do we go out and kill people and fornicate now, because we are not under law? "God forbid."

James says if you call Him Lord and you don't have works, your faith is dead. It's just like the body without the spirit is dead. It's very simple, very profound.

Now what does heretic Luther say, that this book of James is an epistle of straw. Why did he call it straw? It's just his nice euphemistic way of saying 1 Cor. 3:12, straw, hay and stubble, to be burned. So Martin Luther was saying the epistle of James needs to be burned. The greatest protestant reformation the world has ever known... a heretic. I don't even want to get into what he said to do to the peasants and slaves... I mean just kill them, slaughter them. He was just like a raving lunatic. We've got his words and letters where he said this is what we need to do to them, kill them all. He said you do God justice, kill them, cut their heads off, run them through and think nothing of it. 

Well anyway, I hope that clears up that Paul is not a heretic and James is not a epistle of straw that needs to be burned. They both agreed on this completely, there is no contradiction and it's not that hard to see.