Thanks for the debate.

I think generally we have dependable translations but on this they have wrongly categorized the demons remark as part of James own comments.

The “motivation” for this (you asked about this earlier and I forgot to respond) may be that the demons remark seems to be something that should be salvaged, so to speak.

Of course, James is not saying demons disbelieve that God is one, instead he is saying that there does exist a faith that is ineffective and useful for nothing. While the teaching he mocks is insisting that faith is always active.

My question for you is what do you think the objector is saying?

Jodie

I meant to say that I largely agree with what MacArthur teaches on 1:19, as you eloquently described it. Hey, Mark, it’s great to find area of agreement with him and with you!

God bless.

Jodie

How much coffee are you drinking?

I wrote:

Let me be more explicit in amswering your question. The word of God is my authority.”

And you replied:
——
Yours only? Jodie, how is it that your clinging to Hodges is any different than my willingness to look into, and sometimes embrace, what commentators throughout time have said?

Mark, what are you talking about? Stop assuming the worse. I didn’t say or imply “mine only”! Stop taking what I’m saying and adding rocket fuel to it.

You wrote:

So, your cling to Hodges is good, and my cling to MacArthur is bad; and that’s because the Bible is not my authority? Please be clear to me here.

Have you ever heard of agreeing to disagree? Your not bad. I do disagree with you. I can’t be any more clear than that.

You quoted more…
——–
Jodie: “The word of God wasn’t written to the intellectual class, it was written to Mark and Jodie.”
——-
I agree
——–
Jodie: ” We have to examine the text and determine which argument is correct apart from the popularity of each argument.
——-
I agree.
——

Thank you for agreeing, but don’t those comments of mine also impact they way you interpret the fact that I said that the word of God is my authority?

Mark, I was raised in the RCC and I will call a spade a spade. The Bible was written to you and me, as I know you agree with. But then we’ve been through this before, haven’t we. Since I’ve been listning to you, I am aware of your position on this. I assume you’ve been listening to me as well.

So… seems like we disagree on this general topic. Why don’t you “have the last word” as O’Reilly says. (not that I’m calling you O’Reilly or calling me O’Reilly)

God bless you Mark.

DO YOU KNOW THESE COMMENTS TAKE 50 PAGES TO DOWNLOAD!

Charles

Let me be more explicit in amswering your question. The word of God is my authority.”
——
Yours only? Jodie, how is it that your clinging to Hodges is any different than my willingness to look into, and sometimes embrace, what commentators throughout time have said? You do other commentators outside the FGT camp terrible dis-service by passing them off as merely following tradition; And that claim based on what authority? So, your cling to Hodges is good, and my cling to MacArthur is bad; and that’s because the Bible is not my authority? Please be clear to me here.
——–
Jodie: “The word of God wasn’t written to the intellectual class, it was written to Mark and Jodie.”
——-
I agree
——–
Jodie: ” We have to examine the text and determine which argument is correct apart from the popularity of each argument.
——-
I agree.
——
Jodie: ” Man doesn’t determine the meaning of God’s word.”
——
Neither does Zane Hodges. You have called him the next Luther. You treat him as though he is the be-all and end-all in theological debate. I love Spurgeon. I love MacArthur. I love Zaspel and Reisinger. A pretty varied group – Covenental (Spurgeon), Progressive Dispensational (MacArthur), New Covenant Theology (Zaspel and Reisinger); all based on the fact that I can see each of their points through my own study of scripture. Yep, I read my own Bible too. Hard to believe, isn’t it?
—–
Jodie: ” The distinction bewteen laymen and the professional class of teachers is straight out of RCC thinking, in my opinion.”
—–
Again with the Calvinism is Roman Catholicism thing. Boy, that’s original.

I like how John MacArthur treats James 1:19 “…let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath…”. He says that, thanks to the regeneration we experience from God having brought us forth by the Word (1:18), we should be careful how we handle that word in the life that follows our regeneration. We should be swift to hear it; slow to speak and introduce our own thoughts while listening and meditating upon it. We should let it sink deep into our souls that it might bring about God’s desires for our sanctification, or conformity to Christ. The wrath spoken of here is seething inner anger, anger at the conviction brought about by God’s word. That wrath is seen later in James (4:11). MacArthur uses 1:19 masterfully in laying the groundwork for how we are to be doers of the word, and not hearers only.

Since you have described your view of the ‘big picture’ of James, I’ll flesh out my view.

Verse 1:19 is the key verse that acts as a hinge between the ideas of the introduction and the main body. This introduction posits James desire that the believers live a consistent God’s word empowered lifestyle which is not only “steadfast” (consistent) but “perfect and complete” (a God empowered expression of the miracle of new birth, the word implanted). The climax of the introduction is a contrast between how sin produces death but God sovereignly produces the miracle of new birth.

The key verse says, in light of the trials God is giving you to produce a consistent spirit-filled life in you, be quick to receive meekly God’s Word, be slow to speak and slow to wrath. the body of the epistle unpacks these three admonitions.

James beautiful conclusion reminds the readers of the practical ramifications of applying this advice, the need for the patient faith of Job and Elijah.

In general James is shot through with the wisdom of the Sermon on the Mount, concerns doing God’s will and is essentially the law of Christ. James insists that not just the Mosaic law had to be obeyed in total not in part but that every syllable of the Lord’s lofty commands must be obeyed:

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

At the very end, James teaching on the proper response to trials, humble obedience, which is the only response that will yield righteousness in the lifestyle of the Christian, is threaded into his desire to obey the royal command to love:

James 5:19-20 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

I’m sure there is much you disagree with here, but maybe I touch on some things you would agree wtih.

God bless.

Jodie