James referencing Rahab was her faith in the Israelite God by her to spare her by her action when she helped those two Hebrew spies escape.
Correct. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether she or those she helped were monetarily rich or poor.
I do not see how you got way over there by that application at all.
Then that lack of understanding is a problem - a problem to be solved.
it has nothing to do with wealth but how the church was disrespecting the poor...
What do you suppose the words "rich" and "poor" mean in James' epistle? James explicitly couched his narrative in those who have rings and fine clothing and (later) those who have no food or clothes. It was you who said everything James wrote was specifically, exclusively, and solely about socio-economic class and now I read, "
It has nothing to do with wealth."
You've contradicted yourself.
It is irrational to argue the James narrative is ONLY about the Church's tolerance of the poor being disrespected by the rich in one post and then in another claim "
it has nothing to do with wealth but how the Church was disrespecting the poor."
.
from the very beginning of chapter 2 and James was giving another example by how the church was applying the church's faith in God to provide to the departing poor after church service to get out of helping the poor thus not leading by example in the eyes of the poor after having received the bounty collected during church service that they could have met the immediate needs of the poor that were about to perish from the elements and starvation after church service.
Go back and re-read James' epistle because that is NOT what is written therein.
And yet you referenced James to the topic why; when faith without works has no relevance to the topic of how we are saved?
Let me encourage you to 1) choose your words well and wisely and 2) re-read your posts before clicking "Post reply," because you have just said "
faith without works has no relevance to the topic of how we are saved," when 1) I have never said that's what James was claiming, 2) I have never said faith absent works is soteriologically relevant, 3) I explicitly stated James (and Paul) were writing to an already-saved audience, 4) faith and faithfulness do in fact have relevance to the topic of how we are saved and therefore so too does its antithesis (as something to be avoided), and 4) I have very little patience for those who misrepresent what I post and/or post fallacies, and don't self-correct their own errors.
Because I know some of your views I will assume that rhetorical question was not intended exactly as written and wasn't thought through very well.
Did I not say James was writing to an already-saved audience? Have I not repeatedly made the distinction between faith and faithfulness (works)? Have I not repeatedly spoken of faithfulness as a post-conversion condition? Have I not - in scores of threads throughout this and many other forums - repeatedly couched everything I write on salvation in Ephesians 2:10's assertion works are the purpose of our being created in Christ?
So either you don't know these things about me (having failed to actually read the posts in this thread), you do know these things but posted that rhetorical question any way, or you simply made a mistake and now need to start over, correct the mistake, and make amends.
Was refuting applying James words "faith without works is dead" to this discussion for why I went to that scripture reference to refute that misapplication.
I understand that. I think you've made a mess of James and contradicted yourself. I think that because James did NOT couch his commentary solely in the problem of the Church's tolerance of socio-economic prejudice(s) AND one post claims the epistle is only about that while another states it has nothing to do with wealth.
The Greek "
plousios" (v. 6) means "wealthy" "full of resources," and/or abounding and it is most often used in the New Testament in reference to materially wealthy people. James explicitly juxtaposes this material wealthy against those rich in faith. The materially poor are rich in faith.
Was I misunderstanding you?
It appears so.
Did you not place church's established theology and scripture as separate as if each standing on its own merits so that sola scriptura cannot be used exclusively as in reproving theology as in any theology?
No.
Go back and re-read the posts. Re-read them as often times as it takes to correctly understand what was posted and before assuming anything negative first
ask. I'm happy to clarify or explain anything that I did not make clear.
I’m assuming you mean Jesus?
