James 4:17 is one of those passages in the Bible that haunts faithful Christians. The teaching that comes from it has been called "the sin of omission". That is, it is sin that is not actually "committed", but is the intentional refusal to obey some command. It's a legitimate thought, so let's examine it.
"Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin" (James 4:17)
Cotton Mather (as quoted by Albert Barnes), stated that "the ability to do good in any case imposes an obligation to do it." With such a statement, it is easy to see why some people have nightmares about this verse in James.
For example, at any given time I could possibly look at my life and see something I could be doing that is better. For that matter,
…show more content…
The only thing we are specifically told to do in James 4:13-16 is to say, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that" (James 4:15). Therefore, the person who knows to boast in the Lord's will, but does not do it, to him it is sin. There is something missing here when I think of it in that way. "Boasting in the Lord's will" means that I am looking at every circumstance of life and choosing to rejoice in God's way. Therefore, knowing I should do that, if I do not then I am sinning. I still find my way back to the original problem with the interpretation. There is always a good way or thing to do. There is always the idea of doing anything at all according to God's will, which implies that by doing it I am rejoicing in the things of God. So, in any given instant, if I do not analyze my every thought and behavior and "boast in the Lord's will", then that is sin. Or does it only apply to business …show more content…
Some people undoubtedly see this passage as one. I understand that sometimes we deal with a spectrum of knowledge and information. I cannot accept, however, that we can be in a position where we cannot know whether or not we are sinning against God. How can one repent if he does not know what sin is? In this case, we cannot know what sin is if we interpret this passage according to the two ideas above. Where is the "line" where we say, "James meant this up to a point, but don't go too far with it. He obviously did not mean THAT is sin." I am thinking about my illustration about giving up all my food and water for others ind sacrifice myself for them. Why is it OK to ignore THAT knowledge of good but NOT OK to ignore some other kind of knowledge? Is it because my illustration is too difficult to do? No, I suspect that the reason we know it is going too far is because we see the flaw in the logic but do not want to admit
First of all, the audience James was writing was almost certainly Jewish. This can be inferred because he addresses the “twelve tribes in dispersion” (1:1). Therefore, controversy over whether to be circumcised would not have been a relevant issue. Also, instead of the theological arguments of Galatians, the Book of James is filled with commands and directions for how to live out their faith in areas such as perseverance, controlling the tongue, caring for widows and orphans, and not showing partiality. This was needed for James’s audience because they did not view works as a necessary result of faith. In 1:22, James tells them, “Be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.” They had been exposed to God’s truth, but had misguidedly believed that was enough, instead of letting it affect how they lived their lives. Also, James questions whether a believer without any evidence in the form of works could have ever truly been justified by faith. Demons have knowledge of Christ, but they do not have saving faith (3:19). Abraham is, once again, given as an example of true faith. In Galatians, Paul gives him as an example of someone who was justified by faith because he believed God’s promises. James points out that Abraham’s faith caused him to follow God in deed, even to the point of almost sacrificing his only son. True faith results in
...tle. Which is, “THAT YE SIN NOT”? What the Scripture is saying here in verse 1 is that if by any reason you should fall into sin, because of the lack of consecration and watchfulness you do not have to remain in the state of sin. God will grant unto you by His mercy another opportunity to be redeemed through the blood of Jesus Christ, for the removing of your sins. Jesus is the advocate for those who fall in the temptation of their flesh and sin. The word advocate in the Greek parakletos, pronounced par-ak’-lay-tos, meaning an intercessor, counselor: comforter. Jesus Christ is represented as the mediator that counsels you unto strength, showing you the way back unto God. Once you have returned unto the Father, He will comfort you and keep you, only if you allow Him. The Lord will never console you in the state of your sins, for He finds no pleasure in you sinning.
reading, “I went on: That he 's an injury to the others” (James 15). The governess speculates that
As we look at the scripture sometime its hard to understand and digest what the passage is saying too us. Paul approach the passages logically by connecting the indicative and the imperatives. Understanding God’s word commands indicative while obeying God’s word is imperative.
...d- a consequence for doing good when “to do good is sometime[s] accounted [a] dangerous folly” (IV.II.73-74).
One of the main themes in Chapter Fourteen is that of morality. Cari Barney defined morality as “conformity to the rules of right conduct” (lecture). Man is “a moral being” obligated “to act according to moral principles” (McDonald, 2007, p. 165). Deep down within man’s conscience, there is the sense of knowing right from wrong and knowing God’s requirements (Romans 2:14-15). This awareness should cause all humans to strive to adhere to what God requires of us. The moral consciousness of man is within the heart (Proverbs 4:23). McDonald (2007) stated, “So man is in himself a moral being with moral obligations and responsibilities (p. 165). Man’s lifestyle should resemble biblical principles that have been instructed by God.
Sin is an intangible object that was not a plan of God’s. Many conclusions, opinions, and explanations can be formed, about sin, from several pieces of works. “The American Bible,” “Creation,” and Loewe’s article provide information that can be read, analyzed, and develop conclusions as to what things mean. In my opinion, God has high expectations for mankind. I feel that God was disappointed with mankind, when Adam and Eve disobeyed Him. Therefore, He felt that it was necessary to punish mankind. I think God, will restore the conditions on Earth, back to normal over an extended period of time.
The New Testament teaches about who Jesus is and what he did on the earth. John wrote the last of the four gospels which recount Jesus’ life and what is to come. The gospel of John is somewhat different from the other three gospels, in that it is more symbolic and less concrete. For example, John expresses Jesus as the Passover Lamb when Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not. This gospel is showing that Christianity is moving away from the long-practiced Jewish traditions. John’s gospel can be laid out into four parts: the prologue or the incarnate word, signs of the Messiah with teachings about life in him, the farewell teaching and the passion narrative, and the epilogue or the roles of Peter and of the disciple whom Jesus loved. The Gospel of John is arguably the most
It’s one long humid Sunday, and your sitting there listing to the Pastor drone on and on about sin. But his argument seems empty, so you open up your bible out of boredom. Turning to First John chapter three verse 3 and 4 you read, “Everyone who has this hope before him purifies himself, as Messiah (Christ) is pure. To commit sin is to break God’s law: sin, in fact, is lawlessness” (The New English Bible). The question forms in your mind burring to be asked and answered. Finally you get the Pastor’s ear and ask “What does this mean, here in First John 3:3-4? What law is John Talking about”? The Pastor pulls out a pat answer, “The Law of Christ”, he explains, is what the text is referring to. His answer is just as empty as the other responses he’s given you about many other subjects. You might be asking yourself some of these very good questions yourself, but do you ever find a satisfying answer? Did you ever get a logical answer? Has it always been some sort of an explaining away of your question? I can show you how man’s traditions, have blinded us like a set of rose colored glasses do, to what the scriptures say plainly.
...ou believe your verse, I'll believe mine." or in other words, there is no Truth, just opinion. In actuality, the verses are all true. You must believe, repent, and be baptized.
He didn’t want us to sin, as we were to be perfect in his eyes. But that all went away after Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and this is when sin was introduced into the world (the Fall). Sin is now just a human nature thing in us and now we keep making poor choices as we have the “sin” blood in us and we need to make the right choices daily to keep us sin free.
And again, “Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus. . . since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.” Gal. 2:16.
and John 10: 43-44. He tells them "… if one of you wants to be great
Sin is treason against a perfectly pure Sovereign. It is an act of supreme ingratitude toward the One to whom we owe everything, to the One who has given us life itself. Have you ever considered the deeper implications of the slightest sin, of the most minute peccadillo? What are we saying to our Creator when we disobey Him at the slightest point? We are saying no to the righteousness of God. We are saying, “God, your law is not good. My judgement is better than Yours. Your authority does not apply to me. I am above and beyond Your jurisdiction. I have the right to do what I want to do, not what You command me to
How can one talk about Christian ethics without at least quoting some scriptural passages from the Bible to explain what some New Testament writers, such as Paul, wrote about the law, sin, death, and grace. If the author is talking about morality from a Christian perspective, he cannot do otherwise; since the Bible is the foundation upon which Christians understanding of morality rest. Personally, I would have used Romans 8:2 “For the law of the Spirit leading to life delivered me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.” The law says “thou shall not” and Christians know that no one can be “justified by the works of the law…” (Galatians 2:16) and so because we are saved by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ, instead of moral theology being preoccupied with the “thou shall not” as a standard for Christian ethics, it should also talk about “thou mayest” that speak of our freedom in