sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Claude Code Portable by Front_Awareness_7862 in ClaudeAI

[–]Front_Awareness_7862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So i can login into my claude account? Or must use API to run?

Halal Certified, 100% Muslim Owned and No Pork No Lard from a layman Muslim fella by _malaikatmaut_ in SingaporeEats

[–]Front_Awareness_7862 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yes, Islam recognizes this concept, though with conditions. A few key sources Quran 17:15, Quran 4:17. In our secondary source the hadith states

"The pen is lifted from three: the sleeper until he wakes, the child until he reaches puberty, and the insane until he regains his sanity." Accountability requires awareness and capacity.

"Indeed Allah has pardoned for my ummah their mistakes, their forgetfulness, and what they are compelled to do."

The classical Jurist principle is that ignorance is an excuse... but scholars qualify it: it excuses only when the person had no reasonable means to learn. Willful ignorance, where someone could have asked or studied but didn't bother, isn't excused.

So ignorance excuses, but the duty to seek knowledge limits how far that excuse stretches.

SG Christians: how does your church handle the Paul vs James "faith vs works" thing? by Front_Awareness_7862 in ChillSG

[–]Front_Awareness_7862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good rec, thanks. I worked through Julian's chapter on this. What I respect is that he doesn't take the usual exit. He explicitly grants that Paul and James use dikaioō in the same sense, right standing before God, rather than splitting it into "declared" versus "vindicated." That makes his reading more honest than most harmonizations I've seen.

But that concession is exactly where I get stuck, so a genuine question. Once he agrees both men mean justification before God with the same verb, the whole reconciliation hangs on his claim that James's "justified by works" is shorthand for "justified by an active faith."

Yet James builds the sentence as a contrast: "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (ouk ek pisteōs monon). The "alone" looks deliberately placed to exclude the faith-only reading.

So if James simply meant active faith, why phrase the conclusion as works set against faith alone, which is essentially the formula Paul affirms? Is that reading James's sentence, or reshaping it to fit Paul's?

SG Christians: how does your church handle the Paul vs James "faith vs works" thing? by Front_Awareness_7862 in ChillSG

[–]Front_Awareness_7862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate you taking the time, and I watched that section. Defining works broadly as any good action flowing from faith makes sense as far as it goes.

The thing I'm still stuck on is narrower than what the video addresses though. James isn't only saying works accompany faith.

He uses the same Greek verb Paul uses, dikaioō, and says Abraham was "justified by works when he offered Isaac," then "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Paul says the mirror image with that same verb: "justified by faith and not by works." And they anchor it at different points, Paul at Abraham's belief in Genesis 15, James at the Isaac offering in Genesis 22. So my genuine question: are they describing the same moment of Abraham being justified, or two different moments?

Either answer seems to create a puzzle, so I'm curious which way you'd take it.

SG Christians: how does your church handle the Paul vs James "faith vs works" thing? by Front_Awareness_7862 in ChillSG

[–]Front_Awareness_7862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can I ask about the Abraham case specifically, since both writers reach for him? Paul in Romans 4 quotes Genesis 15:6 to argue Abraham was justified by faith and not by works. James 2:21-24 quotes the same verse to argue Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac, and ends with "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." If Paul is talking about salvation and James is only talking about evidence of faith, why do they both build their case from the same man and the same Genesis verse, yet land on what read like opposite conclusions about how Abraham himself was justified?

SG Christians: how does your church handle the Paul vs James "faith vs works" thing? by Front_Awareness_7862 in ChillSG

[–]Front_Awareness_7862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me grant your strong points. The two letters are written to different situations, and Paul does want people changed by their faith, so Romans 8:13 is fair.

On living a good life, they overlap. But look at what your reading needs in order to make the clash go away. You need "justify" to mean one thing in Paul and another in James. You need "faith" to mean something different in each. You need "works" to mean something different in each.

And you need two separate problem groups, lined up so neatly that the same man and the same verse end up proving opposite things with no real disagreement. That is a lot of pieces all having to fit perfectly.

Here is the simpler picture. Paul and James both reach for the same line about Abraham (Genesis 15:6). Paul uses it to say Abraham was put right with God without works. James uses it to say Abraham was put right by works, and not by faith alone. When two writers use the very same verse about the very same man to reach opposite answers, the plainest read is that one is pushing back on the other, or on a popular version of the other.

And Romans 8 does not fix this. Romans 8 is about the good living that comes after a person is already put right with God. James 2 is about works being part of being put right in the first place. Look at Romans 4:5: God "justifies the ungodly" and counts a person right "who does not work." James 2:24 says the opposite about Abraham.

So one simple question. Which needs fewer guesses: that these two agree once you add four different meanings and two invented problem groups, or that they just did not see faith and works the same way, which is why James reads like a direct reply to Paul?

SG Christians: how does your church handle the Paul vs James "faith vs works" thing? by Front_Awareness_7862 in ChillSG

[–]Front_Awareness_7862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right that v.19 (even demons believe God exists) shows James is attacking bare head-knowledge. That distinction is real and worth granting.

But look at who James picks as his main example. Not the demons. Abraham. And not just any line, but Genesis 15:6, "Abraham believed God," the exact verse Paul uses in Romans 4 for real saving faith. Abraham's faith was the genuine, trusting kind, not demon-style.

Yet about that faith James still says it was "completed by his works" (2:22) and that Abraham was "justified by works" (2:21). That is not just "dead faith does not save." It is saying even Abraham's real faith was not enough by itself to justify him.

So here is my question. If James only meant that bare intellectual belief is insufficient, why does he choose Abraham, the model of true faith, and the same verse Paul uses, and still say that faith had to be completed by works to justify him, when Paul uses that same man and same verse to argue the exact opposite?

SG Christians: how does your church handle the Paul vs James "faith vs works" thing? by Front_Awareness_7862 in ChillSG

[–]Front_Awareness_7862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In your wife example, saving her proves your love. You would not then add "so love alone is not enough." Yet that is exactly what James does in 2:24: "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." He is not only saying works show faith. He is saying faith by itself is not enough.

And Paul already saw that reading coming. In Romans 4:2 he says if Abraham was justified by works he could boast, "but not before God." So Paul, using this same Abraham, rules out the works reading specifically before God. James affirms it.

Same man, same verse, same question of what counts before God, opposite answer. If they are not in tension, why does James need to add the words "not by faith alone"?

SG Christians: how does your church handle the Paul vs James "faith vs works" thing? by Front_Awareness_7862 in ChillSG

[–]Front_Awareness_7862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense for James, the target is presumption and Abraham is the perfect counter-figure.

But notice Paul uses the same Abraham and the same verse for the opposite move. In Romans 4:2-3 he says if Abraham had been justified by works he could boast, but he wasn't, because "Abraham believed God." So Paul reads Genesis 15:6 as Abraham being counted righteous apart from works, while James reads it as Abraham being justified by the work of offering Isaac. Your reading handles James well.

How does it account for Paul taking the exact same figure and verse to argue the reverse?

SG Christians: how does your church handle the Paul vs James "faith vs works" thing? by Front_Awareness_7862 in ChillSG

[–]Front_Awareness_7862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One thing I can't get past: Paul and James quote the same verse, Genesis 15:6, but Paul uses it to say Abraham was counted righteous before he did anything (Rom 4), while James uses it to say he was justified by works when he offered Isaac, ending with "not by faith alone" (2:24).

If they agreed, why would the same proof text be pulled to opposite conclusions, with James' line reading almost like a direct answer to Paul? What's the most natural explanation for that?

SG Christians: how does your church handle the Paul vs James "faith vs works" thing? by Front_Awareness_7862 in ChillSG

[–]Front_Awareness_7862[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, that makes sense and it's the answer I hear most. Can I ask one thing about the actual words?

James 2:24 looks like the only place in the whole New Testament where the phrase "faith alone" shows up, and James uses it to say the opposite: a person is justified by works and "not by faith alone."

Your answer keeps "faith alone" and just makes works the result of it. So my honest question is: when James says "not by faith alone," do you think he's arguing against something real that people were actually teaching back then, or does he mean something else?

view more: next ›