That there was a dispute between James and Paul (or two flanks of the church represented by them) is beyond question; but what I am trying to figure out is what brought about that dispute, and how was it ultimately resolved?
I think there was controversy, but not even between camps represented by James and Paul. I don't think that it was a situation of dualistic camps holding different soteriologies. Rather, I think the situation was more of a spectrum. I think that James and Paul both represented basically the middle of the spectrum - although probably tending a little more toward either side. Looking at it this way, I think that James and Paul were speaking out against the extreme ends of the spectrum .. of course, the end opposite to the one which each tended. So I think that both spoke from a position where salvation was linked to an interplay of faith and righteousness (works) - although each put greater focus on one or the other in their writings - and rejected a position of exclusively one or the other.
but also a debate over whether the transformation is immediate ("in the blink of an eye" as in Paul) or progressive and ongoing (as is reflected for example in the Gospel of Matthew), and also a debate over what that transformation reflects and brings about.
This too I see as simply being different facets of a whole. It is not a matter of transformation being either immediate or gradual, but rather that it could be immediate or graduate or a combination of the two.
However I do not think that I am perceiving a false dilemma. I think that there is a real and obvious tension between the maintenance of the church as a worldly body, and individual mystical or spiritual experience.
I would agree, but this is not the false dilemma that I was speaking of. I was speaking of the faith/works in opposition dilemma.
I find Christian theology, devotion and mysticism to be very rich. However, that richness is both a strength and a weakness. It allows Christianity to engage many different people, but it carries it with it the pitfall that some would focus so exclusively on one facet that they not only neglect but reject the others. Sometimes, this is taken even further, the one facet ceasing to make sufficient sense out of context, so they in turn give it a new one. I think this is why I think the saying that most heresies are truth to the exclusion of truth is so apt. James opposed the truth that we are saved by faith but only when taken to the exclusion of the truth of importance of making that faith manifest in righteousness. Paul in turn opposed the truth about the necessity of right action but only when taken to the exclusion of the truth that it is the faith that inspires that action that saves.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-03-28 12:27 am (UTC)I think there was controversy, but not even between camps represented by James and Paul. I don't think that it was a situation of dualistic camps holding different soteriologies. Rather, I think the situation was more of a spectrum. I think that James and Paul both represented basically the middle of the spectrum - although probably tending a little more toward either side. Looking at it this way, I think that James and Paul were speaking out against the extreme ends of the spectrum .. of course, the end opposite to the one which each tended. So I think that both spoke from a position where salvation was linked to an interplay of faith and righteousness (works) - although each put greater focus on one or the other in their writings - and rejected a position of exclusively one or the other.
but also a debate over whether the transformation is immediate ("in the blink of an eye" as in Paul) or progressive and ongoing (as is reflected for example in the Gospel of Matthew), and also a debate over what that transformation reflects and brings about.
This too I see as simply being different facets of a whole. It is not a matter of transformation being either immediate or gradual, but rather that it could be immediate or graduate or a combination of the two.
However I do not think that I am perceiving a false dilemma. I think that there is a real and obvious tension between the maintenance of the church as a worldly body, and individual mystical or spiritual experience.
I would agree, but this is not the false dilemma that I was speaking of. I was speaking of the faith/works in opposition dilemma.
I find Christian theology, devotion and mysticism to be very rich. However, that richness is both a strength and a weakness. It allows Christianity to engage many different people, but it carries it with it the pitfall that some would focus so exclusively on one facet that they not only neglect but reject the others. Sometimes, this is taken even further, the one facet ceasing to make sufficient sense out of context, so they in turn give it a new one. I think this is why I think the saying that most heresies are truth to the exclusion of truth is so apt. James opposed the truth that we are saved by faith but only when taken to the exclusion of the truth of importance of making that faith manifest in righteousness. Paul in turn opposed the truth about the necessity of right action but only when taken to the exclusion of the truth that it is the faith that inspires that action that saves.