Parent: JesusWordsOnly
James Critique of Paul s Idea That The Law Arouses Sin
In (Jas. 1:13-14) (ASV), we read:
(13) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for
God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
(14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own
lust, and enticed.
(15) Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and
sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
What is James saying here? God does not tempt anyone to sin. To say so is a blasphemy against God. When you sin, it is because you were enticed by your own desires. Right? Theologically sound? Of course.
What did Paul teach? The exact opposite. Paul says in (Rom. 7:7-13:)
(7) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had
not known sin, but by the law : for I had not known lust, except the
law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
(8) But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.
For without the law sin was dead.
(9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment
came, sin revived, and I died.
(10) And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to
be unto death.
(11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment,
(12) Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
(13) Was then that which is good made death unto me? God
forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by
that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become
exceeding sinful. (ASV)
- A popular way of reconciling Paul to James is to say James merely means that works prove you were saved. This is known as the, forensic test. The contrary says works are an intrinsic requirement to salvation. The intrinsic view is correct because Jesus warns Christians repeatedly to have works or perish. (Matt. 7:19), "every tree without good and by it slew me.
What is Paul saying? First, Paul very clearly says that he would not have known to lust after women had he not been commanded against doing so. Prior to that time, "without the law, sin was dead." (v. 8).
Paul then comes about this from the other side, making his point more shocking. Prior to the law, Paul says "I was alive without the law" ( i.e ., spiritually alive), but then the law came, and "sin revived and I died." (v. 9) Paul is clearly saying the law brought sin to life in him. Without the law, he was living sinless and spiritually, without any temptation to sin. However, when the law came and he read its prohibition, sin, by virtue of the law's commands inciting in him to lust, occurred. Paul sinned and spiritually died.
James must have scratched his head reading this. How can anyone attribute to God and His law the temptation to sin? Yet, Paulunists defend and explain that is precisely what Paul means.
However, Paul knows what he is saying, and knows we will object. So Paul twice does a "God forbid hand-waive." (Rom. 7:7, 13.) Paul takes what he has just said and claims "God forbid" you should think he is saying what he has otherwise clearly said. Yet, despite the God forbid message, Paul leaves you, the reader, with only words to support the view that the law tempted him to sin. Listen to the hand-waive in(Rom. 7:13);
Psalm 19:8-9 "The commandment of Yahweh is pure,
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But
sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which
is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. (ASV).
This quote reveals Paul senses the blasphemy of saying the law "which is good" was "made death to me." So he says, if you think that were true, God forbid.
- Paulunists admit Paul claims that reading the Law arouses sin. Paul Borden's audio online sermon The Frustration of Doing Good is an exposition on (Rom. 7). Borden, an American Baptist, introduces his sermon by saying "the apostle Paul eloquently explains how the law causes us to do the very things we don't want to do-clearly accentuating our need for grace." Borden is blunt: "Paul says the law caused his sin to 'spring to life'- makes him want to sin." See Christianity Today which hosted this sermon in 2005 at http://resources.christianity.com/ministries/christianitytoday/main/talkInfo.jhtml?id=26945 (last visited 6/2005). Incidentally, Borden's explanations later contradict Paul, claiming Paul means the Law merely incites rebellion when we are told to stop the sin we love. Borden explains we like our ways prior to hearing the Law. When the Law tells us that we are sinning, we continue in our ways rebelliously. In Borden's spin, the Law did not cause the sin to start. In this manner, Borden's spin contradicts Paul. For Paul says he did not know to lust for women until he read the Law's command against doing so. Paul says he was previously living spiritually alive. Paulunists spin Paul to prevent exposing his blasphemy.
Paul Borden explains Paul "eloquently explains how | the law causes us to do the very things we don't want to do...." (2005) (online sennon).
Yet, that is precisely what Paul has just said, and then immediately repeats. He goes back to what he was saying before, adding the postscript, "by the commandment [ i.e., the Law] sin became exceeding sinful." Paul was not being equivocal on that point. That is what Paul said backwards and now forwards. Paul gives himself an out from making a blasphemous statement by saying that if you think he is saying the law, which is good, "made death to me," God forbid. However, Paul then does not explain how we are supposed to square what he previously said with his God forbid statement. He uses mumbo-jumbo of impenetrable words that you are somehow to think answers your concern:
But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that
which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding
sinful. (Rom. 7:13.)
Those are Paul's only words to take the sting out of saying the Law tempted him to sin. Rather, it appears to be reinforcing his prior blaming his sin on the Law. He says by means of the "good" (the law) and "by the commandment" sin became exceedingly sinful. What does that mean? It appears to be repeating what Paul just said "God-forbid" you should think is what he means. Paul reduces his words into pure mumbo-jumbo. He seeks to dumbfound the reader into thinking your natural concern that Paul is uttering blasphemy has somehow been addressed. Yet, it never happens!
In response, James simply trashes the entire discussion in (Jas. 1:13-14). One quick jab, and Paul's ideas are again refuted.