Can Obedience To God Earn Salvation?

[Asyncritus]

Smaller

Can you comment on why the word 'hope' is used in these passages if salvation is absolutely assured?

1 Thessalonians 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Titus 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

 

[Drew]

And so once again it happens exactly as Scripture says: faith saves. Works inevitably follow where there is faith. Salvation is "not of works" (Eph 2:9)

Here is Ephesians 2:8-9 from the NASB:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that (Y)no one may boast.

In verse 9, the writer is denying the salvific power of doing the works of Law of Moses, and not the more general category of “good worksâ€.

A point of method: It simply will not do to declare up front that the writer is talking about good works here. That begs the question, since the term “works†is not qualified by the term “good†or anything else that would rule out the possibility that the “works†of the Law of Moses is the subject. The fair-minded reader needs to ask which of the following views makes more sense given both the local context and the broader context of the whole letter:

1. The salvific power of doing good works is being denied;

2. The salvific power of doing the works of the Law of Moses is being denied.

Explanation 2 is the one that makes sense in light of what the writer goes on to say in verse 11.

Proceeding to an examination of Ephesians 2:11 and following, Paul uses the "therefore" to show us that he is now going to fill out the implications of his denial of salvation by “worksâ€

Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

The writer is clearly now talking about the Jew-Gentile divide, and how the actions of Jesus have brought Jew and Gentile together. Doing the works of Law of Moses, of course, is what demarcates Jew from Gentile in terms of covenant membership and shuts the Gentile out of citizenship in Israel. The writer continues:

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations

How much more clear could the writer be? What has divided the Jew from the Gentile and been the barrier? Good works? Obviously not, both Jew and Gentile are on “the same side†of any good works barrier (first 20 or so verses of Romans 3). It is doing the works of Law of Moses, of course, that is the very thing that the Jew might otherwise boast in and which is now being declared to not be salvific.

Besides, Paul is clear in Romans 2:6-7, a text that many continue to refuse to deal with: final salvation is indeed based on good works.

 

[Drew]

Two major passages here are:

The first gives the perfect balance between faith and works:

1 Ephesians 2.8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

In other words, salvation is by faith in Christ Jesus, not by the works of the Law.

I agree that it is specifically the Law of Moses that Paul is talking about. He is not denying what he affirms in Romans 2:6-7: final salvation is indeed based on good works:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.â€[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

 

[smaller]

Smaller

Can you comment on why the word 'hope' is used in these passages if salvation is absolutely assured?

1 Thessalonians 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Titus 3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

The promise and the fulfillment.

Our hope of faith in the fulfillment is a portion of proof of our present salvation.

Romans 8:24
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Some have fragile and insecure hope. It's natural to see that way in our present shape...

There are an abundance of various depictions to focus on. Some say for example we are saved by faith. Yet here Paul says we're saved by hope.

I relegate many of these variations to the complexities of the matters and rather than trying to pin understandings on just a single aspect position with limited views of one word it is more beneficial to try to broaden the expanses to encompass multiple statements that would provide a surface conflict to those causal observers. Some people just look for reasons to conflict. Some don't. Forcing conflict only shows limitations in the reader/observer when in fact there really are none.

It's much more interesting than that!

s

 

[dadof10]

I understand what your sect teaches.

Where did I mention my "sect"? Unambiguous answer...I didn't. This is typical from you, Smaller. You ask a question, I give a Biblically backed answer, you attack the Church, because that's all you can do. You can't deal with Paul's view on salvation because it contradicts yours and reinforces mine. BTW, the belief that OSAS is a false doctrine is held by many churches, not just mine.

You are not saved and can not say you are. Only that you might have a chance at it or at most optimistic slant, a reasonable assurance of some type.

Are you making a judgment on the state of my soul or interpreting my view? If the latter, please paste from the post of mine where I say this...Didn't think so.

Maybe faith at best. Perhaps even iffy.

Proof texting will yield many different views.

s

Again, a typical response when a person can't argue the Biblical facts. Paul says:

"I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4)

Not the words of someone who believes he is assured of Heaven upon death, huh?

 

[smaller]

Where did I mention my "sect"? Unambiguous answer...I didn't.

What? We've been posting for how long now here? A year? More? And you think I haven't figured out from your own mouth you're an RCC member?

and yeah, it's a sect just like any other form of 'branded' christianity.

The fact is d, your 'sect' doesn't teach you that you are saved, period. Only that you might be. It's 'maybe' and of course 'maybe not.'

This is typical from you, Smaller. You ask a question, I give a Biblically backed answer, you attack the Church, because that's all you can do. You can't deal with Paul's view on salvation because it contradicts yours and reinforces mine. BTW, the belief that OSAS is a false doctrine is held by many churches, not just mine.

A person who doesn't know they are saved may very well not be equipped to even address the subject matter.

I always ask such believers to convince me that God in Christ 'may not' save you. Make it a compelling case by all means to convince me you are 'correct.'

Are you making a judgment on the state of my soul or interpreting my view? If the latter, please paste from the post of mine where I say this...Didn't think so.

Far be it from me to convince you that you are maybe saved. I don't see you that way, but you see yourself that way.

I just say to such holders, maybe you're not saved because that IS what you are telling everyone. You might be saved. You might not be saved.

It ALL depends doesn't it? Could go either way couldn't it? And really, in that state you really don't even know and can't say.

Again, a typical response when a person can't argue the Biblical facts. Paul says:

"I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4)

Not the words of someone who believes he is assured of Heaven upon death, huh?

I'm not aware that Paul tried to convince any of us that he wasn't saved. If he did I would probably have to say the same things to him as you.

The fact is my friend, there is not one single instance in the entire New Testament where any named believer is said to have 'lost' their eternal salvation.

Yet your sect stands on a fact that is not even there or shown. go figure.

Those who call upon the Lord 'might be saved?'

Maybe in your head. My book reads 'shall.'

s

 

[dadof10]

What? We've been posting for how long now here? A year? More? And you think I haven't figured out from your own mouth you're an RCC member?

My answer to your question was ONLY Scriptural. I didn't rely on ANY teaching from the Catholic Church to answer your question, did I? But, true to form, you ignore my SCRIPTURAL ANSWER and attack my Church.

and yeah, it's a sect just like any other form of 'branded' christianity.

And again. More evidence you have no answers to simple Scriptural arguments. Just more vitriol.

The fact is d, your 'sect' doesn't teach you that you are saved, period. Only that you might be. It's 'maybe' and of course 'maybe not.'

You mean like Paul? Here are the verses in question AGAIN. Try and take your focus off the Catholic Church, if you can, and simply address the verses that teach that salvation is a process and that Paul wasn't assured of his justification because he doesn't judge himself.

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1Cor. 1:18)

"For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life." (2 Cor. 2:15-16)

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (Phil. 2:12)

"I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27).

As these verses prove, salvation is NOT assured, so, therefore can be lost. If salvation is a PROCESS, which these verses prove it is, this process can be frustrated.

One more:

"I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Gk., dedikaiomai]. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4)

A person who doesn't know they are saved may very well not be equipped to even address the subject matter.

Really? Why not? What does assurance of salvation have to do with reading and understanding the words of Scripture?

I always ask such believers to convince me that God in Christ 'may not' save you. Make it a compelling case by all means to convince me you are 'correct.'

I already did. You are ignoring it in favor of attacks against the Catholic Church. Please try and focus.

Far be it from me to convince you that you are maybe saved. I don't see you that way, but you see yourself that way.

Wow. That's quite presumptuous. I see myself as justified, but I know I'm a sinner who trusts in the mercy of God, and LIKE PAUL, don't judge myself because it's not my place. I'm not God.

I just say to such holders, maybe you're not saved because that IS what you are telling everyone. You might be saved. You might not be saved.

It ALL depends doesn't it? Could go either way couldn't it? And really, in that state you really don't even know and can't say.

I don't believe in an absolute assurance of salvation because it's not taught in Scripture. Salvation is a lifelong process and it can be lost, as the verses I posted prove.

I'm not aware that Paul tried to convince any of us that he wasn't saved. If he did I would probably have to say the same things to him as you.

Huh? Paul says: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified"

He says: ""I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified. It is the Lord who judges me"

"I am NOT, thereby justified..." This does not sound to me like someone who has an absolute assurance of his salvation. When he says "...are being saved", there is only one way to honestly interpret those words; that salvation is a process, not a one time event.

What will you tell Paul, that he was wrong? Do you really put yourself over Paul? Over Scripture?

The fact is my friend, there is not one single instance in the entire New Testament where any named believer is said to have 'lost' their eternal salvation.

What difference does being a "named believer" make? Does every doctrine have to have a named example for it to be orthodox?

The fact is, just because Scripture doesn't NAME a person who lost his salvation, doesn't mean Scripture doesn't teach the concept, as the verses above prove.

Yet your sect stands on a fact that is not even there or shown. go figure.

My Church stands on Scripture. This will be the the third time I have attempted to get an answer out of you for a few simple verses, and the third time you will ignore them in favor of snarky comments and attacks.

 

[smaller]

My answer to your question was ONLY Scriptural. I didn't rely on ANY teaching from the Catholic Church to answer your question, did I? But, true to form, you ignore my SCRIPTURAL ANSWER and attack my Church.

I am not aware that scriptures present maybe salvation to believers.

And again. More evidence you have no answers to simple Scriptural arguments. Just more vitriol.

As noted prior there are exactly zero scriptures showing a single believer being eternally lost. Zero. What you think you see isn't even there to see.

You mean like Paul? Here are the verses in question AGAIN. Try and take your focus off the Catholic Church, if you can, and simply address the verses that teach that salvation is a process and that Paul wasn't assured of his justification because he doesn't judge himself.

If what you think you see is true why would Paul not judge himself? Don't you see the frailty of that view?

There is no doubt that any believer can be taken by our mutual adversary back to blindness. This doesn't mean such warriors of faith were/are/will be eternally abandoned by God in Christ. Were there a single named given example of otherwise you'd have a point.

Really? Why not? What does assurance of salvation have to do with reading and understanding the words of Scripture?

Well, that was kind of the point of the observation.

Obviously such topic matters from scripture presentations have been in play for quite awhile.

I already did. You are ignoring it in favor of attacks against the Catholic Church. Please try and focus.

Maybe salvation is an idea set that your sect has taken and continues to teach. It's the idea, not the unit. Nothing personal. I don't think any less of them for their ideas.

Wow. That's quite presumptuous. I see myself as justified, but I know I'm a sinner who trusts in the mercy of God, and LIKE PAUL, don't judge myself because it's not my place. I'm not God.

Of course you do. I've always gotten a kick out of people who believe they may be lost at any given point in time. They never believe it for themselves at any point in time. Their idea is only put upon others.

But the reality is if your salvation by your own view can be no more than a maybe it can also be a maybe not at any given point in time. Perhaps even now. Simple logic dictates that if you can not say you are saved or that you may be lost, that you may in fact be lost as we speak. You can't really say you are factually saved by your own statements. Only that you might be.

I don't believe in an absolute assurance of salvation because it's not taught in Scripture. Salvation is a lifelong process and it can be lost, as the verses I posted prove.

If you are an aficionado of Word, then you certainly know there is quite an extensive scripture set for eternal security. I acknowledge that faith warriors fall. This does not equate to eternal abandonment.

Huh? Paul says: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified"

Were these kinds of statements only matters of the believer or of Paul you'd have a point. There are however adversaries of faith to view in these matters.

Adversaries tend to prevail within those who fall in this present life. This does not eliminate them eternally:

Hebrews 13:5
Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Romans 8:
38For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I acknowledge that some faithful are not as persuaded.

He says: "

"I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified. It is the Lord who judges me"

"I am NOT, thereby justified..." This does not sound to me like someone who has an absolute assurance of his salvation. When he says "...are being saved", there is only one way to honestly interpret those words; that salvation is a process, not a one time event.

Paul certainly did not pin his justification upon himself.

Romans 3:24
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

What will you tell Paul, that he was wrong? Do you really put yourself over Paul? Over Scripture?

I don't doubt that believers can be influenced to potentially doubt their salvation by our mutual adversary in this present life. In those who see that way, I do not say it is them alone in that view.

I do not see their imposed doubt as able to eternally fumble them as it is not a question of themselves alone. There are influences on believers that are not them and there is also the working of God in Christ. The latter will ultimately prevail for them.

What difference does being a "named believer" make? Does every doctrine have to have a named example for it to be orthodox?

Well, one might think that in order to cast a believer 'eternally' aside there might be at least one example?

The fact is, just because Scripture doesn't NAME a person who lost his salvation, doesn't mean Scripture doesn't teach the concept, as the verses above prove.

Those verses do not prove what you claim whatsoever. You infer that a person who falls in blindness is eternally lost. The scriptures do not make that case and also require other scriptures such as the few I cited above to be eliminated or reworded to suit what you think you see, but really isn't there at all.

Those who call upon the Lord shall be saved? Or 'maybe' saved, maybe not? That was a simple example prior.

My Church stands on Scripture. This will be the the third time I have attempted to get an answer out of you for a few simple verses, and the third time you will ignore them in favor of snarky comments and attacks.

I understand what your sect teaches. Not agreeing with the notion is merely a rejection of their limited ideas on this particular subject matter. If they don't believe they are saved what can I say? Has nothing to do with attacks or snarky comments. It is a comparison of views, period.

Believers down to the last one reflect what they think they see in scripture. They are reflections ONLY of their own hearts and certainly not reflections PERFECT.

Often those reflections vary.

For every scripture set that presents fallen salvation, it pertains to their present state not their eternal state. There is an equally compelling scripture set to reflect and to show otherwise on the eternal scale as well.

So in the final analysis, all presently having imperfect reflections, some imperfect reflections will have less light and will have some doubts.

Nothing personal.

s

 

[heymikey80]

Here is Ephesians 2:8-9 from the NASB:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that (Y)no one may boast.

In verse 9, the writer is denying the salvific power of doing the works of Law of Moses, and not the more general category of “good works”.

That's not plausible. Ephesus is a Gentile church. Paul hasn't mentioned Moses at all in the letter.

In Paul's wider thinking, the issue is not that the Law is somehow to be repudiated because it's Law -- the issue is that the Law is to be repudiated because salvation can not come from works.

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. Rom 9:30-32

if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Gal 3:21-22

A point of method: It simply will not do to declare up front that the writer is talking about good works here. That begs the question, since the term “works” is not qualified by the term “good” or anything else that would rule out the possibility that the “works” of the Law of Moses is the subject.

I haven't added "good" or anything else to "works". It's simply works.

Here's the problem: next sentence Paul does say where "good works" is placed -- it's the result of new creation -- not its cause.

To place "good works" ahead of salvation places "good works" exactly where Paul has removed it, and all other works.

The fair-minded reader needs to ask which of the following views makes more sense given both the local context and the broader context of the whole letter:

1. The salvific power of doing good works is being denied;

2. The salvific power of doing the works of the Law of Moses is being denied.

False dichotomy.

3. The salvific power of doing any works is being denied.

Paul is explicitly, in so many words, saying the salvific power of doing any works is a zero. That is, work for salvation is itself repudiated.

Good works from salvation is explicitly, flatly embraced at 2:10.

 

[heymikey80]

Proceeding to an examination of Ephesians 2:11 and following, Paul uses the "therefore" to show us that he is now going to fill out the implications of his denial of salvation by “works”

Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

The writer is clearly now talking about the Jew-Gentile divide, and how the actions of Jesus have brought Jew and Gentile together. Doing the works of Law of Moses, of course, is what demarcates Jew from Gentile in terms of covenant membership and shuts the Gentile out of citizenship in Israel.

Of course the problem here is that Ephesians 2:11 follows Ephesians 2:8-10. Paul isn't talking about law first; he's talking about works first. The only alternative is to consider law faulty because it is based on works: not vice versa.

At Eph 2:8-10 Paul also isn't talking to Jews alone. He's talking to Gentiles (cf 2:1). And he's not talking about law at all. He's talking about works.

In point of fact we're having to inject the "works-of-law" argument into 2:11ff instead of the differences Paul describes: circumcision, citizenship in Israel, foreigners to covenant promises, without hope in the world. Because Paul doesn't even mention them as law. At best the only reference to law is "abolishing the law of commands in ordinances" -- quite a soft-sell if the law is supposed to be related to works.

The writer continues:

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations

How much more clear could the writer be? What has divided the Jew from the Gentile and been the barrier?

Circumcision, citizenship, covenant promises, God. In short, the covenantal law of ordinances.

That's not works! Paul doesn't consider the real dividing line to be works at all. They were a mistake committed by Judaic theology. But there were still real divisions. Christ closed them.

Works are a mistake, corrected in Eph 2:8-10.

Covenant Law is a real barrier, and the barrier was abolished in Christ.

Good works? Obviously not, both Jew and Gentile are on “the same side” of any good works barrier (first 20 or so verses of Romans 3). It is doing the works of Law of Moses, of course, that is the very thing that the Jew might otherwise boast in and which is now being declared to not be salvific.

Were this true, Paul was false in 2:11-12. Because Jew and Gentile would be "on the same side" of any works-of-law barrier as well. You don't think the Law commands evil works, do you? :biglol

Ultimately I consider this one of the clearest problems for "works-of-law" interpretation, as it is the real inconsistency. Mosaic Law has only a good works commanded in it.

How do you reject good works and embrace them at the same time?

For me it's simple. I don't.

Good works are the result of God's work in us. Good works are impossible without God at work in us.

"No one is good; but God alone."

Besides, Paul is clear in Romans 2:6-7, a text that many continue to refuse to deal with: final salvation is indeed based on good works.

Paul's response to Romans 2:6-7 is quite clear, at Romans 2:12-13, and Romans 3:19-20. Nobody's saved through doing these good works ala 2:6-7.

Nobody wins with works.

 

[Drew]

That's not plausible. Ephesus is a Gentile church. Paul hasn't mentioned Moses at all in the letter.

My argument is indeed plausible. In fact, the fact that Ephesus is a Gentile church actually strengthens the position I am arguing for.

Paul is indeed addressing Gentiles of course. And he is telling them that salvation is not limited to Jews, that is, to those who do the works of the Law of Moses.

So not only does the immediate context of Ephesians 2 support my argument, so does the broader fact that Paul is writing to Gentiles. It is precisely the Gentiles who need to hear Paul assert that salvation is not attained by doing the works of the Law of Moses, precisely because Gentiles cannot do these works.

 

[heymikey80]

My argument is indeed plausible. In fact, the fact that Ephesus is a Gentile church actually strengthens the position I am arguing for.

No, as I pointed out the false dichotomy of "works of law" and "good works" is not plausible, and this is only the first of the implausibilities.

This first implausibility is directed at Gentiles -- few/none of whom ever even considered Moses before they discovered Christ Jesus. But they had certainly considered good works as a possible entree to God's good favor.

The second implausibility is the clearly-excluded, directly stated assertion of Paul -- that salvation is "not of works" -- which is not addressed by either of your options.

The third implausibility is the omission that "works of law" are a subset of "good works" -- and so Paul could not be excluding the specific case in favor of the general, by using these words.

 

[Drew]

That's not plausible. Ephesus is a Gentile church. Paul hasn't mentioned Moses at all in the letter.

In point of fact, allusions to the Law of Moses are there in this passage.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [h]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision†by the so-called “Circumcision,†which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, [i]excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off [j]have been brought near [k]by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [l]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 [m]by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might [n]make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, [o]by it having put to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

Again, when Paul says "you are not saved by 'works'" and then immediately elaborates on this (note the "therefore" at the beginning of verse 11) in terms of an argument about:

1. How the Gentiles now can consider themselves as members of God's true covenant family; and

2. How this unification of Jew and Gentile is achieved by abolishing the "Law of commandments contained in ordnancess" - how can anyone seriously argue this is not a way of referring to the Law of Moses.

....it is really quite clear: the "works" that do not save must be the works of the Law of Moses.

Paul is arguing thus:

1. The 'works' of the Law of Moses does not save (v. 9)
2. Therefore, the Gentile (who cannot do the Law of Moses since that law is only for Jews) can also be a member of God's covenant family.

By contrast, note the fundamental incoherence of the following position:

1. "Good works" do not save (v. 9)
2. Therefore, the Gentile (who cannot do the Law of Moses since that law is only for Jews) can also be a member of God's covenant family.

The problem will be obvious: the "therefore" passage is clearly not an explanation of the implications of the assertion that 'good works' do not save, while it obviously is an explanation of the assertion that 'works of the Law of Moses' do not save.

Please explain to us how a story about God has brought Jew and Gentile together by abolishing the Law of Moses (v. 15) functions as a "therefore" to the assertion that 'good works' do not save.

 

[heymikey80]

In point of fact, allusions to the Law of Moses are there in this passage.

No doubt. But the allusions don't make a connection to the works that precede in Eph 2:8-10.

In point of fact, we've established that "works of law" are indeed "good works" -- they can't be evil works, so they must be good works. So if we took your application of the meaning of the term "works", we would get:

"... not from works-of-law, that no man should boast. or we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works-of-law, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Eph 2:9-10

 

[Drew]

In Paul's wider thinking, the issue is not that the Law is somehow to be repudiated because it's Law -- the issue is that the Law is to be repudiated because salvation can not come from works.

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. Rom 9:30-32

I do not see how this text consists in a denial of what Paul clearly affirms in Romans 2:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Have you offered an explanation of what you believe Paul is trying to communicate in the above passage?

Back to the Romans 9 text. You appear to be begging the question in possibly two ways:

1. If you take the statement about Gentiles as achieving righteousness "based on faith" as an argument against final salvation by good works (i.e. to say one is saved by faith is effectively a denial of being saved by good works) you are overlooking the entirely coherent possibility that Paul's overall position is this: When a person places faith in God (Jesus) in the present, that person is given the Spirit (solely on the basis of that faith) and then, as that person's life unfolds, the Spirit generates the good works that will enable that person to 'pass' the good works judgement that comes at the end, and at which eternal life is at stake.

2. Verse 32 clearly does assert that the Jew made a mistake in thinking that "works" save. But here the question-begging is obvious: you cannot simply presume that these are 'good works' rather than the works of the Law of Moses.

I suggest (and am prepared to argue in grisly detail) that Paul is fundamentally critiquing for the Jew for believing that salvation was a Jewish ethnic privilege - that it is limited to those who do the works of the Law of Moses (i.e. only Jews).

Granted, I need to make the case. Fair enough. But, so do you: you cannot simply assume that Paul is critiquing the Jew for believing that he would be saved by doing 'good works'.

As in Ephesians 2:9, Paul does not say 'good works', he says 'works'. So, to the fair-minded inquirer at least two possibilities present themselves: 1. works = good works; and (2) works = the activities prescribed by the Law of Moses.

 

[heymikey80]

Paul is arguing thus:

1. The 'works' of the Law of Moses does not save (v. 9)
2. Therefore, the Gentile (who cannot do the Law of Moses since that law is only for Jews) can also be a member of God's covenant family.

By contrast, note the fundamental incoherence of the following position:

1. "Good works" do not save (v. 9)
2. Therefore, the Gentile (who cannot do the Law of Moses since that law is only for Jews) can also be a member of God's covenant family.

Once again the mistake is made. It's not "good works". It's simply "works". And here's the description:

1. You who were dead, Gentiles in fact and spirit are made alive and saved by God Himself, through faith, not from you works (neither good nor evil) you're recreated for good works.
2. Therefore despite your separation from Israel by circumcision, covenant, citizenship: the unification performed by Christ Jesus has made you part of the same spiritual nation, family, temple, all built together.

Another point of contention, too: "the law is only for Jews" is contradicted by Paul at Romans 2:

"So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?" Rom 2:26

"But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." Rom 2:29.

 

[Drew]

In Paul's wider thinking, the issue is not that the Law is somehow to be repudiated because it's Law -- the issue is that the Law is to be repudiated because salvation can not come from works.

if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Gal 3:21-22

This raises an interesting point but it does not challenge what is otherwise clear:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.â€[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

I will be very interested to read your explanation of how this text is not a clear assertion that a final judgement is coming at which people will be granted eternal life based on, yes, what they have done.

Now back to the text from Galatians. I have asserted (and actually made elements of an actual case in relation to Ephesians 2), that Paul argues that the 'works of the Law of Moses' do not save. And indeed that is a theme he returns to at several points in his writing (notwithstanding the reformation's error of anachronistically projecting onto Paul their concern about people thinking they could attain salvation through self-generated 'good works').

Here, Paul is generalizing the concept - no "law", that is no set of codified activities can be salvific. Paul, I suggest (and am prepared to argue) believes that "codified law" is not salvific. Instead (as per Romans 7 and 8), the Holy Spirit provides the "guidance" or the "engine" that produces saving good works.

The key points: (1) The position that Paul is, at several points, critiquing the view that 'works of the Law of Moses' do not save is not undermined by a generalization that asserts that the 'works' of no codified system of law save; (2) To say that no system of law saves does not challenge the view that good works are necessary for salvation precisely because, as Paul explicitly argues in Romans 7 and 8 if not elsewhere, the Christian has a means for generating good works that is not grounded in a codified system of law - the Holy Spirit.

 

[Adullam]

The obedience of faith opens up the way to salvation.

 

[Drew]

No doubt. But the allusions don't make a connection to the works that precede in Eph 2:8-10.

There is a connection. Please honour the detials of the text. Paul uses the word "therefore" in verse 11. This clearly establishes that the paragraph beginning at verse 11 is indeed some sort of elaboration of the implications of Eph 2:8-10. I cannot even imagine how you can argue otherwise. People do not say "A...therefore B" without intending to establish a connection between A and B.

What is your response please? Why would Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians use the word "therefore" in verse 11, if not to connect what follows (v. 11 and following) to what precedes (v. 8 to 10).

In point of fact, we've established that "works of law" are indeed "good works"

I see no evidence at all that this has been established. In which posts do you believe this has been established (I confess I have no read everything you (and others) have written.

 

[heymikey80]

This raises an interesting point but it does not challenge what is otherwise clear:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

I will be very interested to read your explanation of how this text is not a clear assertion that a final judgement is coming at which people will be granted eternal life based on, yes, what they have done.

If this is the only way to salvation, then we're all sunk. For a mere five verses later Paul shortly says: "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law." Rom 2:12. It's curtains: all. Romans 1:18 has condemned everyone sinful, and Romans 2:1 has condemned everyone who judges them as if they hadn't done the same thing.

This condemnation is explicitly reiterated throughout the Old Testament -- Romans 3:9-20 both states that "all are under sin" (3:9) and then proceeds to quote the condemnation of God on everyone.

Fortunately there's a Romans 3:21