Can Obedience To God Earn Salvation?

[heymikey80]

This begs the question! A fundamental principle of sound argument is that you cannot simply assume the very thing you need to make case for. How, for instance, do you know that people (Jews, in particular) in 400 BC do not understand 'works' to denote the practices of the Law of Moses? In fact, it is clear that, in some places at least (such as Romans 3), Paul uses the term 'works' in connection to the practices of the Law of Moses.

I didn't beg the question. Back up a number of posts and I pointed out the historical meaning and context of "works".

Again: The word 'works' in verse 9 is not qualified. So, given that there is such a category as 'good works' and such a category as 'works of the Law of Moses, you cannot simply assume that term denotes either of these meanings.


No. You appear to be arguing thus:

1. Paul says something about 'works' in verse 9;
2. Paul says something else about 'good works' in verse 10;
3. Therefore, Paul must be talking about good works in verse 9.

No.

The reason you're having this trouble is that you're constantly looking for what my eisegesis is for "works". And it doesn't exist. It's simply the pedestrian word for "works". Nothing more.

This is obviously incorrect, precisely because the following makes perfect sense, and exactly mirrors (structurally) what Paul has written:

8 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 of the Law of Moses, 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.

This eisegetes "the Law of Moses".

All I have done is to posit that 'works' in verse 9 denotes 'works of the Law of Moses'.

Right. That's "eisegesis".

The result is an entirely coherent block of text, proving that the structure of the passage does not undermine the possibility that 'works' (in verse 9) really means 'works of the Law of Moses'.

Of course, neither does the structure of the passage undermine your position - that 'works' in verse 9 = 'good works'.

But the fact that Paul is talking about good works in verse 10 does not require us to conclude that he is talking about good works in verse 9.

As I've pointed out, Moses isn't mentioned, the Law is only mentioned in passing with quite a number of other concepts. "Therefore" is pressed beyond its limits to support just any eisegeted connection between the two. For instance, maybe the "raising up" in Eph 2:6 is what's meant by "being built up" in Eph 2:20-21. But how would that be "the heavenlies"? Maybe we should try worshipping at an Eastern Orthodox church to get a glimpse of how that reference is pressed pretty far beyond its Apostolic intent.

Is it meant? Are all incidental connections we want our theology to make, are they all valid? I don't think so. That's why for myself I had to go back to the historical meaning of "works" and draw from it. It wasn't required by my theological viewpoint, either. There're dozens of options in my heritage allowing your view. They just don't seem to me to do justice to what the Apostle said, and thus what he meant to say.

 

[dadof10]

Believing God in Christ maybe won't save a believer is probably pretty close to vain, and potentially unbelief. People obviously read the same words and come to believe entirely different conclusions.

Same thing as prior. A person can certainly fall in this present life back into unbelief. I don't deny that many fall victim to our mutual adversaries into same. That does not automatically equate to God in Christ abandoning them. We've covered this prior at length.

Same as prior. We can both read for example that many of Israel fell into unbelief. Romans 11:25-32 says they shall be saved anyway, even enemies of the Gospel.

It's the same principle. Believers fall in this present life. Doesn't mean God in Christ abandons them.

Sorry, no. There is a CONDITION in each of the verses I posted. You are saved "IF". Why do you think Paul puts these conditions upon salvation? Isn't it redundant if you are saved anyway? So, Paul says "you are saved, if you hold it fast..." So what happens IF we don't hold fast? Well, according to you, we are saved anyway. So, why say it? Your view makes Paul look like a fool throwing around empty threats. It's obvious what he means, you just can't accept it because your ears are being tickled by the fantasy of "eternal security".

What you see is merely a limited reflection on the matters. Above there is a scripture set showing how Israel fell in unbelief, yet are saved anyway. Not seeing the fact of it is a form of unbelief in the readers. It can be right there in print and some still can't believe it? Why? They too suffer in unbelief of that particular matter. Will God in Christ save them? Yes according to Paul

Stated multiple times now. We have mutual adversaries of our faith and believers encountering same can certainly fall in unbelief in this present life. This does not equate to them not being saved. There is exactly zero statements showing any of the above NOT being saved. Only that they fell into unbelief in this present life.

So, if a person "falls into unbelief", he is still saved? If Hymenaeus and Alexander did not repent of their blasphemy, and they were "handed over to Satan", they would be saved anyway? Do you see how ridiculous this is?

Judas is a great example. Satan entered Judas. Should we view Judas alone then or should we rightfully see Judas and Satan in the same lump of flesh? Some just can't see the factual state of Judas and see only Judas. That too is a form of spiritual blindness. It can be shown in black and white that such are taken by our mutual adversary, but readers still can't see the fact of it.

OK, so Judas was saved (had faith in Jesus), and God allowed Satan to "enter" Judas so that he was damned? How does this bolster your case?

That's what your sect teaches you, that you can believe matters that are outright contrary to scriptures because 'they say so.'

This is in response to my statement: "This is really beside the point. Every doctrine that is taught in Scripture doesn't need a named example to be True."

Where does the Catholic Church teach that "named believers" are not necessary for a doctrine to be true? Point me to the Encyclical. It is simply common sense that something can be taught within Scripture (or anywhere else) and be true WITHOUT actually naming a person who holds it or is a real life example of it. If something is being taught within the document, THE AUTHOR is a person who holds the opinion or doctrine. Have you ever read a simple textbook? If the author says "1+1=2" does he have to also say "and Dwight K. Schrute has always held this to be true", for it to actually be true? Can't you simply believe the author, especially when it comes to Scripture?

Not every believer is going to get sucked into those dead end angles and will prefer scripture presentations. Your particular sect has a plethora of things I can't accept because they don't exist in the text. Too many for me to recount in brief. Yet many buy those positions. Your sect claims that if a person doesn't buy every one of their solely determined positions they are potentially damned. I don't buy that either.

You are sounding more and more desperate with each line. Where does Catholicism teach this drivel? She doesn't. You are again trying to build a straw-man because you can't touch the arguments of the real one.

The fact is there is not one single named example of what you present. Not a one showing a believer who falls victim to our mutual adversary to be abandoned by God in Christ.

Are you forgetting Judas? He had faith and "fell victim" to Satan.

And there are many scriptures showing an exactly opposite position, that God in Christ never ever abandons them. Your belief as stated prior effectively requests others to NOT believe outright statements of scripture. It is in effect a request, even a demand to NOT believe.

Really? Where did I say this? Just paste my words, Smaller. Another Straw-man. Your credibility is taking quite a hit here.

I have said more than once that I believe (please read these words) God doesn't abandon us, we abandon Him by our sin. Does this sound vaguely familiar?

If his salvation was hinged on him doing as you think above why wouldn't he judge himself??? That might seem rather critical. That was my statement prior.

What does this mean?

Well thank you for acknowledging the obvious.

This was in response to my statement: "No one is "abandoned by Christ", This is a common straw-man used by the "presumptuous" crowd. WE abandon Christ through sin, He doesn't abandon us."

You seem to understand that this is my position, because you say, in the very next sentence:

Your claim is that people abandon God in Christ.

So why do you keep bringing up this straw-man and trying to tie it to my "sect"? Can you say "desperation"?

My sight is that they are taken in unbelief, victims of the god of this world who blinds their minds. Christ never abandoned them and there is more than just the person in that equation.

Ultimately your sect potentially damns you for every sin in thought, word and deed that you do unless you yourself incorporate certain rituals and exercises of incantations.

Yeah, right. There goes the last shred of credibility. You need to get you head out of Jack Chick tracts and try and understand what we really believe. I have a feeling you won't, though. It's just easier to hate a boogie man of your own creation.

I don't buy that entire package. Christ's sacrifice was entirely sufficient on the issue of sin. The only factor is a believers recognition of that fact and reconciling themselves to the matter in belief.

So, works salvation, then?

God in Christ saves sinners. And not on the basis of rituals and incantations, but by His Action and Power. I'm not into substitute methodologies.

No, but on the basis of recognition of facts and reconciling, right? Two "works" that must be done to earn salvation, then.

You don't, even can't see the outright circular logical fallacy in your own statement. If his salvation was based on his performances WHY WOULDN'T HE JUDGE himSELF for his sufficiency? Why would Paul NOT judge himself? If you say it is God alone who judges is it then some mysterious measure that only God in Christ knows but has not disclosed?

I'm not saying it, Paul is. You just need to humbly accept his words.

When any Pope sits in the chair of St. Peter, supposedly infallible in his groups determinations, he sits there as a sinner along with everyone else in his group who came to their conclusions. It will remain entirely unlikely that any man or group of men can have 'infallible conclusions' seeing only in part, as sinners and as through dark glass.

Take this same principle to the Scriptures. It is IMPOSSIBLE that a mere sinful man can write God-breathed words, UNLESS IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO GUIDES THEM. After reading the above, I doubt whether you even believe the words of Scripture are inspired. They were written by fallible, sinful men, "seeing only in part, as sinners and as through dark glass", right? So I suppose the entire basis for your theology is subjective reading of a fallible book.

Go read Romans 11:25-32 and we'll see if you have any reading skills.

What do you think this proves? I asked "Where is the "named believer" who is being influenced by "our mutual adversary" and Jesus, the latter eventually winning out?" Do you mean the entire Jewish people were being influenced by the Devil? Where do you get THAT from these verses?

Will have to cut to the chase on this last count as the post is getting too long and the balance is just a rehash of the basic differentials we've already covered.

OK, fine. When you get some time, will you please answer the questions you are skirti...EErrrr...don't have time for? I'll post them here again so it'll be easier for ya. You're welcome.

You: 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.

Me: So, are your "reflections" open to subjectivity? Could you be wrong in your interpretation? Could you be wrong in your subjective JUDGEMENT on whether you are saved? Humm....If the answer is "yes", can you really have a 100% assurance of salvation? Or is it that you view EVERYONE ELSES "reflections" as "not PERFECT", but your reflections are perfect? After all, if there is even one little doubt in your mind, you go from an assurance to "maybe". Welcome to the club.

You: 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.



Me: No there is not. The verses you posted, and others, don't claim 100% assurance or a guarantee of salvation. It's simply not there.

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




Me: Do you fit into this mold with the rest of us, or are your reflections "perfect"?

 

[smaller]

Sorry, no. There is a CONDITION in each of the verses I posted. You are saved "IF".

The 'if' you keep missing is 'if' a believer falls in this present life that does not mean God in Christ abandons them. Any believer can fall in unbelief. Happens every day. They aren't their own savior as you suppose.

Why do you think Paul puts these conditions upon salvation? Isn't it redundant if you are saved anyway? So, Paul says "you are saved, if you hold it fast..." So what happens IF we don't hold fast? Well, according to you, we are saved anyway. So, why say it? Your view makes Paul look like a fool throwing around empty threats. It's obvious what he means, you just can't accept it because your ears are being tickled by the fantasy of "eternal security".

In order to be a believer one might actually have to, you know, be one.

So, if a person "falls into unbelief", he is still saved? If Hymenaeus and Alexander did not repent of their blasphemy, and they were "handed over to Satan", they would be saved anyway? Do you see how ridiculous this is?

Go read the text. What does it say? So they will LEARN not to blaspheme. The point of that exercise isn't so they will be abandoned and not saved is it?

Talk about fitting a presumption.

OK, so Judas was saved (had faith in Jesus), and God allowed Satan to "enter" Judas so that he was damned? How does this bolster your case?

I was pointing out the rather glaring fact that Satan and Judas were, you know, obviously lumped together. When did your sin cease being 'of the devil?' You wanna just pile drive on Judas? There are exactly zero statements in the scriptures that Judas is in hell. Not even the RCC has made that determination. Did you leap out to another point that isn't there?

Hey, weren't you blinded by the god of this world prior to belief? You think that god ineffective to do the same post salvation? You think God in Christ helpless and worthless to save if that happens????

This is in response to my statement: "This is really beside the point. Every doctrine that is taught in Scripture doesn't need a named example to be True."

Where does the Catholic Church teach that "named believers" are not necessary for a doctrine to be true? Point me to the Encyclical.

The RCC and zero other sects have named any particular individual to hell if they have half a brain. The claim here will remain this. God in Christ does not abandon them and that fact is a fact of scripture to which you also acknowledge.

You are sounding more and more desperate with each line. Where does Catholicism teach this drivel? She doesn't. You are again trying to build a straw-man because you can't touch the arguments of the real one.

You do not know what your sect teaches. I'll maybe school you some other time as it's beyond the scope of exchange here. In fact if you picked up your own study materials you'd be able to find it yourself, but you see the masses are sold 'pablum' and the RCC knows that most of it's adherents are not even going to bother to even look things up. Ask any knowledgeable person here about it and they'll tell you the same thing. Technically 'every' believer who does not kow-tow to every jot and tittle and knowingly openly disagrees with them is a heretic in danger of hell. The only and I mean ONLY exceptions are the IGNORANT masses.

Are you forgetting Judas? He had faith and "fell victim" to Satan.

So do we every time we sin. Your point is what? Don't you know unbelief is a sin as well? Did Jesus forget to forgive that particular sin to a person taken captive again by the god of this world? And instead only want to abandon them and burn them alive in fire? What kind of God is that?

I have said more than once that I believe (please read these words) God doesn't abandon us, we abandon Him by our sin. Does this sound vaguely familiar?

Where do you even come up with the idea that we somehow become 'sinless' after belief? And where do you come up with the idea that you are made sinless after certain rituals and exercises of memorized vocabularies are recited?

So why do you keep bringing up this straw-man and trying to tie it to my "sect"? Can you say "desperation"?

It is a sect so I refer to it as one. They don't see themselves that way but everyone else would see it as a fact. Does the conversation change on the term sect or do you insist I claim the RCC as thee one sole church in order to have a conversation? There are at least 3 orthodox SECTS that lay claim to the 'one true church' position and zero of them agree with each others and in fact if you read their fine print they all claim the others heretical. They are all then sects.

Yeah, right. There goes the last shred of credibility. You need to get you head out of Jack Chick tracts and try and understand what we really believe. I have a feeling you won't, though. It's just easier to hate a boogie man of your own creation.

Uh, I certainly don't say you aren't saved. J. Chick might. I don't. Bad analogy.

Your 'sect' does however claim every believer who knowingly openly disagrees with them are heretics who are 'potentially damned forever.' If they allowed it to be discussed more here I'd show your the RCC rulings on these matters. If you had any interest at all you'd look them up yourself.

So, works salvation, then?

Well, you are busy trying to toss believers who fall into the eternal flames and I am pointing out the fact that your 'sect' claims even unbelievers WILL be saved on the basis of WORKS.

No, but on the basis of recognition of facts and reconciling, right? Two "works" that must be done to earn salvation, then.

Again, you should be familar with your own sects teachings on these matters. I am kind of surprised you'd sally out in public without just a little basis in understanding of your own groups positions.

Take this same principle to the Scriptures. It is IMPOSSIBLE that a mere sinful man can write God-breathed words, UNLESS IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO GUIDES THEM. After reading the above, I doubt whether you even believe the words of Scripture are inspired. They were written by fallible, sinful men, "seeing only in part, as sinners and as through dark glass", right? So I suppose the entire basis for your theology is subjective reading of a fallible book.

The entire point of that exercise is to show that 'all' are in fact sinners and that UNbelief is a sin. Now, I understand that you'd like to DOUBLE DEAL the forgiveness to your sects big shots and still count the sin of UNbelief against fallen believers so you can see them burn alive forever. I just call that plain old hypocrisy, false measures and unjust weights.

That is a good example to end this post on for now as it's way past bedtime in the Rockies.

And by the way, you might even be polite and address Romans 11:25-32 per my previous request. This is my second request. I'd say you purposely dodged it but will see if you take a swing at it next.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Drew]

I didn't beg the question. Back up a number of posts and I pointed out the historical meaning and context of "works".

You did beg the question. Simply asserting a definition for "works" is not good enough. And while I would agree that the term "works" can denote "good works", the real sense in which you have begged the question is that you have not made a case that the term "works" cannot denote the works of the Law of Moses.

For my part, I have argued - made an actual case - from Eph 2:11 and following that if, repeat if, 'works' could be a shorthand way of referring to the 'works' of the Law of Moses, then it is clear that this is indeed how the term is being used in Ephesians 2:9.

Strictly speaking I would need to make an independent argument that the term 'works' can be used in this way. But that is a trivial task - in Romans 3, Paul refers to the works of the Law.

So I do not see how you have any argument. We know (Romans 3) that 'works' can denote 'works of the law".

So you cannot simply invoke one definition of works and declare it to be the intended meaning and dismiss the other possibility.

 

[Drew]

In the absence of a descriptor you're applying yours.

True. As are you.

But in the presence of a descriptor you're omitting yours.

I do not know what you mean. Please explain.

Ultimately, you're applying an eisegetical meaning for no particular reason -- except to accomplish your view.

Incorrect on two counts.

1. I was hoping you would not descend to the "attribution of motive" line, as others do here. You simply have no access whatsoever to my internal motives, and therefore have no grounds whatsoever for your speculation that I am bending things to suit my position.

2. I have provided a Biblical argument that, once one admits that 'works' can be a shorthand way to denote 'works of the Law of Moses (an undebatable point since Paul uses the term 'works of the Law in Romans 3: For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law), this is indeed the reading that makes the most sense to resolve the unqualified term 'works' in verse 9 in Ephesians 2.

It appears you are trying to pre-emptively take a "works of the Law" reading off the table to resolve the otherwise unqualified 'works' in Eph 2:9.

I will continue to point out the following: Paul does not say "good works" in verse 9! He simply says 'works'.

So, please explain: Given that Paul uses the phrase "works of the Law" in Romans 3, how do you know that he is not using the term 'works' in Eph 2:9 as a shorthand for "works of the Law of Moses"?

If you respond that 'works' simply always means 'good works' without at least dealing with my argument that Romans 3 establishes the plausibility that it can denote 'works of the Law), our discussion will be over, since it would then be clear to me that we have fundamentally different ideas of what constitutes a legitimate line of argument. I will then continue to post, but would not interact with you (no hard feelings)

I kind of hope you are going to suggest that this phrase "works of the Law" in Romans 3 is not a reference to the Law of Moses. I would be delighted to address such an objection.

 

[Drew]

Ultimately, you're applying an eisegetical meaning for no particular reason -- except to accomplish your view.

Meanwhile, I'm not. I'm drawing on the very clear, very obvious, very pedestrian, common idea of what "works" means. The common readers and listeners wouldn't miss this fact. That's not begging the question. That's drawing from the historical context. That's exegesis.

This is not valid reasoning. The fact that, perhaps, the term "works' generally meant good works in that culture (I am not sure this is true, but I will concede the point for the sake of the argument) is obviously (and frankly obviously so) not grounds for concluding that this is what the term means in Ephesians 2:9.

If other meanings for 'works' are legitimately available, then those meanings must be considered as well. And, as I suggest I have shown, what Paul goes on to write in verses 11 and following is basically a "slam-dunk" to the effect that he is indeed talking about 'works of the Law of Moses' in verse 9.

Again, remember the "therefore" in verse 11. What Paul writes in verses 11 and following is precisely what one would expect a writer to say who believes that salvation is not limited to Jews! Verses 11 and following about the dissolution of the Jew-Gentile distinction! That is really beyond debate. Such a discussion makes perfect sense as a "therefore" to a statement that salvation is not based on works of the Law of Moses: one cannot be saved by the works of the Law of Moses, therefore Gentiles, too, are part of God's family.

With all respect, this is such a powerful argument, I would expect the only way to wriggle out from beneath is to do to what you are doing: pre-emptively deny the possibility that 'works' in verse 9 means 'works of the Law".

But that cannot work anyway, since Romans 3 uses the phrase 'works of the Law'.

Now I cannot emphasize the following enough: If you deny that this allows the possibility of the shorthand term 'works' as denoting 'works of the Law of Moses', you must, for the sake of consistency, stop using the argument that you are using: that 'works' is a shorthand for 'good works'.

 

[Drew]

In You mentioned Romans 3 as a place where "works of law" is implied. I've pointed out before, there's no such reference there.There is indeed a very different expression -- "a law of works".

Romans 3:28 (NASB)

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Do you stand by your assertion that Paul only uses the expression "a law of works" in Romans 3?

That and Romans 9:30-32 point out very clearly, the broader category of objection is works, law results from it.

I have already made an argument that Romans 9:30-32 works perfectly well with the view I am espousing. It is in post 275. You have not responded to that post.

Another different issue would be whether a Christian convert from Judaism has to repudiate the Mosaic Law, specifically its works. Paul has it that the Christian must repudiate it as a way to salvation...

I agree, of course, but this does not challenge my argument.

-- but not in any other sense. But in the modern Gentilizing view of Christianity, the Jew must be removed. This isn't born out by history, so I doubt it seriously as well. One can be a Jew who's a Christian, by embracing Paul's theology. One can also be a Gentile who's a Christian, by embracing Paul's theology. The result must unify Gentile and Jew, while allowing the identity of both to be retained. That's what Paul's theology does.

I tried to follow this, but failed. I believe Paul is arguing that because the works of the Law of Moses do not save (Ephesians 2:9, with 'works' replaced with 'works of the Law of Moses by hypothesis) therefore, Gentiles, who cannot do the Law of Moses since its application was limited to Jews, are also part of God's family.

I do not believe you have dealt with how effectively taking 'works' in Eph 2:9 as denoting 'works of the Law of Moses' coheres with verses 11 and following.

Please answer this question: Do you deny that a statement that the works of the Law of Moses do not save very naturally leads into a discussion of how Gentiles should consider themselves to be in God's family, precisely because, if the works of the Law of Moses did save, then Gentiles, who cannot do the Law since it was only ever given to Jews, will never have the possibility of salvation?

I cannot imagine how you can answer this question with a "yes, I deny this", unless, of course, you pre-emptively disqualify "works of the Law of Moses" as a legitimate reading of "works". And that, as should be clear, does not work.

 

[Drew]

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.

It clearly is plausible. We have Paul using the phrase "works of the Law" (and obviously meaning works of the Law of Moses) in Romans 3.

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.

You are not dealing with my argument. In summary:

1. Yes, the letter is written to Gentiles at Ephesus;

2. However, they would have been aware that many Jews (most perhaps) felt that they (Jews) had an exlusive ethnically grounded right to membership in God's family. This is quite clear from what Paul says in v.11 and following - that material is precisely the argument one would mount if one were wanting to show that membership in that family (and thus final justification) was available to Gentiles as well.

3. Therefore, whether or not Gentiles had also "considered good works as a possible entree to God's good favor", they (Gentiles) also were concerned with this claim of ethnic exclusivity.

Again, your position does not fare well in light of v.11 and following. Is it an explansion of a denial of justification by good works? No, it is not. Is it an expansion of an argument that God's favor is not limited to Jews? Yes it is, and let's not pretend otherwise!

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised†by those who call themselves “the circumcision†(which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember 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. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 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 access to the Father by one Spirit.

I am going to say something that I hope does not cross the line: It is inconceivable to me that someone could post (with a straight face) that the above is not clearly about the dissolution of the Jew-Gentile divide. I am not saying anyone has denied this.

But the problem is this: Unless you deny it, you are forced to commit two highly suspect moves:

1. You have to pre-emptively assert that "works" in verse 9 cannot mean good works. And I see no basis for such a moves;

2. Having done so, you are still faced with having to explain why Paul asserts that one is not saved by good works and then elaborates on that (we cannot ignore the "therefore") in terms of a discussion of the dissolution of the Jew-Gentile divide: something that is entirely irrelevant to the question of justification by good works.

 

[Drew]

Interestingly, Rev 20 has this to say:

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 [...] and they were judged every man according to their works.

Note that at least 3 books are opened.

First observe that the BOOKS, plural, are NOT the book of Life which is described as "another Book ..."

Therefore, anyone whose name is in the BOOKS, plural, is dead.
Why?
Because they are judged ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS.

Those are the people who believe that their works will save them.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The book of life is the LAMB'S book of life:
Revelation 21:27[...]but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

These in the Lamb's Book of Life, belong to the Lamb -who ARE GIVEN salvation:"[...] but the GIFT of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Your argument is vulnerable to the following: you implicitly assume that the names in the "book of life" do not get inserted to that book on the basis of good works. Yes, the other books are about "works". But that does not mean the "book of life" is not also works-based.

I suspect you will object "but those who are in the book of life are "given" salvation.

Indeed! But, as I have been repeatedly saying: Paul's argument is that while final salvation is indeed based on good works, these good works are produced by the action of the Holy Spirit, which is given to a person freely, and on the basis of faith alone.

This is not a fanciful invention of mine - a contrivance to make my position work; It is Paul's argument in Romans 8, where he argues that those who have the Spirit will not be condemned precisely because that Spirit is transforming them into "good works producing machines".

 

[Drew]

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.

Here are the problems with your position on this (and I am inferring some things, so please set me straight if I misrepresent you):

1. Like many others, you seem to think that Paul puts forward Romans 2:6-7 as a statement he then later undermines. Well that is exceedingly odd. Why would Paul say something he does not believe to be the case in first place? - namely that people will be given eternal life according to what they have done. People never explain this. Its almost as if you think it is normal "argument practice" to assert something you believe to be false, with no indication that you believe it to be false, and then go on to argue the flip side of that statement later. Of course, this is a real reach - there is nothing in Romans 2 that suggests that Paul is doing anything like this.

2. About Romans 2:12-13: All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

I am pretty sure your argument is "see, Paul says (v13) that there will be those who will be justified by 'obeying the law'. Since this must be the Law of Moses, and since we know that Paul later tells us that one cannot be justified by the Law of Moses, we know that Paul is, indeed, telling us about a mode of 'works' justification that is unattainable. There is a whiff of plausibility about that argument.
But, if we read on, we discover that even though Paul uses the word "law" in verse 13, he cannot mean the Law of Moses!:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,

This is very strange stuff. Paul is, I suggest, clearly introducing a second use of the concept law here. Let's be clear: Paul is not talking about Gentiles obeying the Law of Moses per se - they do not have it - they are in no sense under its jurisdiction. And, as I plan to argue, there is plenty of other evidence that Paul has two categories of law in mind here, as elsewhere in his writing. Sound like a rationalization? Well, it is likewise clear that Paul uses the term "Israel" to refer either to the nation of Israel or to the church. So there is every reason to at least consider that Paul has 2 "law" categories in mind.

If this is so (and again the arguments will have to wait), then we can say that, indeed, some people will be justified by doing the works of this second law as Paul says. So, to the extent that this line works, Romans 2:12-13 does not necessarily deny final justification by "law": as long as it not the Law of Moses that he is talking about, there is no contradiction with other statements about how the Law of Moses cannot justify.

3. Romans 3:19-20 never denies that people can be saved through good works. At most, it denies what Paul elsewhere denies - the works of the Law of Moses cannot save. Again, this is just a statement on my part, but I am prepared to make the case.

 

[Drew]

Over the years, I have maintained that many in the reformed tradition simply do not deal with Romans 2:6-7 which, at least taken as a standalone statement, is as clear a statement as one could ask for to the effect that final salvation will indeed be based on good deeds.

For my part, I believe that Paul means exactly what he says. Others, including some in the present thread, believe that Paul is using a kind of literary device where he asserts something he knows to be false, and later goes onto to show why that assertion is false.

Well, there is a huge problem with this for starters. Who uses this kind of literary device? If I believed the sky was blue, would I make the case by first asserting "the sky is red" and then undermine this statement through subsequent arguments that the sky is, in fact, blue? It doth verily boggle the mind.

This is, I suggest, an "emperor has no clothes" situation where lots of people implicitly conspire to deny the obvious. At some level, you must all know this is a very suspicious argument indeed.

Now to be fair, it would most certainly not be suspicious at all for Paul to say something of the following general form:

I am now going to tell you something that many believe, but which I believe to be false: you can be saved based on good deeds.

This is fine: while the second part is a direct assertion that people can be saved by good deeds, the preceding clause shows that Paul believes otherwise.

Where is there anything like this in Romans 2? Any hint of whiff of a sense that Paul does not mean what he says?

I suggest there is no such statement. Furthermore, I suggest that those of you who do not take Romans 2:6-7 "as is" are essentially forced to adopt this awkward position: The only reason we do not believe Paul means what he writes in Romans 2:6-7 is that he writes things that contradict 2:6-7, elsewhere in the letter.

Oh really? Again, it need to be pointed out how odd this is - assert something you know to be false, without indicating it is false, and subsequently "argue" against that very assertion.

Can anyone shed some light on how you defend this notion that Romans 2:6-7 is not to be taken "as is"?

 

[savedbygrace57]

Christ's Obedience, the God Man earned Eternal Life for all those he represented !

 

[Drew]

To be fair, there are some things in Romans 2 that do appear to set a precedent to the effect that Paul sometime says somethings he otherwise knows to be false. Here is verse 13:

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

The doers of the Law (of Moses, presumably) will be justified??!!! But we know from many other places that Paul clearly asserts that no Jew can ever be justified by the Law of Moses. Conclusion: Here in Romans 2, Paul is employing a strange, but perhaps plausible form of argument where he writes something he knows to be false in anticipation of then arguing the opposite position elsewhere. Following that line, we can reasonably assert that even though, in Romans 2:6-7, Paul speaks of people being justified by 'what they have done', Paul does not believe this to be the case.

Fair enough, but there is a huge assumption on which this whole line of argument rests. And that assumption is that "Law" in Romans 2:13 is the Law of Moses. Although I will not argue the point in the present post, I suggest that Paul is using the term "Law" (in v. 13 anyway) to denote something other than the Law of Moses. If this is the case, one is denied the precedent of Paul saying something he knows to be false, a precedent that one would then use to say that Paul believes the opposite of what he writes in 2:6-7: that men are saved by good deeds.

Besides, and as per my last post, it is decidedly odd for anyone, least of all a competent writer like Paul, to employ a strategy of first declaring what you know to be false, without saying it is false, and then setting forth the correct position (which undermines the initially asserted (and false) position).

More later on this interesting and admittedly complex problem.

 

[Adullam]

To be fair, there are some things in Romans 2 that do appear to set a precedent to the effect that Paul sometime says somethings he otherwise knows to be false. Here is verse 13:

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

The doers of the Law (of Moses, presumably) will be justified??!!! But we know from many other places that Paul clearly asserts that no Jew can ever be justified by the Law of Moses. Conclusion: Here in Romans 2, Paul is employing a strange, but perhaps plausible form of argument where he writes something he knows to be false in anticipation of then arguing the opposite position elsewhere. Following that line, we can reasonably assert that even though, in Romans 2:6-7, Paul speaks of people being justified by 'what they have done', Paul does not believe this to be the case.

Fair enough, but there is a huge assumption on which this whole line of argument rests. And that assumption is that "Law" in Romans 2:13 is the Law of Moses. Although I will not argue the point in the present post, I suggest that Paul is using the term "Law" (in v. 13 anyway) to denote something other than the Law of Moses. If this is the case, one is denied the precedent of Paul saying something he knows to be false, a precedent that one would then use to say that Paul believes the opposite of what he writes in 2:6-7: that men are saved by good deeds.

Besides, and as per my last post, it is decidedly odd for anyone, least of all a competent writer like Paul, to employ a strategy of first declaring what you know to be false, without saying it is false, and then setting forth the correct position (which undermines the initially asserted (and false) position).

More later on this interesting and admittedly complex problem.

It is far simpler than that. One who does what is commanded to do IS just. Doing what is right is always the thing to do. It is when we CLAIM to be justified by our actions that we transgress the law of righteousness.

It is so ironic that people who don't really understand what righteousness really is claim righteousness for themselves because of their beliefs. That very claim is unrighteous because we are not qualified to exonerate ourselves. So simple yet so little understood.

 

[Drew]

It is when we CLAIM to be justified by our actions that we transgress the law of righteousness.

You are not dealing with my argument.

Why would Paul claim in Romans 2:6-7 that people are justified according to what they have done - and that is clearly what these 2 verses are saying, at least as considered as a standalone block of text - if he does not believe this to be the case.

This is what I am asking.

Paul says we are justified by what we do, at least in these 2 verses. Can you explain to us why you think Paul wrote that, if, as you appear to be implying, he believes no such thing?

 

[heymikey80]

You did beg the question. Simply asserting a definition for "works" is not good enough.

Which I didn't do. I provided citations and listings of what "works" means in ancient history, on the thread. So I didn't beg the question. So I didn't beg the question. Thank you for providing the conditions, which don't apply in this case.

Oh, maybe you were frustrated in finding the post. The OP has been multiplying posts to prevent continuity. Here, here's the post:

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=43281&p=684118&highlight=#post684118

And while I would agree that the term "works" can denote "good works", the real sense in which you have begged the question is that you have not made a case that the term "works" cannot denote the works of the Law of Moses.

Nonsense. I never said it denoted "good works". You assertion here is unfounded now, by your own criteria.

:waving But Thank You! For defeating your own argument against mine.

For my part, I have argued - made an actual case - from Eph 2:11 and following that if, repeat if, 'works' could be a shorthand way of referring to the 'works' of the Law of Moses, then it is clear that this is indeed how the term is being used in Ephesians 2:9.

No. What you've asserted is that the unmodified word "works" could adjust to your theology if it meant "works of law". Once it's modified, it doesn't mean "works of law". That asserts a general term must mean something narrow: and that kind of argument requires an exegetical demonstration. For your view to be right, somewhere Paul must be talking about "works" (without modification), but interpretively demanding that he means "works of law".

But there's no support for it outside eisegetical theology.

And -- for the record -- "works of law" are all good works. So what you're saying is that Paul is complaining about a more narrow term "works of law" when actually he's using a more general term "works". This is an argument reversal compared with what the Apostle actually writes down. The Apostle uses "works" -- a general term. How else can a noun with no modifiers (adjectives, prepositions) be understood plainly by his audience except to mean "works, generally"?

The Apostle distinguishes "from works" (2:9) with "for good works" (2:10). Paul distinguishes cause from effect. So there is a logical distinction Paul is already making: destination vs source.

There's no logical reason to seek Paul meaning any differently from anyone else referring to "works". There's no inconsistency in understanding the unmodified "works" in a general sense. "When the plain sense of Scripture makes sense there's no sense seeking another sense."

Strictly speaking I would need to make an independent argument that the term 'works' can be used in this way. But that is a trivial task - in Romans 3, Paul refers to the works of the Law.

In Romans 3 Paul calls it "works of law". He doesn't call it "works".

And this letter -- it was to the Romans. To the Ephesians Paul says zilch about "works of law". In point of fact Paul only uses this phrase early in Romans, and in Galatians.

In fact in Romans 3 Paul points out, the Law fails to save when it is considered "a law of works" (Rom 3:27). Now what'd that be in your interpretation? "a law of works [of law]" ...? That doesn't really make any sense, either. It happens again in Romans 9:31-32 -- "Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works [?of law]." So the law fails because it's the law ...? Whatever happened to the law of faith? Whatever happened to the law of the Spirit of Life? No, the law isn't itself the problem. Working for salvation is the problem. Paul says so. You're welcome to reinterpret this in your own mind, but injecting that into the text is simply eisegesis.

Something else you might be interested in: Paul apparently occasionally uses "law" to mean "works of law". At least I have no other explanation for certain areas where this seems to be Paul's meaning. So I'm not opposed to the concept: it happens in the case of the word "law". It doesn't happen in the case of the word, "works". I'm opposed to the interpretation of "works". There's no support for that interpretation. So it's eisegesis.

So I do not see how you have any argument. We know (Romans 3) that 'works' can denote 'works of the law".

No. We know (Romans 3) that "works of law" means "works of law". But that's a tautology.

So you cannot simply invoke one definition of works and declare it to be the intended meaning and dismiss the other possibility.

"works" meaning "works of law" is eliminated by lack of support, not simple dismissal. We've looked, to no avail. "Tekel". "Upharsin".

 

[Drew]

No. What you've asserted is that the unmodified word "works" could adjust to your theology if it meant "works of law". Once it's modified, it doesn't mean "works of law". That asserts a general term must mean something narrow: and that kind of argument requires an exegetical demonstration. For your view to be right, somewhere Paul must be talking about "works" (without modification), but interpretively demanding that he means "works of law".

I have indeed, correctly, asserted that the unmodified term "works" can be a shorthand way to denote works of the Law of Moses.

Your critique here that "That asserts a general term must mean something narrow: and that kind of argument requires an exegetical demonstration":

(1) Ignores the fact that I have provided such an exegetical demonstration: I have shown that what Paul writes in verse Eph 2:11 and following only makes sense if he intends 'works' to denote 'works of the Law';

(2) Can be directed back at you. Remember, in verse 9, the term 'works' is unqualified. So where is your exegetical demonstration that it means 'good works'? I suspect you will say that the unmodified term 'works' always denotes good works. That is simply not a legitimate move. On precisely what basis do you know that it is not possible for Paul to use the term 'works' as a shorthand for "works of the Law"? You have already bought into the notion that 'works' can be a shorthand - otherwise your own position is undermined. The very real problem you have is this: Here in Ephesians 2 as as well as elsewhere (Romans 3, Romans 11, if not other place), the unqualified term 'works' does, in context, clearly denote 'works of the law'. You, however, have to pre-emptively rule this out - otherwise your position is at risk for precisely this reason. So please tell us, on precisely what basis do you assert that 'works' can be used in an unqualified manner to denote 'good works' while it cannot be be used in an unqualified manner to denote 'works of the Law of Moses'?

 

[Drew]

A follow-on to my previous post on the matter of the legitimacy of asserting that the unqualified term 'works' can, repeat can, denote the works of the Law of Moses.

In Ephesians 2:9, and elsewhere, we have cases where the term "works" is used in an unqualified manner. Unless one mounts a robust argument that, for linguistic / cultural reasons it is somehow prohibited for a writer to use the unqualified term 'works' to denote works of the Law of Moses, one is in real pickle.

And the reason is this: once the possibility that 'works' means 'works of the Law of Moses' is granted, it becomes really quite clear, from contextual analysis, that this is indeed what the unqualified term 'works' actually means in those settings. I have already made the relevant arguments re Ephesians 2, and plan to so for other uses, such as Romans 3 and Romans 11.

I politely raise the following possibility: those who insist that the unqualified term 'works' in Ephesians 2 (and some other places) cannot be shorthand for 'works of the Law of Moses' have only option, given the preceding paragraph): they have to pre-emptively remove the possibility that 'works' (unqualified) denotes the works of the Law of Moses. And I am quite sure that no defence for such a move has been provided.

At the risk of "appealing to authority" (a move that I concede is often not useful), I will point out that none less than respected theologian NT Wright holds precisely to the view I am espousing (in fact, I "got" the idea from him). This does not prove anything, but it should at least remind the reader that the position I am espousing is not a "fringe" position - at least one highly credentialed, respected Bible scholar holds it.

 

[Drew]

To the Ephesians Paul says zilch about "works of law".

That is a very hard position to sustain. Just a few breaths after Ephesians 2:9, we have this:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,...

I cannot even imagine the contrived argument one would have to make to suggest that the "two groups" are not the "Jews and the Gentiles" and, more importantly, that "the law" in verse 15 is not the Law of Moses.

Now since the Law of Moses was only given to the Jews, and functioned to mark them out from the Gentile, an assertion that the Law of Moses has been abolished is precisely the thing one would expect would be thing you would expect from an author who is, as is patently clear, mounting an argument that Gentiles are as much a member of the family of God as Jews.

And as part of such argument, you would almost require a statement that "the works of the Law of Moses do not justify, because if they did, then membership in God's family would be limited to Jews."

This is why it is so clear that 'works' in Eph 2:9 must be a reference to the works of the Law of Moses.

Can you address this argument please? To this point, it is my impression that your strategy is to pre-emptively deny the very possibility that the term 'works', when used in an unqualified manner, can denote the works of the Law of Moses. Now even if you were able to legitimize such a move - and I have no idea how you can do that - it will seem very odd indeed that you have robbed the entire passage of the logical coherence I have just outlined. Again: a denial that works of the Law of Moses, which only Jews can do, justify coheres perfectly with assertions that Jews and Gentiles have been united into one body.

Lest we forget: The Law of Moses was for Jews and Jews only.

 

[Drew]

More about how a "works of the Law of Moses" reading makes sense in Eph 2:9.

In Eph 2:9, Paul says one cannot be justified by 'works'. He then expands on the implications of this in this "therefore" para beginning at verse 11:

From Ephesians 2:

11Therefore 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-- 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.
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. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit

Paul tells us that the Gentiles were "excluded from Israel and foreigners to the covenants". Up to this point in the Biblical narrative, it is the Jews - those circumcised in the flesh - who appear to be heirs to the covenant promises. So there was at least the appearance of two classes of people. Paul then springs his argument: Jew and Gentile have been “made one†through….what? Answer “abolition of the lawâ€.

How can this not be the Law of Moses? It is precisely the Law of Moses that was given to Jews and Jews only and which, by God’s own words (Leviticus 20) established the Jews as a “special people set apart from the nationsâ€! If one abolished the Law of Moses, one would be effectively saying: the distinction between Jew and Gentile has been dissolved.

Which is clearly what the author of Ephesians is saying. Conclusion: Although the text does not explicitly say “the Law of Moses†has been abolished, the hypothesis that it is indeed the Law of Moses is obviously the hypothesis that makes sense in context: the abolition of the Law of Moses, not the abolition of some other law, takes aways the Jew-Gentile distinction.

Now let's loop back the the unqualified term 'works' in 2:9. If this intended to be an allusion to the Law of Moses, we have precisely the thing one might expect from an author who is, as we have seen, arguing that the Law of Moses has been set aside.

The reason is this: If the Law of Moses were still in force, the Jew could still claim "we Jews are the only ones in God's true covenant family (i.e. those who are justified) since God has given us this special law to set us apart from the rest of the world".