Can Obedience To God Earn Salvation?

[heymikey80]

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

OK. Yes, that's what I gathered from your posts.

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';

I've demonstrated that it does make sense when simply denoting all works, of any kind. You've only established that it doesn't make sense when attempting to mean good works in general.

(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'?

None. I have not attempted such an explanation. It's works in general. Works understood in the ancient mind, as working in a job for a wage.

It's not an unexpected question, but I hope you'll realize, I've been saying this for many postings, and indeed many postings along this thread.

 

[heymikey80]

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,...

What is the connection of "works" in 2:9 with this reference to law? So far you've stated it's the "therefore" at 2:11. That would be like saying "imitators of God" are "those who killed the Lord" in 1 Thess 2:14-15, simply because there's a "therefore" in between.

I've pointed out that in Eph 2:11ff Paul is saying that because they're saved through faith, not works, therefore they are joined into the family of God, from whom they've been excluded. This interpretation doesn't require the "works.....therefore.....law" <==> "works of law" conclusion. And it's pretty plainly what Paul said. That's why the "therefore" argument doesn't work: there's the plainest alternative. The search for a more subtle answer would end.

 

[heymikey80]

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.

The problem is, someone can consider any number of complicated senses of the term "works". But it's the plainness of the word that leads me to check out
whether this really qualifies as a "special Christian terminology". And what I've found is, it doesn't. There simply isn't a place where the word "works" -- alone, with no qualifiers -- has to mean "works of [a/the] law". In point of fact, it actually works as a meaning when we take "works" in its conventional sense at the time.

Could it be "works of the Mosaic Law"? Sure. It could. But there's an absence of a verse which demands it, leaving the plain meaning of the word as a reasonable, simple, and thus preferred answer.

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.

The problem here is that "works of law" never justified even Jews. Paul illustrates this throughout Galatians 3 as well as in Romans 4. The Jewish people are justified by faith, not works. The Gentiles, the same. And Eph 2:1-10 is talking about Gentiles. The Jewish people however were separated from Gentiles by this barrier of law and commands.

So the shorthand of Eph 2 becomes --

"You pagan Gentiles are justified by faith -- therefore Christ Jesus unified you with the Jewish people from whom all this law and ritual and covenant once threw up a dividing wall."

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

I'll leave this for another time. I think the Mosaic national Law was intended for the nation of Israel, yes. But "The Law is perfect", "righteous", "spiritual", "superior". As such its morality, and its general equity, both obligate everyone to God's morality intended therein solely on the basis of God's call to what's right. Romans 2:26-29 offers that point.

 

[thightower]

Jesus taught in the bible that repentence of sins and trust in earns salvation. the works come because of him. The laws were to prove to us that we are sinners destined for God's wrath.

 

[Drew]

I've demonstrated that it does make sense when simply denoting all works, of any kind.

Can you point me to the post(s)? In any event, the real question is not whether an 'all works' reading can "make sense", that is be a possible reading, the real question is which makes more sense in context: an 'all works' reading or a 'works of the law of Moses' reading? I contend it is rather obviously the latter, and I believe I have already made the case. In any event, let me try a different avenue.

Consider an analogy. Suppose the very general setting is a discussion about admittance to Harvard University. Now suppose, we find this bit of text:

One does not get into Harvard by deeds. Therefore, you blacks who thought you could not get into Harvard really can into Harvard because the admissions department has abolished "the code". Now blacks have the same opportunity as whites to get into Harvard.

Now suppose that it is also well known that there is a thing called "the code of Fred", which is a set of practices that only whites can do - some set of behaviours which are, for some reason, restricted to whites only. Now suppose that it also well-known that whites believe that it is by doing the "deeds" of the "code of Fred" that they qualify for Harvard. Do I need to finish the argument?

The point is that if we grant the possibility that "the deeds" mentioned in the very first sentence are the 'deeds of the code of Fred', context makes it very clear that "the code" is in fact the code of Fred and that the "deeds" are indeed the deeds of the code of Fred!

This is really obvious (in all candor)! If this author is falling over backward to reassure blacks that they can get into Harvard, and if it was generally believed (by whites) that admission to Harvard is based on doing "the deeds of the code of Fred", then the entire passage gains internal coherence and unity if read as I am suggesting: (1) If some code has been abolished that would convince the black that s/he, as result, has the opportunity to get into Harvard, what other code could it be than the "code of Fred", given that blacks believe that whites think get admission to Harvard based on the code of Fred? (2) If the abolition of this code follows logically (remember the "therefore"!) from the assertion that 'deeds' do not get you into Harvard, how can 'deeds' be anything other than the 'deeds of the code of Fred?

You appear to believe that "works" means "all works of any kind". The problem is that it is only the works of the Law of Moses that function to mark out the Jew from the Gentile. Remember, the "therefore" in verse 11 tells us that what follows is an elaboration of the implications of among other things, the assertion that one is not saved by 'works'.

Let me put it this way. Imagine someone listening to Paul read this letter out loud in real time. Now imagine Paul saying "you are not saved by works....., therefore.....",. Now imagine a "pause" - Paul stops talking for a couple of seconds. If the listener is committed to the position you are holding that person should be saying to themselves, "Boy, I really hope Paul does not go on to make an argument about how Jew and Gentile have been brought together by abolition of the Law of Moses; If Paul goes on to make such a case, I would, given the widely held understanding by Gentiles that Jews think doing the works of the Law of Moses means they alone can be saved, have to concede that the 'works' that do not save are the works of the Law of Moses."

I confess that I simply cannot understand how this is not obvious. Reading 'works' in verse 9 as 'works of the Law of Moses' is like finding the perfect missing piece of a puzzle, given (1) that Paul elaborates his 'one is not saved by works' statement in terms of an argument about Gentiles being integrated into God's family based on the abolition of 'the law'; (2) it was widely understood that Jews thought that doing the works of the Law of Moses meant that only they could be saved (Romans 3!).

 

[Carolyn]

Yes. Absolutely. That is what Jesus did in fulfilling the Law. But "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilt of all." James 2:10 NKJV Jesus is the only one who has ever kept the whole law. We all are guilty of breaking the whole law, making us dirty rotten no good sinners.

God created us for good works that we should walk in them As we learn to recognize and obey God's voice we walk in the Spirit and do good works. These do not merit salvation but do merit rewards in heaven. The crowns that we will receive we will cast down at the feet of Jesus; we will recognize the this was not our doing, but His living in us. "Christ in you, the hope of glory."

 

[Deborah13]

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".

Matthew 5:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

 

[Deborah13]

Yes. Absolutely. That is what Jesus did in fulfilling the Law. But "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilt of all." James 2:10 NKJV Jesus is the only one who has ever kept the whole law. We all are guilty of breaking the whole law, making us dirty rotten no good sinners.

God created us for good works that we should walk in them As we learn to recognize and obey God's voice we walk in the Spirit and do good works. These do not merit salvation but do merit rewards in heaven. The crowns that we will receive we will cast down at the feet of Jesus; we will recognize the this was not our doing, but His living in us. "Christ in you, the hope of glory."

AMEN and AMEN

 

[Drew]

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

Read the referenced post - could not find any material of relevance (as far as I can see).

Please explain to me precisely how you know that 'works' (unqualified) cannot be shorthand for the Law of Moses. I cannot imagine what kind of case you will make. I hope I do not need to tell you that showing all sorts of examples of how the term 'works' denotes things other than the Law of Moses does not make your case.

Given that the phrase "works of the Law" appears in the New Testament, I cannot imagine how you are going to make your case - how do you know that Paul cannot "shorten" an intended reference to the works Law of Moses to simply "works"?

 

[Drew]

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

How, exactly is anything I have said "nonsense". Please be specific.

Which of the following are nonsensical?:

1. Since the phrase 'works of the Law' appears in the New Testament, this could be shortened to 'works';

2. If a term like 'works' can mean 'works of the Law of Moses, we have to at least consider such a reading every time the term 'works' appeared in a less than fully qualified sense.

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

I have no idea what your point is here.

 

[Drew]

And -- for the record -- "works of law" are all good works.

True, but entirely immaterial. I am arguing that Paul intends a specific reference to those 'works', "good or otherwise" that comprise the Law of Moses.

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"?

This is a very easy question to answer.

There is simply no linguistic basis, at least in English, for the position you appear to be embracing here. You appear to be saying "in the absence of modifiers, a term is to understood in its most general sense". Well, while it might make sense for such a "rule" to be adopted, it clearly is not how English works.

In particular, context often functions to restrict the "scope of meaning of some term".

Consider a parent lecturing a child about cleaning his room. The parent rants at length, always focusing on the specific matter of cleaning the room. The parent never mentions "giving to the poor", "caring for the neighbour", "taking care of the dog", etc. etc. Its all about cleaning the room. At the end, the parent concludes with "If you follow my rules, you can have some candy".

Is the noun "rules" qualified? No it is not. But, in context, it clearly denotes the specific set of instructions about cleaning the room.

I cannot emphasize the following enough: If I was trying to defend your position, I would do exactly what you are doing - try to pre-emptively limit what 'works' can mean. Because once it is granted that 'works' could mean 'works of the Law of Moses, the argument is over. Why? Because, it is frankly obvious that what Paul writes in verse 11 and following is precisely the kind of elaboration you would expect to the very "narrow" claim that the Law of Moses does not save.

 

[heymikey80]

Can you point me to the post(s)?

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

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?p=689986#post689986

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44691&p=689993&viewfull=1#post689993

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?p=689491#post689491

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?p=683997#post683997

In any event, the real question is not whether an 'all works' reading can "make sense", that is be a possible reading, the real question is which makes more sense in context: an 'all works' reading or a 'works of the law of Moses' reading? I contend it is rather obviously the latter, and I believe I have already made the case. In any event, let me try a different avenue.

Honestly, it's not whether it makes "more sense", because clearly the advocate of one or the other meaning will assert that their priorities make it "more sensible".

The plain sense of the word in its context, granted the progressive priorities set on its numerous and different contexts in grammar, semantics, textual corpus of the writer, and history -- that's what exegesis puts a priority on.

Not whether it makes "the most sense" to someone reading the words translated into another language 2000 years later.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44691&p=689558&viewfull=1#post689558

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44691&p=689635&viewfull=1#post689635

Consider an analogy. Suppose the very general setting is a discussion about admittance to Harvard University. Now suppose, we find this bit of text:

One does not get into Harvard by deeds. Therefore, you blacks who thought you could not get into Harvard really can into Harvard because the admissions department has abolished "the code". Now blacks have the same opportunity as whites to get into Harvard.

Now suppose that it is also well known that there is a thing called "the code of Fred", which is a set of practices that only whites can do - some set of behaviours which are, for some reason, restricted to whites only. Now suppose that it also well-known that whites believe that it is by doing the "deeds" of the "code of Fred" that they qualify for Harvard. Do I need to finish the argument?

Problem 1: In that case you'd get a reference to "Harvard" and "the code" somewhere in the text -- otherwise you can't conclude as much. In this case: you don't have any reference to "the code" pointing back to "deeds". So "deeds" remain "deeds". The absence of such a reference by Harvard would imply their embarrassment over it. But in the case of the Christian corpus there is not a single flinch or fret of embarrassment at removal of "law" or of "works of law". See Galatians.

Therefore "works" remains simply "works". No encoded meaning.

In point of fact I'm having trouble finding anywhere that Paul uses the term "works" to unequivocally point to "works of law", without actually saying, "works of law". I've pointed out how the reference to "law" in Eph 2 isn't connected to "works" used without modifier at 2:9. The number of references that even exist without modifiers is actually not that big, either. Why force such an interpretation on them all? In fact, you can't do that even with Greek-translated Judaica of the period like the Septuagint. 2 Chronicles 20:37 . So we can't demand this conclusion is part of Jewish thought.

What's more, "I know your works" is a repeated statement of Jesus in Revelation. Were this "code-word" applied there, it would reverse on the very thesis of "not of works" actually eliminating "works of law" from Christian practice in general.

Problem 2: Paul has already asserted that's not how the Law functions: " So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." Rom 2:26-19

So the Apostle dictating Ephesians, Paul, has told another church, the Romans, the exact opposite of what you're saying.

 

[Drew]

Yes. Absolutely. That is what Jesus did in fulfilling the Law.

I suspect that your view of how Jesus "fulfilled" the Law is probably not Biblical. Remember, though, I only suspect this. We'll see.

Jesus most certainly did not obey the Law of Moses at all times in the sense of following it. In fact, on many occasions He challenged it. One clear example: In direct contravention to the Law of Moses, He declared that all foods are clean. This statement violates the Law of Moses. So things are not as simple as they seem. You should see the contrived arguments people put forward to deny the plain, but admittedly puzzling fact, that Jesus challenged elements of the Law of Moses (not least the food laws).

I suggest that Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses in the sense of bringing the age of its application to an end. That is a perfectly legitimate way to read the word "fulfill". I can explain more, if need be.

No. He "broke" the Law of Moses on several occasions, not least in declaring all foods to be clean, in direct contradiction to the Law of Moses. Let me be clear: Jesus, as God in the flesh, has the "right" to declare that the time of application of the Law of Moses has come to an end, and to engage in symbolic actions to drive home this point (such as His assertion that all foods are clean).

So Jesus is not "sinning" - He has the authority to abolish the Law. I am not sure this is really related to the thread, but there it is. I am happy to discuss this more, if you like.

One more thing: The Law of Moses was only ever given to Jews (and to that small number of Gentiles who were tightly integrated into their community. The belief that the Law of Moses is somehow "universal" is widespread, but clearly not Biblical.

 

[Drew]

Matthew 5:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Let me begin by saying that I really do appreciate the fact that you are reading my posts, if though I am going to disagree with you. I was worried that this thread was turning into a two person debate.

Anyway. even if this text means what you think it means -and I am convinced it does not - you also need to explain what Paul means when he speaks of the abolition of the Law of Moses in Ephesians 2:15. If you are right, why is Paul saying the Law of Moses has been abolished. Let me pre-emptively assert that I cannot imagine how, given the broader argument in Ephesians 2, how any case can be made that Paul is not declaring the abolition of the Law of Moses in verse 15 (even through the phrase "of Moses" is not there). But let's deal with this famous statement from Matthew.

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this. On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think that, at least in a certain specific sense, the Law of Moses has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which, to me, unambiguously declare the abolition of the Law of Moses, at least in terms of “rules and regulationsâ€.

Here is Matthew 5:17-19 in the NASB:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and possibly think that the prescriptions of the Law of Moses do not remain in force, given that heaven and earth are still here?

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Law of Moses was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15). My proposal hinges on the assertion that in Hebrew culture apocalyptic “end of the world†language was commonly used in a specifically metaphorical mode for the specific purposes of investing commonplace events with their theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence that this was so. Isaiah writes:

10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of such metaphorical “end of the world†imagery being used to describe much more “mundane†events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away†is an apocalyptic metaphor.

I would appeal to the phrase “until all is accomplished†and point the reader to Jesus’ proclamation that “It is accomplished!†as He breathed His last on the Cross. Perhaps this is what Jesus is referring to. I believe that seeing it that way allows us to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Law of Moses was retired.

 

[heymikey80]

True, but entirely immaterial. I am arguing that Paul intends a specific reference to those 'works', "good or otherwise" that comprise the Law of Moses.

Well, that's not good enough. Clearly if "good works" are required for salvation, and the Law is one set of "good works", then Paul is being two-faced. Clearly the Gentiles could indeed practice "good works of law" in order to obtain salvation.

Of course such would be a Judaizing acceptance. But that's really the point. If all Paul is saying is, "You can't do these good works (though you need to do good works)", then the Jewish theologians were completely right to condemn Paul. Nothing's wrong with the good works of law.

"And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?" Deut 4:8

In fact the Law of Moses is the best of good works.

This is a very easy question to answer.

There is simply no linguistic basis, at least in English, for the position you appear to be embracing here. You appear to be saying "in the absence of modifiers, a term is to understood in its most general sense". Well, while it might make sense for such a "rule" to be adopted, it clearly is not how English works.

In the absence of a specific qualifier, what the audience would historically be expected to understand is what the word means.

In particular, context often functions to restrict the "scope of meaning of some term".

Consider a parent lecturing a child about cleaning his room. The parent rants at length, always focusing on the specific matter of cleaning the room. The parent never mentions "giving to the poor", "caring for the neighbour", "taking care of the dog", etc. etc. Its all about cleaning the room. At the end, the parent concludes with "If you follow my rules, you can have some candy".

Is the noun "rules" qualified? No it is not. But, in context, it clearly denotes the specific set of instructions about cleaning the room.

Yes, "rules" is qualified by "my". I assume you mean him to say "If you follow the rules ...." In this case it would not be qualified, at least not heavily. But it would have an idiomatic meaning in the literary corpus that you've set up. The child had better have been informed about the parent's rules -- otherwise no idiom is communicated to the child.

You're arguing for an idiomatic meaning for "works" as "works of law" in the literary corpus of Apostolic texts. Fine. Now -- where is it unmistakably used in this way, stripped of qualifiers, especially without the qualifier "nomou"?

I've argued against its appearance in Ephesians 2, and pointed out it doesn't exist at all in Romans 3. Where else would it appear, in your view? Romans 2:6 would be a clear objection to this narrow terminology in your view: it applies to "Jew, and also Greek".

I cannot emphasize the following enough: If I was trying to defend your position, I would do exactly what you are doing - try to pre-emptively limit what 'works' can mean. Because once it is granted that 'works' could mean 'works of the Law of Moses, the argument is over. Why? Because, it is frankly obvious that what Paul writes in verse 11 and following is precisely the kind of elaboration you would expect to the very "narrow" claim that the Law of Moses does not save.

The problem is, it would also need to be consistent with Paul's expanded theology. Take your case. Mom admonishing, "Follow the rules," has to be set up in a context of parent and child, with a recognized set of rules being described or enforced under the name, "the rules".

Even more strangely, in this case you're asserting that the very people who would have no encounter with "the rules" -- someone else's children -- are expected to understand what this idiomatic term means in the case of the parent's children.

Even more implausibly, in your view Paul is asserting that some similar set of "the rules" actually is enforced upon Christians for salvation. Without ever calling them "the rules", unambiguously.

It's not consistent with what Paul says.

Paul actually says "saved ... not of works ... for good works." He said what he means. "works" is not a subset of "good works", even as an idiom it doesn't make reasonable sense. Consider then what you propose Paul is saying: "I don't want you doing these good works, as that will lose you your salvation. I want you doing good works of any kind, as they're required in order for you to be saved." It's inconsistent on its face. If God will accept any good works, He will certainly accept good works of Law -- which He has commanded! So it's inconsistent: it simply can't be what Paul meant, because in the end it doesn't mean anything.

But good works as a result, and not a cause of salvation -- that is a powerful, significant change from Judaism. That breaks with Judaism (ala Gal 1:6-7, Rom 4). That excludes Law as a pathway to salvation, or a tether to salvation once saved (Gal 3).

"not of works ... for good works"

 

[Deborah13]

Let me begin by saying that I really do appreciate the fact that you are reading my posts, if though I am going to disagree with you. I was worried that this thread was turning into a two person debate.

Anyway. even if this text means what you think it means -and I am convinced it does not - you also need to explain what Paul means when he speaks of the abolition of the Law of Moses in Ephesians 2:15. If you are right, why is Paul saying the Law of Moses has been abolished. Let me pre-emptively assert that I cannot imagine how, given the broader argument in Ephesians 2, how any case can be made that Paul is not declaring the abolition of the Law of Moses in verse 15 (even through the phrase "of Moses" is not there). But let's deal with this famous statement from Matthew.

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this. On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think that, at least in a certain specific sense, the Law of Moses has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which, to me, unambiguously declare the abolition of the Law of Moses, at least in terms of “rules and regulationsâ€.

Here is Matthew 5:17-19 in the NASB:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and possibly think that the prescriptions of the Law of Moses do not remain in force, given that heaven and earth are still here?

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Law of Moses was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15). My proposal hinges on the assertion that in Hebrew culture apocalyptic “end of the world†language was commonly used in a specifically metaphorical mode for the specific purposes of investing commonplace events with their theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence that this was so. Isaiah writes:

10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of such metaphorical “end of the world†imagery being used to describe much more “mundane†events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away†is an apocalyptic metaphor.

I would appeal to the phrase “until all is accomplished†and point the reader to Jesus’ proclamation that “It is accomplished!†as He breathed His last on the Cross. Perhaps this is what Jesus is referring to. I believe that seeing it that way allows us to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Law of Moses was retired.

Yes, I agree with you. All was accomplished at the Cross. He fulfilled the old covenant of the Law. Therefore as any contract would be no longer in effect once it was fulfilled so was the Law. So I can agree with you on Paul's statement that it was abolished as in no longer in effect.

 

[Drew]

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

This post does not challenge my argument. There is, I suggest, nothing in this post that, to any degree at all, challenges the possibility that the term 'works' can denote the works of the Law of Moses.

 

[heymikey80]

This post does not challenge my argument. There is, I suggest, nothing in this post that, to any degree at all, challenges the possibility that the term 'works' can denote the works of the Law of Moses.

'The concept of working for wages far precedes any Christian idea of the medieval period that "work" means "good works according to law".' -- the post.

Precedence. Your idea was not introduced until the Early Church Fathers at a minimum, and even then among them, this view was not unanimous.

For instance:
And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 1 Clement 32


Meanwhile my description of the use of the term is so old as to be a given for any conversation across the Roman world.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

This post does not challenge my argument. There is, I suggest, nothing in this post that, to any degree at all, challenges the possibility that the term 'works' can denote the works of the Law of Moses.

"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. Rom. 2:13 That does CHALLENGE your argument.
"For when there is a change of the priesthood, (necessarily) there MUST also be a change of the law." Heb. 7:12 That does CHALLENGE your argument.
"you who have received the law that was put into effect by angles, but have not obeyed it." Acts 7:53 That does CHALLENGE your argument.
"The law was put into effect through angles by a mediator" who had made a change to the law by adding a word to it after he was crucified.
That does CHALLENGE both of your arguments.
"for a law shall proceed from Me." Isa. 51:4 A direct quote of the Lord.
You boys need to first talley the facts before cranking your jaws up.

 

[dadof10]

Distraction #1

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.

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?

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????

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.

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?

Five times in one post you put up this straw-man? Really? I have repeatedly told you that my position is that God doesn't abandon us, we abandon Him through sin. I would think you are just not understanding my position, but in the post right before this one you said:

Your claim is that people abandon God in Christ.

You obviously understand what I'm saying, so there can be only two other logical conclusions. Either you are simply trying to distract from the point, or you are just being obstinate. Which is it?

Distraction #2

Not even the RCC has made that determination. Did you leap out to another point that isn't there?

No, because I never said Judas was in Hell, nor did I reference ANY Catholic teaching on the subject. Another straw-man, set up for distraction.

The RCC and zero other sects have named any particular individual to hell if they have half a brain.

Outside of the ridiculousness of the statement, of course there is another cheap shot at the Catholic Church. Again, where do my arguments rely on the authority of Catholic teaching? They don't, so why attack? More distraction.

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.

This little ditty is in response to this:

"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."

Simply post something from OFFICIAL CATHOLIC TEACHING (or "study materials") that states that we have to accept "every one" of Her positions or be in danger of losing our salvation. Please "school" me.

Certainly, there are "positions" that are NECESSARY to accept to remain "Catholic", just like in every Protestant denomination. You can't hold the position that Jesus isn't God and still call yourself "Baptist", for example, or even Christian. Paul taught that the Mosaic law and circumcision didn't save. Do you think it was NECESSARY to hold this position, once taught authoritatively, to remain within the early Church, or do you think Paul would have simply said to the "Judaizers", "Hey, don't worry about all that 'doctrine' stuff, you're saved anyway. If you want to teach that the Law saves, go ahead, it's OK by me."? It seems it was NECESSARY to hold the position that the Law and circumcision didn't save in order to remain faithful to early Church teaching.

Your ridiculous claim was that the Catholic Church demands that we "buy every one of their solely determined positions [or]...are potentially damned". There are some that are and some that aren't. Your goal is to mischaracterize my position so that it seems ludicrous, again to distract from the topic..

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.

Every "knowledgeable person HERE"? Most people here at least attempt to argue the actual points instead of relying on straw-man arguments for the purpose of distraction. Every "jot and tittle"??? Please. No one I've run across here believes this. Could you TRY and stay on topic?

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.
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.

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.
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.

You are so venomous against the Catholic Church that you can't see that you contradict yourself on "Catholic doctrine" within two paragraphs. First you complain the Church teaches that "even unbelievers WILL be saved on the basis of WORKS" then complain that she teaches the EXACT OPPOSITE, we "count the sin of UNbelief against fallen believers so you can see them burn alive forever". LOl...Which is it? Does the Church see unbelievers as "saved" or burning alive forever? You certainly don't actually know, or care to know what the Church teaches, all you want to do is spew venom. Typical...

A member here that goes by "Free" has or had a quote as his signature that said something along the lines of "If you can make any religion look totally foolish, you haven't understood it". I think you should take this to heart.

Now, let's move on to the actual point, which is: Can a believer lose his salvation. How much substance was in that last post???

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

Well, it's nice to see you have your priorities straight. Plenty of time for distraction and vitriol, none for substantive discussion. You can find no time to deal with the verses I posted and their EXPLANATIONS because you choose NOT to. You can't explain them because they bolster and even prove my case outright. Paul didn't judge himself and has doubts about his final justification, it says so right in the text. Paul says he and others are "being saved", which PROVES that salvation is a process. You choose to ignore these verses in favor of attacks because that's all you've got. It's obvious to anyone with eyes who can read English.

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.

Nice try. I need clarification before I can comment. I asked in the last post, when you brought up these verses:

"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?"

The way it usually works is a person posts a verse or two that they think bolsters their case, then they EXPLAIN WHY IT BOLSTERS THEIR CASE, then the other person comments on his take. Usually a poster doesn't just paste Scripture and say "SEE???" You probably forgot how it works because you spend the majority of your time setting up straw-men and attacking what you will never understand.