Can Obedience To God Earn Salvation?

[heymikey80]

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.

How does abandonment work when Paul says it's not possible that my life would separate me from the love of God in Christ Jesus my Lord? (Rom 8:38-39)

It is Paul's statement that this isn't possible. We are therefore not enabled to separate ourselves by our continued living. We simply don't have the power to do so. Neither does any other created thing.

 

[Drew]

(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.

Obvious begging of the question, and I am not sure why you do not see this. It certainly may be the case that this is how the term "works" was generally used. But that does not buy you anything precisely because you have not made the case that the term cannot also, in some circumstances at least, be used as a shorthand way to denote the works of the Law of Moses.

Let's cut to the chase: Can you make a case that the word 'works' cannot denote the works of the Law of Moses. And the reader will know that simply asserting that the term is generally used to denote "works in general" is not a valid argument. The term "cat" generally denotes a furry four-legged animal. Does that mean that, in some particular context, it cannot denote something else, such as, for example, a gossipy woman.

Of course not!

Let's also remember this: It is in the nature of the case that if the unqualified term 'works' actually does denote the works of the Law of Moses, that case would be made by context. But this is precisely what I have done! I have shown that the term 'works' (in Eph 2:9), in context, denotes the works of the Law of Moses, precisely because such a reading makes such great sense in light of verses 11 and following. You appear to pre-emptively dismiss such a reading by appealing to an exceedingly questionable assertion that the unqualified term must always be read as "works in general". The "cat" example proves this line of argument fails, at least in English. So unless you can prove your claim, this particular line of your argument does not work.

Again: Reading it the way I am suggesting makes perfect sense in context: if the Jew is not justified by the works of the Law of Moses (remember, only Jews were under the jurisdiction of the Law of Moses), then the natural conclusion is that both Jew and Gentile are equal members of God's family.

Which is of course, exactly what Paul concludes (verse 11: Therefore....)

 

[Drew]

'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.

Not relevant. Even if it is true that the term 'works' (unqualified) generally meant 'working for wages' and even if this was its first generally accepted meaning, this does not mean that the term cannot be a shorthand way to denote the works of the Law of Moses. I am quote sure that the term "cat" generally refers to the four-legged animal. And I also sure that this meaning preceded the use of the term 'cat' to refer to a kind of heavy snow-making equipment you see on ski hills.

But the term 'cat' undeniably does, in a context where the issue is the grooming of a ski hill, denote a complex piece of machinery used to groom ski hills.

Again: I suggest that You need to make this "pre-emptive" dismissal of the reading I am providing precisely because once the reading I am suggesting is admitted as a possibility, the contextual case is clear: Paul is indeed denying justification by works of the Law of Moses.

 

[Drew]

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

A very questionable argument. Wrapped in this reasoning is the assumption that if the Early Fathers did not believe it, it cannot be correct.

Can you defend this assumption, please?

 

[BornAgain]

Unfortunately, some have come to the conclusion that man plays no part in his being saved from sin by God. They teach: “Salvation is a gift of God that is from nothing we do ourselves” . Or, Salvation is a gift from God, we do nothing to get it. We do nothing to become righteous...God did all that was necessary in His Son. When it comes to the gift of salvation that God extends to the whole world John 3:16, there are requirements that must be met on the part of man in order for him to receive the gift. There is something that a person must do in order to be saved. The Jews on Pentecost understood this point, as is evident by their question: “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Acts 2:37. Saul, later called Paul Acts 13:9, believed that there was something else he needed to do besides experience a personal encounter with the resurrected Lord on his way to Damascus, for he asked Jesus, “Lord, what do You want me to do?” Acts 9:6. And the jailor at Philippi, after observing the righteousness of Paul and Silas and being awakened by the earthquake to see the prison doors opened Acts 16:20-29, fell down trembling before Paul and Silas...and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Acts 16:30. If those who responded to these questions, Peter in Acts 2, Jesus in Acts 9, and Paul and Silas in Acts 16, had the mindset of some today, they should have answered by saying, “There is nothing for you to do. Just wait, and salvation will come to you.” But their responses were quite different from this. All three times the question was asked, a command to do something was given. Peter told those on Pentecost to “repent and be baptized” Acts 2:38, Paul and Silas instructed the Philippian jailor and his household to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31); and Jesus commanded Saul to arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do” Acts 9:6. None of them gave the impression that salvation involves us “doing nothing.” Jesus told Saul that he “must do” something. When Saul arrived in Damascus as Jesus had directed him, he did exactly what God’s spokesman, Ananias, commanded him to do Acts 22:12-16; 9:17-18. Just like the land of Canaan was “received” by an active Israel, so the free gift of eternal life is received by man taking action.

 

[Drew]

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.

No, Paul is not being two-faced.

I suggest Paul's position is this, and I quite certain you will not be able to undermine the plausibility that this line of reasoning is correct:

1. The Jews of Paul's time saw the Law of Moses as an ethnic charter - something that marked them out as distinct from the Gentile.

2. The Jews of Jesus time did not do the 'works of the Law of Moses' to "earn" salvation, they did them to demonstrate gratitude for justification based on ethnicity;

3. In this context, Paul could use the phrase "one is not justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses" as a way of saying "salvation is not limited to Jews" (and I will again remind the reader: This is precisely what goes on to say in Ephesians 2:11 and following - this is devastating evidence that he is, indeed, talking about 'works of the Law of Moses' in verse 9)

On this entirely self-consistent, Biblically plausible view, Paul is not being two-faced in any sense: It is entirely coherent to (1) embrace justification by good works:

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

....and (2) express a belief that justification is not limited to Jews by arguing that "one is not justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses".

And none this is in any way challenged by something we seem to agree on: the works of the Law of Moses are "good works".

 

[smaller]

Unfortunately, some have come to the conclusion that man plays no part in his being saved from sin by God. They teach: “Salvation is a gift of God that is from nothing we do ourselves” . Or, Salvation is a gift from God, we do nothing to get it. We do nothing to become righteous...God did all that was necessary in His Son. When it comes to the gift of salvation that God extends to the whole world John 3:16, there are requirements that must be met on the part of man in order for him to receive the gift.

That's just another bill of phony goods that gets sold to the masses.

Paul told us all that the mind of the unbeliever is in fact blinded by the god of this world. And the blinded don't even know that fact because they are in fact blinded internally, in mind, by an entity that is not even them.

2 Cor. 4:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

The postulation put forth from the 'earn' camp is that people 'unblind' themselves. The position is used primarily to 'blame the person' and to make Gods Light INsufficient to do the job.

Others will see that it is in fact God Himself that places the spirit of slumber upon the hearts of people, just like here, so they factually can neither see nor hear:

Romans 11:
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear ; ) unto this day.

And yet in the minds of some readers they just can't see that it is in fact God who has given them that spirit of slumber just as stated above and they still go back and just blame the man and ignore Gods Factual Role in this matter.

Jesus told us the exact same fact of Romans 11:8 here, showing exactly 'how' that happens:

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

People whom God allows to suffer this form of theft simply will not hear or see as they can't. They have been factually stolen from by an entity that is not them and God Himself not only allows, but prompts that theft to transpire by Speaking His Words and then comes the thief of same.

Were God to allow it to happen all of us, in an instant, could all believe Perfectly and Identically.

But that currently is just not in the Divine Plan. And believers themselves will lean to various partial sighted understandings and most will use them from the freewill side of the ledgers to blame blinded slaves of the devil.

Quite pathetic sight in my own eyes when I can see that is not the case.

There are two other parties beside the 'hearers' or readers involved in these various drama's. God and Satan.

Most from the determinist camp at least tend to get the other two parties on the table for viewing and get them so 'internally' operational within the parties.

It is in fact God Himself that gives us understandings and wisdom. We do not conjure these things up on our own.

1 Kings 4:29
And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore.

And part of that wisdom is to understand all the parties involved and that it is not just the person.

Eph. 4:
17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:


If any believer can not see that it is in fact Satan who steals Word from the unbelievers hearts, they see little if anything at all. These too have 'cloudy' vision caused by the same bad actor.

And God, if He so elects, can clear up that kind of sight immediately if HE wants to, right here right now if that believer can simply read and see the fact.

But the interesting part about theology is that the above kinds of facts can be shown and still be neither seen nor heard.

I only look to God Himself for allowing that to happen and know He could change that issue in a heartbeat. In a nanosecond. In the blinking of an Eye.

But He doesn't so it won't be seen. His Knowledge is in fact hidden IN PLAIN SIGHT.

s

 

[BornAgain]

That's just another bill of phony goods that gets sold to the masses.

Paul told us all that the mind of the unbeliever is in fact blinded by the god of this world. And the blinded don't even know that fact because they are in fact blinded internally, in mind, by an entity that is not even them.

2 Cor. 4:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

The postulation put forth from the 'earn' camp is that people 'unblind' themselves. The position is used primarily to 'blame the person' and to make Gods Light INsufficient to do the job.

Others will see that it is in fact God Himself that places the spirit of slumber upon the hearts of people, just like here, so they factually can neither see nor hear:

Romans 11:
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear ; ) unto this day.

And yet in the minds of some readers they just can't see that it is in fact God who has given them that spirit of slumber just as stated above and they still go back and just blame the man and ignore Gods Factual Role in this matter.

Jesus told us the exact same fact of Romans 11:8 here, showing exactly 'how' that happens:

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

People whom God allows to suffer this form of theft simply will not hear or see as they can't. They have been factually stolen from by an entity that is not them and God Himself not only allows, but prompts that theft to transpire by Speaking His Words and then comes the thief of same.

Were God to allow it to happen all of us, in an instant, could all believe Perfectly and Identically.

But that currently is just not in the Divine Plan. And believers themselves will lean to various partial sighted understandings and most will use them from the freewill side of the ledgers to blame blinded slaves of the devil.

Quite pathetic sight in my own eyes when I can see that is not the case.

There are two other parties beside the 'hearers' or readers involved in these various drama's. God and Satan.

Most from the determinist camp at least tend to get the other two parties on the table for viewing and get them so 'internally' operational within the parties.

It is in fact God Himself that gives us understandings and wisdom. We do not conjure these things up on our own.

1 Kings 4:29
And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore.

And part of that wisdom is to understand all the parties involved and that it is not just the person.

Eph. 4:
17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:


If any believer can not see that it is in fact Satan who steals Word from the unbelievers hearts, they see little if anything at all. These too have 'cloudy' vision caused by the same bad actor.

And God, if He so elects, can clear up that kind of sight immediately if HE wants to, right here right now if that believer can simply read and see the fact.

But the interesting part about theology is that the above kinds of facts can be shown and still be neither seen nor heard.

I only look to God Himself for allowing that to happen and know He could change that issue in a heartbeat. In a nanosecond. In the blinking of an Eye.

But He doesn't so it won't be seen. His Knowledge is in fact hidden IN PLAIN SIGHT.

s

smaller,

please show me scriptually where I stated anything incorrect...

 

[dadof10]

How does abandonment work when Paul says it's not possible that my life would separate me from the love of God in Christ Jesus my Lord? (Rom 8:38-39)

It is Paul's statement that this isn't possible. We are therefore not enabled to separate ourselves by our continued living. We simply don't have the power to do so. Neither does any other created thing.

What version are you using?

The NIV has the verse "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The KJV: Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I can't find where the verse is "...it's not possible that my life would separate me..."

In context:

35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

This is an obvious reference to the persecution of Christians and perseverance in it's face. He is not talking about salvation here.

36 As it is written, "For thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

Christ loves them, so even though they are being persecuted, "God in Christ Jesus" still loves them.

38 For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Now he ups the ante. Not only will "tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword" not separate us from His love, but also " neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation". Nothing will keep God from loving us. These verses don't speak to our love for God and that if we are saved we will never abandon Him.

Again, Paul's letters aren't written in a vacuum. The Jews looked upon persecution of any kind as a curse from God. This concept is made manifest throughout the OT. As was Paul's way, he is straightening out misconceptions concerning the transition from Judaism into Christianity. Because Christians are being persecuted, does not mean that God has abandoned them. This is his point, not that we can never lose our salvation.

Notice also Paul says nothing will separate us from "the love of God". He doesn't say that nothing will separate Him from our love. Paul uses the analogy of children and parents in Chapter 8 and 9. Think about it this way:

I am a father and I realize that my love for my children is unconditional. Nothing can separate my children from my love. I know my parents have unconditional love for me, so I can say in reality "nothing can separate me from the love of my parents". I can reject them and never speak to them again, but that would not effect THEIR love for ME. This is Paul's point.

Now, could you please explain this verse, which contradicts OSAS:

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

This verse plainly says that Paul has doubts about his justification because God is his judge. He is saying his conscience is clean, but his ultimate judge is God. Not written by a man who thinks his justification is 100% guaranteed, is it?

 

[smaller]

smaller,

please show me scriptually where I stated anything incorrect...

As stated prior, the cause of unbelief is not the person.

And it can be shown in black on white that it's not and people (like you) will still only see the person and only blame the person.

I have no need to see that way when that is obviously not the case.

You and I can both read that the 'god of this world' blinds the minds of the unbelievers and that Satan steals His Word from their hearts and most of you will still blame only the person.

That to me is also just another form of blindness that God allows to be imposed presently. So I don't blame 'believers' for not seeing the fact because it's not just them involved with not being able to see the facts.

Would I hold that lack of simple sight against a believer? No. I know it's not just them involved and I believe God not only can, but will save that believer anyway.

s

 

[heymikey80]

What version are you using?

The NIV has the verse "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The KJV: Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I can't find where the verse is "...it's not possible that my life would separate me..."

"For I am convinced that neither death nor life..." Rom 8:38. That's not someone else's life.

The rest is plainly in the verse: "will separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

 

[BornAgain]

As stated prior, the cause of unbelief is not the person.

And it can be shown in black on white that it's not and people (like you) will still only see the person and only blame the person.

I have no need to see that way when that is obviously not the case.

You and I can both read that the 'god of this world' blinds the minds of the unbelievers and that Satan steals His Word from their hearts and most of you will still blame only the person.

That to me is also just another form of blindness that God allows to be imposed presently. So I don't blame 'believers' for not seeing the fact because it's not just them involved with not being able to see the facts.

Would I hold that lack of simple sight against a believer? No. I know it's not just them involved and I believe God not only can, but will save that believer anyway.

s

This is my post, what does this have to do with unbelief or a form of blindness? The thread is, Can Obedience to God Earn Salvation....

Unfortunately, some have come to the conclusion that man plays no part in his being saved from sin by God. They teach: “Salvation is a gift of God that is from nothing we do ourselves†. Or, Salvation is a gift from God, we do nothing to get it. We do nothing to become righteous...God did all that was necessary in His Son. When it comes to the gift of salvation that God extends to the whole world John 3:16, there are requirements that must be met on the part of man in order for him to receive the gift. There is something that a person must do in order to be saved. The Jews on Pentecost understood this point, as is evident by their question: “Men and brethren, what shall we do?†Acts 2:37. Saul, later called Paul Acts 13:9, believed that there was something else he needed to do besides experience a personal encounter with the resurrected Lord on his way to Damascus, for he asked Jesus, “Lord, what do You want me to do?†Acts 9:6. And the jailor at Philippi, after observing the righteousness of Paul and Silas and being awakened by the earthquake to see the prison doors opened Acts 16:20-29, fell down trembling before Paul and Silas...and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Acts 16:30. If those who responded to these questions, Peter in Acts 2, Jesus in Acts 9, and Paul and Silas in Acts 16, had the mindset of some today, they should have answered by saying, “There is nothing for you to do. Just wait, and salvation will come to you.†But their responses were quite different from this. All three times the question was asked, a command to do something was given. Peter told those on Pentecost to “repent and be baptized†Acts 2:38, Paul and Silas instructed the Philippian jailor and his household to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ†(Acts 16:31); and Jesus commanded Saul to arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do†Acts 9:6. None of them gave the impression that salvation involves us “doing nothing.†Jesus told Saul that he “must do†something. When Saul arrived in Damascus as Jesus had directed him, he did exactly what God’s spokesman, Ananias, commanded him to do Acts 22:12-16; 9:17-18. Just like the land of Canaan was “received†by an active Israel, so the free gift of eternal life is received by man taking action.

 

[heymikey80]

This is an obvious reference to the persecution of Christians and perseverance in it's face. He is not talking about salvation here.

36 As it is written, "For thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

Christ loves them, so even though they are being persecuted, "God in Christ Jesus" still loves them.

Then Paul is being tautological.

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. Rom 8:30
You're saying all this only happens to those persecuted?

I'd say rather that Paul is talking about the Resurrection, and therefore salvation is quintessentially the subject:

For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. Rom 8:22-23

 

[heymikey80]

A very questionable argument. Wrapped in this reasoning is the assumption that if the Early Fathers did not believe it, it cannot be correct.

Can you defend this assumption, please?

Wrapped in this reasoning is that the Church Fathers didn't accept it as a given, so why should I, 1900 years later? Why shouldn't I accept what's apparently a more prevalent view, even of those trained by Apostles -- that it's about my works, not about works of Law.

 

[Drew]

Wrapped in this reasoning is that the Church Fathers didn't accept it as a given, so why should I, 1900 years later?

Is this really your argument? They didn't believe "X" so why should I?

I can do no more than point out that this is simply not a response to my concern: On precisely what basis do you ascribe such a degree of "authority" to Early Fathers that you refuse to even consider the possibility that 'works' denotes the 'works of the Law of Moses?

At the risk of seeming cynical, I suggest, yet again, that your position cannot admit to the mere possibility that the unqualified term 'works' could denote the works of the Law of Moses. Because once that possibility is granted, I suggest the context shows that this is precisely how Paul is using the term.

 

[heymikey80]

I suggest Paul's position is this, and I quite certain you will not be able to undermine the plausibility that this line of reasoning is correct:

Though I'm already undermining it with a consistency argument, a history argument, and a grammar argument?

1. The Jews of Paul's time saw the Law of Moses as an ethnic charter - something that marked them out as distinct from the Gentile.

And as a Law through which they perceived, they would work to attain to God's righteousness.

2. The Jews of Jesus time did not do the 'works of the Law of Moses' to "earn" salvation, they did them to demonstrate gratitude for justification based on ethnicity;

No, this is a serious mistake of Sanders' view. Sanders found "grace" mentioned and presumed that grace would factor the same way in Judaism as Christianity, their being from the same source, and essentially close the gap with Christian theology. Paul's attack on Judaism though demonstrates the exact opposite:

that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were by works. Rom 9:31-32

Certainly you see the problem here -- this expression defies any other meaning than "working for righteousness." And it isn't alone. Paul refers to the Law in this way at Romans 3:26 and Romans 4:1-5.

There are other points of departure. If Judaic theology were this close to Christian theology at the time, there would be no reason for Paul to complain that this was "another gospel" in Gal 1. Because it wouldn't be. It would be speaking "post-gospel" as a matter of fact -- gratitude for grace already bestowed.

Instead, Jesus was proposing a reform to Judaic theology as well as intending a revolution of conversions from pagan religion. Paul's splitting Christian theology off from Judaism with Galatians 1 follows this proposal. Jesus' theology is really a reformation of Judaism into something it wasn't at the time. Paul identifies this as "grace not works", instead of Judaism's "grace and works".

 

[Drew]

What is the connection of "works" in 2:9 with this reference to law?

It is simply this: If, as I am asserting, verse 9 consists in a denial that works of the Law of Moses justify, then, clearly, it makes perfect sense to conclude, in the "therefore" passage that Jew and Gentile have been made one by the dissolution of the very thing that splits them into two camps - the Law of Moses which functioned to distinguish the Jew from the Gentile.

I am pretty sure you know this makes sense out of the entire block beginning at verse 8 and going on to the end of verse 19.

How could anyone deny that reading reading "works' as 'works of the Law of Moses' in verse 9, and reading "law" in verse 15 as "law of Moses" creates a single coherent argument out of the entire block of text? If you deny this, we are at an impasse since our discussion pushes me to try to defend the idea that it makes sense for an argument to be unified, self-consistent, and coherent. And how am I supposed to do that?

Again, and at the risk of conferring motive ungenerously, I can only conclude that your only option for preserving your position is to pre-emptively dismiss the possibilities I am raising. And we have no reason at all to be believe this is a legitimate move, your appeal to the early fathers notwithstanding.

 

[Drew]

Let me point something else out. I suggest that although people routinely cite Ephesians 2:9 as a denial of justification by "good works", such arguments never appeal to verses 11 and following.

Odd, no? Especially since verse 11 begins with a 'therefore' which literally hits us over the head with the implication that verse 11 and following constitutes an unpacking of the implications of verses 8 to 10.

Well, and this is something that has to ignored to preserve the traditional view, these verses are all about the bringing together of Jew and Gentile into a single family with all members being equal.

Hmmm. Isn't this the very thing that would follow from a statement that salvation is not based on the works of the Law of Moses, that only the Jew can perform?

 

[heymikey80]

3. In this context, Paul could use the phrase

Well no, largely because Paul has said righteousness sought through a law of righteousness is being sought by works -- per Rom 9:31-32 . So the first issue is that this isn't the context.

"one is not justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses" as a way of saying "salvation is not limited to Jews" (and I will again remind the reader: This is precisely what goes on to say in Ephesians 2:11 and following - this is devastating evidence that he is, indeed, talking about 'works of the Law of Moses' in verse 9)

This would only be plausible were there no more obvious solution. The word "works" is never used as a completely-confirmed stand-in for "works of the law". In fact quite often Paul uses the word "law" for this, but there's no example of him using "works" for this.

Certainly not by talking to Gentiles about "works".

On this entirely self-consistent, Biblically plausible view, Paul is not being two-faced in any sense: It is entirely coherent to (1) embrace justification by good works:

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

Again, the problem: Paul says the exact opposite at Rom 2:12-13. "This way is blocked" in 5 verses.

....and (2) express a belief that justification is not limited to Jews by arguing that "one is not justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses".

This is plausible -- but not consistent, not confirmed by examination of Paul's Greek usage, and the concept is denied by other statements of Paul's. "he saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began," 2 Tim 1:9

And none this is in any way challenged by something we seem to agree on: the works of the Law of Moses are "good works".

Well, yes it is. As I've pointed out, the Law is a subset of "good works". To claim the Law can't be followed to accomplish "good works" is subverted.

 

[BornAgain]

Let me point something else out. I suggest that although people routinely cite Ephesians 2:9 as a denial of justification by "good works", such arguments never appeal to verses 11 and following.

Odd, no? Especially since verse 11 begins with a 'therefore' which literally hits us over the head with the implication that verse 11 and following constitutes an unpacking of the implications of verses 8 to 10.

Well, and this is something that has to ignored to preserve the traditional view, these verses are all about the bringing together of Jew and Gentile into a single family with all members being equal.

Hmmm. Isn't this the very thing that would follow from a statement that salvation is not based on the works of the Law of Moses, that only the Jew can perform?

not of works,—Not of the works of the Jewish law, or by any works of man's invention or device.


that no man should glory.—The works that do not save are such as allow glorying. The works of man's device allow glorying, but salvation does not come through such works. The term works is used in two senses. It is used to denote the inventions of men or devices of men and to denote the appointments of God. God appoints certain things to be done. Man must do them, but they are God's works. When he does the things appointed by God, he does not do his own works, but God's. Man is saved by walking in the way appointed by God, by doing the things commanded of God. He is saved in doing the works of God. He is not saved because of the merits of the works, but because he proves his faith by doing the things commanded by God. The works of the Jewish law, after that law was fulfilled and taken out of the way, ceased to be the works and appointments of God, and became man's works. This does not teach that man cannot be saved by walking in the works of God.
Then the whole drift of Paul's argument is to cut man off from all works and inventions devised by man, that allow glorying, and that produce only human righteousness, and tie him down as a lost and ruined sinner, dependent upon the works of God provided in the gospel and sealed by the blood of Jesus Christ for salvation. To these he must come by faith in Jesus Christ. He is not dissuading or discouraging men from doing in faith all that God through Christ has provided and commanded and sealed with his blood. He cuts him off from everything save these, and leaves him to walk in "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" as his only hope. In this walk he comes to the blood-sealed appointments of God, and is washed and cleansed by the blood of the Son of God. He did not discourage them from walking in that law. By so walking he does the works of God. He does the works without which faith is dead and by which James says 2:14,20 it is made perfect and by which we may be justified before God. The works of God, the works of faith, are included in the law of faith that makes faith perfect, excludes all glorying, and justifies man. Paul and James, so far from disagreeing, agree perfectly. Paul cuts man off from everything except the works contained in the law of faith, and James warns that no faith can justify that is not made perfect by works, included in the law of faith, and to which faith leads
—Gospel Advocate Commentaries