Free will or no free will?

[MarkT]

Notice what Paul says in his letter to the Ephesians about Christ creating in himself one new man in the place of two. Eph. 2:15,16 Keep that in mind. One new man in the place of two. Man is both flesh and spirit; body and soul. Christ created one new man in himself in the place of two.

But the context of Ephesians 2 shows that you are drawing the wrong distinction here in terms of what the "two" are. The "two" distinction he is drawing is not one of "sprit and flesh" or "body and soul". Instead, the two are Jew and Gentile:

In the Spirit Drew. What Paul is saying is that Christ made both the Gentile in the flesh (uncircumsized) and the Jew in the flesh (circumsized) into one body. He created a new man in himself.

11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men) 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
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

There really is no doubt - Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles here and how they have been brought together in Christ. It is is the Jew and the Gentile who are the "two made one". To suggest otherwise to say that Paul goes off on wild and unannounced tangents - a position that is not easy to sustain.

Yes but believers both Jew and Gentile according to the flesh. They are made one in Spirit. And since we are members of the church, what goes for the church goes for the individual members of the church so that we are built into it for a dwelling place for God in the Spirit.

 

[Drew]

Here's the catch... and I've posted about this a few times; the Law contains 613 points. Many of those points revolve around conduct and "good works". This is where many people here get confused; when we exclude Torah from justification, we also include the "good works" contained in the Law. Heh! 8-)

It is, of course, true that Torah contains prescriptions about doing "good works". But your implied argument here is not correct. You seem to be putting forward an argument of the following form:

1. Assume that Paul denies justification by doing Torah and does not deny justification by doing "good works" (this is Drew's position);

2. We know that Torah contains prescriptions about "good works";

3. Therefore to deny justification by Torah also denies justification by "good works"

4. Therefore the position set forth by Drew cannot be sustained because it is self-contradictory

This argument is invalid as can be seen by its application in another context;

1. Assume that Paul denies justification by following the Boy Scout code and does not deny justification by doing "good works";

2. We know that Boy Scout code contains prescriptions about "good works";

3. Therefore to deny justification by doing the Boy Scout code also denies justification by "good works"

4. Therefore. to deny justification by following the Boy Scout code implies denial of justification by doing "good works"

Do I really need to explain what is wrong with this kind of argument? The problem is that to follow the Boy Scout code entails doing all the weird "non good works" stuff - wearing the funny hat, doing the funny salutes, doing the secret handshakes, etc. So if someone denies "justification by following the Boy Scout code", they are not necessarily denying justification by doing good works - they are denying justification to those who do all the stuff in the code.

Or put another way, imagine that someone made this kind of argument in a context where to graduate from Harvard, you need to get a score of > 80 % on a national exam (which could indeed be case):

1. I deny that being a Harvard graduate is the criteria for being hired by Law firm X;

2. Being a Harvard graduate entails scoring more than 80 % on the national exam;

3. Therefore to deny that graduating Harvard is the basis for being hired by Law firm X also means you are also denying that scoring 80 % is the criteria for being hired by Law firm X.

This is simply invalid reasoning. And substitute "doing Torah" for being a Harvard grad, and "good works" for scoring > 80 %, and "justification / salvation" for being hired by law firm X and you can see the problem.

One can perfectly coherently deny justification by Torah without necessarily denying justification by the more general category of "good works", even though Torah does indeed prescribe "good works".

 

[Drew]

Yes but believers both Jew and Gentile according to the flesh. They are made one in Spirit. And since we are members of the church, what goes for the church goes for the individual members of the church so that we are built into it for a dwelling place for God in the Spirit.

True, but not relevant to the point at issue. We agree that Jew and Gentile are made one in the Spirit. But this does not mean Paul is talking about a "flesh-spirit" divide when he refers to the "two" in Ephesians 2 - he is talking about Jew and Gentile. And this divide is grounded in the Torah - one (the Jew) has it, the other (the Gentile) does not. The "two" refers to Jew and Gentile and not to flesh and Spririt.

 

[MarkT]

[ In Ephesians 2: 8-9 Paul is saying we were not saved by anything we did.

You are not reading these verses in context. For Paul, the term "works" usually is a reference to the works of Torah - following the dictates of the Law of Moses - and is not a reference to the more general category of good works. In the case of Ephesians 2:8-9, we can determine that what Paul is denying is not "justification by good works" but rather justification by "works of Torah".

Let's look at what Paul said.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God-- 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

As far as I can see Paul isn't denying anything. All he is doing is stating a simple fact. Why would Paul say, 'lest any man should boast' to the Gentiles? The Gentiles didn't have the law of Moses ... unless it was written on their hearts. So how could they boast that they kept the law? In this case 'works' simply refers to actions, acts, thoughts, words, deeds.

Torah is not simply the "Old Testament" as you write - it is not the "Scriptures". Torah is essentially the Law of Moses. And Paul is denying that having the Law of Moses and following it is salvific - he is simply not even addressing the issue of "salvation by good works", at least not in Ephesians 2.

Ok If he isn't addressing an issue then what are you arguing about?

How do we know this? We know this because of what Paul then goes on to say in verses 10 and following. What he writes in those verses makes it clear that Paul has been denying something which would separate the Jew from the Gentile. And that is Torah, not "doing good works". Remember - both Jew and Gentile can do "good works" so it is not a "barrier" that has been erased. The barrier that has been erased is the ethnic specificity of Torah. Here are the verses again:

Huh? First of all he's not denying anything. He is not saying the law of Moses is separating Jew and Greek? He said the Gentile was separated from Christ. And the barrier that was broken down was between man and God, and Christ did it 'by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances'

 

[Drew]

Let's look at what Paul said.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God-- 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

As far as I can see Paul isn't denying anything. All he is doing is stating a simple fact.

Paul clearly denies something here - that "works" are the basis for being saved. I think you and I disagree on what Paul means by this term "works".

Why would Paul say, 'lest any man should boast' to the Gentiles?

Why do you think that he is only concerned with Gentiles here? He is clearly interested in both Jews and Gentiles as indicated by verses 11 and following. I do not know the specific membership of the church at Ephesus. But even if it is "all Gentiles", Paul still has every reason to explain to them how God has included the Gentiles in God's plan of redemption, which many would see as being limited to the Jews. So, it makes perfect sense for Paul to undermine the boast of the Jew who thinks the works of Torah are salvific, even to a Gentile readership.

The Gentiles didn't have the law of Moses ... unless it was written on their hearts. So how could they boast that they kept the law? In this case 'works' simply refers to actions, acts, thoughts, words, deeds.

Indeed, the Gentile cannot boast in keeping Torah - Paul is telling all his readers, whether Jew or Gentile, that no Jew can legitimately claim that Torah saves. I still maintain this information is relevant for the Gentile who needs to know that in Christ, the Gentiles have been "grafted in" (as per Romans 11).

Torah is not simply the "Old Testament" as you write - it is not the "Scriptures". Torah is essentially the Law of Moses. And Paul is denying that having the Law of Moses and following it is salvific - he is simply not even addressing the issue of "salvation by good works", at least not in Ephesians 2.

Ok If he isn't addressing an issue then what are you arguing about?

I never said Paul was not addressing an issue - I said that Paul was not addressing the issue of "salvation by good works".

And the barrier that was broken down was between man and God, and Christ did it 'by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances'

The context shows that what Paul is talking about is the Jew-Gentile barrier. The fact that there is indeed a "barrier" between man and God does not mean that this is what Paul is talking about here - the context could not be more clear, he is talking about a Jew-Gentile barrier. This is not to deny that there is the barrier of which you speak, but this is not the barrier that Paul is concerned with in this text.

You asked earlier why Paul would be talking about Torah to Gentiles. Even if there were not a reasonable answer for that, which I think there is, it is still clear from verses 11 and following that Paul is indeed talking about Torah in verses 8 and 9.

This is because of Paul's theology that has the Jew and the Gentile equally fallen under Adam (this is what the first half of Romans 3 is all about). Since Paul is so committed to this idea, it makes no sense for him to drive home the dissolution of the Jew-Gentile divide in verses 11 and following (of Ephesians 2) if he was not talking about Torah.

It is Torah, and not the capacity to do good works, leads to the perceived Jew-Gentile divide in the first place.

 

[MarkT]

Yes but believers both Jew and Gentile according to the flesh. They are made one in Spirit. And since we are members of the church, what goes for the church goes for the individual members of the church so that we are built into it for a dwelling place for God in the Spirit.

True, but not relevant to the point at issue. We agree that Jew and Gentile are made one in the Spirit. But this does not mean Paul is talking about a "flesh-spirit" divide when he refers to the "two" in Ephesians 2 - he is talking about Jew and Gentile. And this divide is grounded in the Torah - one (the Jew) has it, the other (the Gentile) does not. The "two" refers to Jew and Gentile and not to flesh and Spririt.

I wasn't talking about a flesh spirit divide either. Of course Paul is speaking from his position as an Israelite (a member of the tribe of Benjamin) by birth and circumcision to the Gentiles who were not circumsized.

The 'two' refers to two men; brothers. The two 'men' are separated by birth, race, customs, traditions; one having the law, and the other without the law. Look at the prodigal son. The elder brother was jealous that God made such a fuss over the return of the younger brother. So Paul says, 'To you Gentiles, .. I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous.'

But that doesn't mean that what I said concerning the new man isn't true. Christ did make a new man in himself. The flesh is actually one flesh in that we are all of Adam according to the flesh. The actual division is between soul and spirit.

 

[MarkT]

Let's look at what Paul said.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God-- 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

As far as I can see Paul isn't denying anything. All he is doing is stating a simple fact.

Paul clearly denies something here - that "works" are the basis for being saved. I think you and I disagree on what Paul means by this term "works".

Why would Paul say, 'lest any man should boast' to the Gentiles?

Why do you think that he is only concerned with Gentiles here? He is clearly interested in both Jews and Gentiles as indicated by verses 11 and following. I do not know the specific membership of the church at Ephesus. But even if it is "all Gentiles", Paul still has every reason to explain to them how God has included the Gentiles in God's plan of redemption, which many would see as being limited to the Jews. So, it makes perfect sense for Paul to undermine the boast of the Jew who thinks the works of Torah are salvific, even to a Gentile readership.

'Many' being the Jews perhaps. Perhaps the Jews would have been reminded of the law of Moses. But I think it's important to note that the Gentiles would have understood Paul's 'works' as 'good deeds'. I think the best understanding would be, 'not because the things we do'. That would cover the law of Moses and any other laws that they were following.

The Gentiles didn't have the law of Moses ... unless it was written on their hearts. So how could they boast that they kept the law? In this case 'works' simply refers to actions, acts, thoughts, words, deeds.

Indeed, the Gentile cannot boast in keeping Torah - Paul is telling all his readers, whether Jew or Gentile, that no Jew can legitimately claim that Torah saves. I still maintain this information is relevant for the Gentile who needs to know that in Christ, the Gentiles have been "grafted in" (as per Romans 11).

ok

Torah is not simply the "Old Testament" as you write - it is not the "Scriptures". Torah is essentially the Law of Moses. And Paul is denying that having the Law of Moses and following it is salvific - he is simply not even addressing the issue of "salvation by good works", at least not in Ephesians 2.

Ok If he isn't addressing an issue then what are you arguing about?

I never said Paul was not addressing an issue - I said that Paul was not addressing the issue of "salvation by good works".

Is that what we're talking about? You seem to want to use the text to prove something else though.

And the barrier that was broken down was between man and God, and Christ did it 'by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances'

The context shows that what Paul is talking about is the Jew-Gentile barrier. The fact that there is indeed a "barrier" between man and God does not mean that this is what Paul is talking about here - the context could not be more clear, he is talking about a Jew-Gentile barrier. This is not to deny that there is the barrier of which you speak, but this is not the barrier that Paul is concerned with in this text.

Is that why Paul says 'you Gentiles were separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel?' 2:12 Notice he doesn't say separated from the Jews, but he says alienated from the 'commonwealth of Israel'. Paul goes back to Israel and the covenant of promise God made with him. If we are now one, 'brought near in the blood of Christ' 2:13, and as he said, 'that he might reconcile us both to God in one body' 2:16, then the barrier that was broken was between us and God.

You asked earlier why Paul would be talking about Torah to Gentiles. Even if there were not a reasonable answer for that, which I think there is, it is still clear from verses 11 and following that Paul is indeed talking about Torah in verses 8 and 9.

Well he doesn't say the law of Moses. He simply says, 'because of works'; actions, deeds.

This is because of Paul's theology that has the Jew and the Gentile equally fallen under Adam (this is what the first half of Romans 3 is all about). Since Paul is so committed to this idea, it makes no sense for him to drive home the dissolution of the Jew-Gentile divide in verses 11 and following (of Ephesians 2) if he was not talking about Torah.

Well, like I said, the barrier that is broken is between God and man. I don't know what Romans 3 has to do with anything. Paul says, 'there is no distinction (between Jews and Greeks); since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' Romans 3:21,22 I wouldn't call it Paul's theology though. We know from the prophets that no one was listening to God before Jesus. Except for John.

It is Torah, and not the capacity to do good works, leads to the perceived Jew-Gentile divide in the first place.

What perceived Jew-Gentile divide?

 

[Drew]

Perhaps the Jews would have been reminded of the law of Moses. But I think it's important to note that the Gentiles would have understood Paul's 'works' as 'good deeds'. I think the best understanding would be, 'not because the things we do'. That would cover the law of Moses and any other laws that they were following.

On what specific basis do you claim that the Gentiles would have understood that Paul was talking about good deeds? I politely suggest that your reasoning here is circular - before you come to the text, you already have it in mind that Paul will be writing about how "good works" are not salvific. Instead, we need to listen to what Paul actually says and let him tell us what he wants to say.

And when we do that, we see that the material in verses 11 and following tell us that Torah is what Paul is indeed talking about.

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€â€and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. 11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men) 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise,...

Note the "therefore" - this means that what Paul says in 11 and following is connected to what he says in 8 and 9. And in 11 and following, he is clearly talking about the Jew-Gentile divide, which is marked out by Torah - this divide is not based on the performance of good works. And Paul even makes it clear that he is still talking about Torah when he later writes this:

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.

This is Torah language.

Is that why Paul says 'you Gentiles were separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel?' 2:12 Notice he doesn't say separated from the Jews, but he says alienated from the 'commonwealth of Israel'.

I suspect that most people will see "commonwealth of Israel" as simply another term to refer to the Jews.

Paul goes back to Israel and the covenant of promise God made with him. If we are now one, 'brought near in the blood of Christ' 2:13, and as he said, 'that he might reconcile us both to God in one body' 2:16, then the barrier that was broken was between us and God.

The actual text makes it clear that he is talking about a barrier between Jew and Gentile, not between man and God:

For He Himself is )our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,

I am not sure Paul could be any clearer - two groups (Jew and Gentile) have been made one. How has this been accomplished? By breaking down a barrier.

You asked earlier why Paul would be talking about Torah to Gentiles. Even if there were not a reasonable answer for that, which I think there is, it is still clear from verses 11 and following that Paul is indeed talking about Torah in verses 8 and 9.

Well he doesn't say the law of Moses. He simply says, 'because of works'; actions, deeds.

He says "works", nothing more. It is you who then take this word "works" and interpret it as "good deeds" when there is simply no a priori reason to prefer that interpretation over a "works of Torah" interpretation. I, on the other hand, am listening to what Paul goes on to write - and he clearly shows in verses 11 and following that he talking about Torah. He even says so explcitly when he writes "abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations"

What perceived Jew-Gentile divide?

The entire book of Romans has the Jew-Gentile divide as a central theme. Not to mention Galatians. Paul is concerned about the unity of the church and often addresses the Jew-Gentile divide. There are tons of examples I could give of texts where Paul is basically saying "There is no longer Jew and Gentile - all are one in Jesus"

An aside: I want to thank you for being civil and polite in this little debate. We may presently disagree but your willingness to engage the topic without "getting personal" reveals something admirable about you.

 

[MarkT]

Perhaps the Jews would have been reminded of the law of Moses. But I think it's important to note that the Gentiles would have understood Paul's 'works' as 'good deeds'. I think the best understanding would be, 'not because the things we do'. That would cover the law of Moses and any other laws that they were following.

On what specific basis do you claim that the Gentiles would have understood that Paul was talking about good deeds? I politely suggest that your reasoning here is circular - before you come to the text, you already have it in mind that Paul will be writing about how "good works" are not salvific. Instead, we need to listen to what Paul actually says and let him tell us what he wants to say.

The Gentiles being without the law and Paul being a servant of God they might think 'good deeds.' But I'm not even saying 'good' deeds. Nothing either good or bad is implied by 'works'. Paul said, 'it's not your doing'. It follows, therefore, that when he says 'works' that he means 'doings'.

In his letter to the Romans, Paul wrote, 'in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call'. Speaking of Esau and Jacob, note that he says, 'they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad' Ro. 9:11 So here again he means 'doings' when he says 'works'. And nothing either good or bad is implied by 'works'.

Later on in his letter he says, 'So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy.' Romans 9:16 Here again he continues to talk about 'works' (or 'doings') when he uses the words 'will' and 'exertion'.

'Works' equals doings, deeds, acts, actions. 'Works of the law' is more specific. It equals 'doings' according to the law. But as I said, the Gentiles couldn't boast about doing the works of the law. They didn't have the law.

And when we do that, we see that the material in verses 11 and following tell us that Torah is what Paul is indeed talking about.

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€â€and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. 11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men) 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise,...

Note the "therefore" - this means that what Paul says in 11 and following is connected to what he says in 8 and 9. And in 11 and following, he is clearly talking about the Jew-Gentile divide, which is marked out by Torah - this divide is not based on the performance of good works. And Paul even makes it clear that he is still talking about Torah when he later writes this:

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.

This is Torah language.

I don't know whether it's Torah language or not. You said Torah is essentially the law of Moses. So why don't you say the law of Moses?

Let's look at the facts. No people but the tribes of Israel received the law of Moses. The Gentiles were outside the law. Essentially God let them do whatever they wanted to do; follow false gods, make idols, etc. They didn't know the God of Israel.

Paul reminds the Gentiles that at one time (before they were saved) they were 'separated from 'Christ'. They didn't know God. They didn't know that the God of Israel (Christ) is the God of all mankind. He reminds them that they were, 'alienated from the commonwealth of Israel', 'strangers to the covenants of promise', 'without God in the world and without hope.' The promises were made to Israel and his descendants. So the 'commonwealth of Israel' refers to the children of the promises; the heirs of the kingdom. So Paul reminds them that they were strangers to the covenants meaning the covenants didn't include them.

Is that why Paul says 'you Gentiles were separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel?' 2:12 Notice he doesn't say separated from the Jews, but he says alienated from the 'commonwealth of Israel'.

I suspect that most people will see "commonwealth of Israel" as simply another term to refer to the Jews.

Absolutely not. The Jews rejected Jesus. Paul is referring to the children of the promises God made to Jacob who he named Israel. Later on, he refers to the 'household of God' and being 'fellow citizens with the saints'. So the 'commonwealth of Israel' are the children of God. There's no mention of the Jews anywhere.

Paul goes back to Israel and the covenant of promise God made with him. If we are now one, 'brought near in the blood of Christ' 2:13, and as he said, 'that he might reconcile us both to God in one body' 2:16, then the barrier that was broken was between us and God.

The actual text makes it clear that he is talking about a barrier between Jew and Gentile, not between man and God:

For He Himself is )our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,

I am not sure Paul could be any clearer - two groups (Jew and Gentile) have been made one. How has this been accomplished? By breaking down a barrier.

I know it's a long sentence but to continue - 'who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances (the law of Moses), that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing an end to the hostility.'

So Paul is saying that we are both one in Christ but then he goes on to talk about the 'dividing wall of hostility', and we know that the desires of the flesh are opposed to the Spirit. Gal 5:17 The dividing wall of hostility is the wall of hostility between the flesh and the spirit; between man and God. Paul says, 'that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two'. So both Jew and Greek are reconciled to God in one body. And this new man is in each one of us if Christ is in us. The new man in Christ is not a man of flesh and blood. Jesus said, 'That which is born of the Spirit is spirit' John 3:6

You asked earlier why Paul would be talking about Torah to Gentiles. Even if there were not a reasonable answer for that, which I think there is, it is still clear from verses 11 and following that Paul is indeed talking about Torah in verses 8 and 9.

Well he doesn't say the law of Moses. He simply says, 'because of works'; actions, deeds.

He says "works", nothing more. It is you who then take this word "works" and interpret it as "good deeds" when there is simply no a priori reason to prefer that interpretation over a "works of Torah" interpretation. I, on the other hand, am listening to what Paul goes on to write - and he clearly shows in verses 11 and following that he talking about Torah. He even says so explcitly when he writes "abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations"

Still think so? I agree 'works' doesn't imply 'good' works although there wouldn't be much reason for boasting if we didn't think we were doing good works. I mean people do think of themselves as good and doing good even though they are evil.

What perceived Jew-Gentile divide?

The entire book of Romans has the Jew-Gentile divide as a central theme. Not to mention Galatians. Paul is concerned about the unity of the church and often addresses the Jew-Gentile divide. There are tons of examples I could give of texts where Paul is basically saying "There is no longer Jew and Gentile - all are one in Jesus"

I don't see where Paul is addressing any divide. Just saying there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ isn't saying there is a divide.

An aside: I want to thank you for being civil and polite in this little debate. We may presently disagree but your willingness to engage the topic without "getting personal" reveals something admirable about you.

Well thanks but it's all your fault. You didn't say anything to provoke me. :D Just kidding. I enjoyed it.

 

[mondar]

There is a connection between Eph 2:1-10 and 2:11-22. The connection is not "the works of the law" is Drew isogeticly ipmoses upon the entire text. The Flow of thought has to do with Gods grace.

In verses 11-22 the law is the dividing point between Jew and Gentile. Paul is not talking about works in 11-22, he is still talking about Gods grace. God grace is seen in his abolishing enmity between Jew and Gentile. Paul is saying nothing more about the law then it was the cause of enmity.
Eph 2:15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;
Notice as Paul speaks of the law here there is no mention of the works of the law being abolished. That is not his point about the law. The works of the law is a concept foreign to the entire passage. Notice that in this passage the law was the vehicle of blessing to the Jew. The law brought the "commonwealth of Israel" (vs 12). Gentiles had no hope in verse 12 and were without God. The Jew, being under the law obviously had some good things.

There is absolutely no negative aspects to the law in verses 11-22. Paul is clearly not speaking of the works of the law in any negative way

Drew not only misses the point of the tremendous value of the law to the Jew, he misses how the blessings of the law and covenants are given to Gentile and Jew alike. The key is verse 13.

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.
How was this enmity overcome in those verses? It is not by works, but by the very precious blood of Christ. The blood of Christ is the only method of righteousness anywhere in the passage or anywhere in the scriptures. It is also found right here in the very middle of the passage that Drew is misreading. It is not our righteousness that breaks down the middle wall of partition, but the blood of Christ. It is not our righteousness that brings Gentiles under the covenants but the blood of Christ.

It is also not our righteousness that saves, it is the blood of Christ.

When we go back to Eph 2, notice what the text is about. How many times is Gods Grace mentioned in verses 5? Verse 7 tells us about our salvation and the reason for it.
Eph 2:7 that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus:

The purpose of salvation is so that God can show the exceeding riches of his grace.

Now if we earn our salvation by works as drew suggests, then grace is no longer grace. Drew might suggest will God might have just a tiny speck of grace because he helps us become righteous. That is not at all what the passage is saying.

In Eph 2:1-3 we are sinners and trespassers. Our condition in Ephesians 2:1 is that we are ...
Eph 2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,

No to put it strait out... Drew does not believe that we are dead in sin. He believes we still have some spark of self righteousness by which we can please God.

To reinforce what he is saying notice verse 3.
Eph 2:3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: -

As sinners we are so sinful that we were our nature was completely bound up in wrath. The problems is not that our righteousness was insufficient as Drew might have you believe. Our nature was to hate God. Our nature was one of rebellion and sin. Verses 1-3 are suggesting that we not only were not quite good enough (as Drew might have you believe) but our righteousness was zero. Our sin was the only part of our nature mentioned in the context.

From this greatly sinful nature man cannot do any good works. That is why salvation is by grace, and not any works.

Again, notice how Paul stresses the concept of grace in verse 8-9. He become quite repetetive.
"not of yourselves" ------ Is this talking about the works of the law?
"It is the gift of God" -Drew would have you believe that works here are only the works of the law. But grace is grace, and the gift is not Gods feeble assistance in being a minor assistance for us to be sufficiently righteous, no! Not at all! Salvation is $100% pure grace and no works at all.

Now we come to the statement that Drew so badly misrepresents. "Not of works" The works here must absolutely be any works of righteousness done by mankind. This can be seen by the repetition of the concept of grace within the immediate context. These are repetitious statements which demand the interpretation that man in his natural pregrace state, has 0% righteous works.

To conclude his section on grace, right after his statement on works, Paul says that God has left us no room for boasting, or self glorying.
Eph 2:9 not of works, that no man should glory.
No drew might suggest that one man somehow lets God help him become righteous. But then cannot that man stand in heaven and brag that he let God help him become righteous? He can say that the dirty sinner next to him was not wise enough to allow God to work in him. Yes, it is true that Drews system of theology brings about the glory of mans own righteousness. But Eph 2:9 demands a theology that allows for no boasting on the part of man.

In conclusion, it is true that Ephesians 2:15 uses the word "law." It is used not in the sense of negative "works of the law" but in a positive sense of containing the promises of the covenants. Drew imports a different concept of the law and then imposes it upon verses (2:8-9) where it is totally foreign. Drews hermeneutic is not contextual, but his hermeneutic is a word shuffle game. In his thinking the word law appears in the next context, so that can be used as an excuse to turn the entire passage upside down. That has nothing to do with reading things in context. Rather it is imposing his non-Pauline theology upon the words of Paul.

 

[Drew]

There is a connection between Eph 2:1-10 and 2:11-22. The connection is not "the works of the law" is Drew isogeticly ipmoses upon the entire text. The Flow of thought has to do with Gods grace.

It is easy to accuse someone of isogesis. We will see if this is sustained or not.

In verses 11-22 the law is the dividing point between Jew and Gentile.

Agreed. It is the Torah that divides the Jew from the Gentile

Paul is not talking about works in 11-22, he is still talking about Gods grace. God grace is seen in his abolishing enmity between Jew and Gentile. Paul is saying nothing more about the law then it was the cause of enmity.

Eph 2:15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;

Notice as Paul speaks of the law here there is no mention of the works of the law being abolished.

How can you say that there is no mention of the law being abolished?

When someone says this:

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

....any person who understands english will conclude that the law has indeed been abolished - at least in some sense. Please, reader, note how clear this is - "abolishing in his flesh the law...." is a clear statement that the law has been abolished. This seems beyond debate to me. Now perhaps the translation is wrong and we can argue that. But, as written in the NIV at least, Paul is clearly asserting that the Law has been abolished. The law is the thing abolished in the preceding sentence - there is no doubt about this.

 

[Drew]

There is absolutely no negative aspects to the law in verses 11-22. Paul is clearly not speaking of the works of the law in any negative way

Incorrect, it is clear that there is something negative about the law - it is seen by Paul as the source of emnity between Jew and Gentile. Again, here is the text:

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

So while the law does indeed bless the Jew as Mondar correctly points out, there is also this dark side of the law - it serves to create a barrier between Jew and Gentile. And there is another dark side of the Law as well - Torah is used by God to increase the sin in national Israel. From Romans 5:20 we have:

20The law was added so that the trespass might increase.

So it would be an oversimplification to suggest that Torah was only a "blessing" for the Jew.

Drew not only misses the point of the tremendous value of the law to the Jew, he misses how the blessings of the law and covenants are given to Gentile and Jew alike. The key is verse 13.

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.

Patently incorrect.

Mondar will, of course, be able to produce no statement of mine that states or otherwise implies that the law is not a blessing to the Jew. Do not be misled by this - I have never made any such representation.

And he is also incorrect in his assertion that I have missed how the blessing of the law and the covenants are given to Jew and Gentile alike. I have, to the point of annoyance for many, posted numerous arguments over the months as to how the covenant promises never were intended to be just for the Jews.

The fact that I have not stated in this thread that the Torah was a blessing for the Jew does not mean that I believe otherwise.

 

[Drew]

How was this enmity overcome in those verses? It is not by works, but by the very precious blood of Christ. The blood of Christ is the only method of righteousness anywhere in the passage or anywhere in the scriptures. It is also found right here in the very middle of the passage that Drew is misreading. It is not our righteousness that breaks down the middle wall of partition, but the blood of Christ. It is not our righteousness that brings Gentiles under the covenants but the blood of Christ.

Who are you arguing with here? You continue to misrepresent me as you have done in the past. I have never ever ever denied that the blood of Christ saves. I have never ever ever said that "our righteousness" breaks down the middle wall.

Prove me wrong, show me one post of the more than 3000 I have made where I assert that "our" righteousness saves us. Or where I have denied that the blood of Christ saves.

It is time to take responsibility for your misrepresentations.

 

[Drew]

No to put it strait out... Drew does not believe that we are dead in sin. He believes we still have some spark of self righteousness by which we can please God.

Utterly false yet again.

You will find no post of mine anywhere that can be reasonably taken as sustaining this false statement.

Let not the reader be deceived. Paul means what he says in Romans 2 - we are indeed justified at the last day based on the works our lives manifest. And despite mondar's long history of misrepresenting me on this, I will say it again for the millionth time - these are not works that in any reasonable sense can be attributed to us - they are the works of the Holy Spirit that has been given to us. Paul correctly understand the following covenant renewal promise from Deuteronomy 30:

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

What Paul realizes is that it is the Holy Spirit that accomplishes this - it is the Spirit that writes the "law" on our hearts so that we may do it.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

CCC 1730 - God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him" (Gaudium et spes 17; Sir 15:14).

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts (St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4, 4, 3: Patroligia Greaca 7/1, 983).

Source
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm

 

[mondar]

How was this enmity overcome in those verses? It is not by works, but by the very precious blood of Christ. The blood of Christ is the only method of righteousness anywhere in the passage or anywhere in the scriptures. It is also found right here in the very middle of the passage that Drew is misreading. It is not our righteousness that breaks down the middle wall of partition, but the blood of Christ. It is not our righteousness that brings Gentiles under the covenants but the blood of Christ.

Who are you arguing with here? You continue to misrepresent me as you have done in the past. I have never ever ever denied that the blood of Christ saves. I have never ever ever said that "our righteousness" breaks down the middle wall.

Prove me wrong, show me one post of the more than 3000 I have made where I assert that "our" righteousness saves us. Or where I have denied that the blood of Christ saves.

It is time to take responsibility for your misrepresentations.

If the reader will take the time to read the verse I quoted in Ephesians 2 you will see that the unity of the Jew in Gentile in Ephesians 2 is the work of Christs shed blood. Drew might try to create some wiggle room and say that "oh no, it is the work of the HS in man." Some one could ask Drew where he sees the HS in Ephesians 2? Where is the HS named in Ephesians 2?

The righteousness of Ephesians 2 is completely in Christs shed blood. Who established the unity of the one new man (Jew and Gentile) in Ephesians 2:11-22? Clearly this was done by Christs shed blood. Please once again let me quote Ephesians 2:13.
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.

This is not a small issue. For someone to make salvation by our works in the HS is to detract from the precious shed blood of Christ. We are made perfect in Gods sight because of the shed blood of our Lord, not because of our own works done in the HS.

Even if what Drew says is true, think about it a little. The very verse under discussion has two parts. Let me again post verse 9.
9 not of works, that no man should glory.
If I am standing in heaven next to a person that did not allow the HS to do "works" in him, can I not boast? Can I not glory in my own wisdom of allowing the HS to do his works in me? I can say "look at what the HS and I did." That poor sinner next to me did not allow the HS to do anything. Certainly there is boasting and glorying in Drews incorrect understanding of Ephesians 2.

Does Drew actually address the argumentation presented that the context of Ephesians 2 is completely dependant upon the grace of God and the shed blood of Jesus Christ? Notice how he quickly jumps from Ephesians 2 to Romans 2! Romans 2 is a completely different context.

Yet even in Romans 2 Drew cannot substantiate his claims by the text. Let me post the verse in Romans 2 that Drew would talk about.
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
Now the verse Drew usually picks out in Romans 2 does not merely have the word "law" in once, but it has the word "law" in twice. Does Drew recognize that Romans 2:13 is not speaking of just any old works but specificly the works of the law? If works is a means of justification, then the text specificly is speaking only of one kind of works, that is the works of the Mosaic Code, or the law. Yet does Drew recognize that this is a Jewish context that speaks of the Mosaic Code? No! Drew talks only about general works in Romans 2.

There is clearly a methological problem with such theology as Drew is presenting. It is not based upon the context. It is more of a word association game. Drew sees the word "law" in Ephesians 2:15, therefore he imports only one meaning. Drew thinks this must be "law as a means of righteousness." Please look at Ephesians 2:11-22. The law is mentioned, but the law is a good thing in Ephesians 2. The word "law" in Ephesians 2 is speaking of the covenants and promised blessings of the OT. Then verse 13 clearly identifies Christs shed blood as the means of bringing the promises of the law to both Jew and Gentile (the one new man). Now Drews word association method of reading a context is quite different from actually reading the context. Drew sees the word "law" and ignores how the term "law" is being used in Ephesians 2:11-22. He imports his own concept of "law as a means of righteousness" that is totally foreign to the context. Then he quickly jumps to verse 9 and says "see, I have proved that verse 9 is speaking of the works of the law." Such methodology is not exegetical, but totally isogetical. It is nothing but mere word association not based at all upon the context.

Can anyone show me why I should read the word "law" in Ephesians 2:15 as referring to a means of Righteousness and not a word used of the covenants and promised blessings given to the Jew in the OT and given to the Gentile by the shed blood of Christ?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

You guys are over-analyzing this. God did not create robots: He created us with dignity, the dignity of free will, to choose to love Him or not to love Him. What would our love for God mean if it was not our own choice? It would mean nothing. In Deuteronomy 30:19 we read:

" I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants"

Now, why would we be asked to make such a choice unless we are ABLE to make such a choice? God calls all men to Him, but WE CHOOSE whether or not to heed the call, and we continue to choose throughout our lives whether or not to remain in His kindness: "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22; see also Heb. 10:26–29, 2 Pet. 2:20–21).

 

[mondar]

these are not works that in any reasonable sense can be attributed to us - they are the works of the Holy Spirit that has been given to us. Paul correctly understand the following covenant renewal promise from Deuteronomy 30:

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

What Paul realizes is that it is the Holy Spirit that accomplishes this - it is the Spirit that writes the "law" on our hearts so that we may do it.

While certainly I agree that the HS writes the law on our hearts, changes our hearts from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh. Certainly as Deuteronomy 30:6 says that we have a circumcised heart. Yet this does not prove that works are a part of salvation, but rather it demonstrates that regeneration (an act of the HS) results in salvation, faith, and works. Drew is looking for works before salvation, and this is not 'it." The regenerated person is saved. There is no time lag in which a person is regenerated, then does works, and is then saved. It all happens at one time.

The problem here is that Drew somehow seems to be assuming an absurd idea that regeneration causes works, and then some day after enough works justification occurs. This is not the teaching of the scriptures. Regeneration does cause faith and we are justified on the basis of faith, but all that happens in an instant and is the work of God, not man. And this whole process results in works.

 

[mondar]

You guys are over-analyzing this. God did not create robots: He created us with dignity, the dignity of free will, to choose to love Him or not to love Him. What would our love for God mean if it was not our own choice? It would mean nothing. In Deuteronomy 30:19 we read:

" I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants"

Now, why would we be asked to make such a choice unless we are ABLE to make such a choice? God calls all men to Him, but WE CHOOSE whether or not to heed the call, and we continue to choose throughout our lives whether or not to remain in His kindness: "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22; see also Heb. 10:26–29, 2 Pet. 2:20–21).

If this is being addressed to me it is a total misunderstanding of what is being said. The whole Robot terminology is nothing but mere ad-hominims. I have always agreed that choices are made. I do assert that we will make choices based upon our nature. To make a choice not based upon your nature is to look silly. Feel free to go outside and in one leap jump over the moon. You are free to decide to do just that, but of course your nature will limit your ability to preform that which you decide.

So then we return to the concept of "Original Sin" or "sin nature." Romans 6 clearly says that the old man is a slave of sin. Ephesians 2 says we are dead in our sins and trespasses. John 6:44 tells us that result that "no one can come to me." Romans 3:11 says "no one seeks God."

Choice are made according to our nature, and we choose rebellion as a Race in Adam. Everytime we sin, we reaffirm Adams choice. The only way we can choose God is by Gods divine intervention of regeneration.

The things we are speaking of are important and not being over analyzed. There is no text of scripture that should not be carefully exegeted. I suggest we all work on the text. It is the scripture that is more powerful then any two edged sword. The word of God is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

..The things we are speaking of are important and not being over analyzed. There is no text of scripture that should not be carefully exegeted.....

Thats why you guys have thousands of denominations, because people who fancy themselves exegetes exegete things to death until they wind up with way-out interpretations and new sects that adopt them.

This is perfect proof why Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine