Free will or no free will?

[mondar]

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?

OK, yes, the law is abolished, but not in the way you are thinking about it. If your are going to associate verse 15 with verse 8, then verse 15 needs to be presented as a method of "works righteousness." That is not what that verse is saying.

The law is abolished not in the sense of the law as a method of righteousness. That was not abolished because it never existed in the first place. The Pharisees misinterpreted the law to refer to that, but the scriptures never stated that you could be righteous by means of keeping the law. This is the sense that you are understanding verse 15. You think verse 15 somehow is saying that "the law as a means of righteousness is being abolished." That is the thing I am denying. In verse 15 that concept is not being abolished because it was never biblical.

On the other hand what verse 15 is asserting is that when Christ shed his blood, the commandments contained in ordinances (called law) ceased. Notice that the word "abolish has as its modifier the word "enmity." When the law ceased, the enmity was abolished.

I will have to admit that my statement is interpretable and therefore not clear. I do not fault you for not grasping what I was saying. But to suggest that verse 8 is a denial only of the works righteousness of the law because verse 15 uses the word "law" is not contextual. Paul is not using the word "law" in verse 15 to speak of works righteousness. I hope I have been more clear.

 

[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.

Are you denying that you said justification is future and based upon works?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Are you denying that you said justification is future and based upon works?

Justification is an ongoing process. It can be summed up in two words: Divine Sonship. As sons of God we are expected to grow. Justification is not a one-time event, just as salvation is not a one time event

As far as works go, the word of God says:
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.(James 2:24)

 

[Drew]

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?

Of course, I never have denied, nor will I deny that the unity of the Jew and the Gentile is the work of Christ's shed blood. So this critique is directed at someone else not me. But that aside, the fact that the Holy Spirit is not mentioned here in Ephesians 2 has no value whatsoever in undermining my argument that the Spirit, given to us when we place faith in the shed blood of Jesus, works through us to produce the works that will justify us as per Romans 2.

The proper approach to Scripture is to look at the overall picture - the absence of a specific reference to the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 2 is a smoke-screen anyway. My assertion is that in Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul is denying the justificatory power of Torah, he is not giving us a Romans 8 type of argument where he indeed addresses the power of the Spirit to act in the live of the believer.

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.

Unfortunately, you have Romans 2 to deal with. I am sorry if Romans 2 makes the task of figuring out justification difficult - which it does, I grant you. But the response is not to ignore it or make up fanciful theories about how Paul is talking about a path to justification that zero persons will take, and then justify (no pun intended) that view by an erroneous interpretation which, again, mis-reads "works" as "good works", when the context makes it clear that in Romans 3, "works" is again Torah.

We need to take everything Paul writes seriously and if that makes for a more complex model of justification, so be it. I suspect that mondar believes that justification is primarily a "lawcourt" term for Paul. It is not. It is primarily a covenantal term.

How is this relevant to the issue at hand? I will give a very skeletal argument:

1. Paul's model of justification has tenses to it - there is justification in terms of the past work of Jesus on the Cross, there is the justifiation of the believer who, in the present, does nothing more than place his faith in the shed blood of Jesus, and (although watch as people construct implausible thoeries to avoid it), there is works-based justification in the future as per Romans 2. If you hop up and down at this point and protest that justification is a one-time legal term, you misread Paul - justification is primarily a covenantal term, and has always been so in the Old Testament.

2. Paul is thinking covenantally. In the future, the true covenant people will be marked out - that is to say justified (if you make the lawcourt sense of justification, you will get tripped up here) by the works that their lives evidence. But Paul also believes that you know in the present who those people will be - they will be those who do nothing more than place faith in the shed blood of Jesus.

3. Romans 8 then tells us how God can make this work - the Holy Spirit ensures that those marked out as covenant people in the present - by faith, and not works of any kind - will indeed become God's true humanity and will demonstrate the works that will justify them at the end.

Mondar, of course, appeals to the argument that I am setting the works of the Holy Spirit against the shed blood of Jesus. This is not a position I am at all forced to adopt, as I hope the above argument makes clear.

 

[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.

Are you denying that you said justification is future and based upon works?

No I am not denying this at all. And perhaps I should have tempered my "indignation" since I think you are bringing an entirely different concept of what justification really is and will understandably think that by asserting future justification by works, I imply that we are not justified by Christ's blood. So I apologize for any implication of intentional misrepresentation on your part. I am certain that was not your intent.

I hope my recent post makes it clear that I can indeed (at least logically, anyway) claim both of the following:

1. We are justified in the future by the works our lives evidence - that is how we will be marked out as the true covenant people. This is based on my view that Paul thinks about the term "justification" in covenantal terms primarily, not in "lawcourt" terms.

2. When we place our faith in Jesus in the present, that future verdict is assured - the Spirit guarantees that we will demonstrate the works that will justify us at the Romans 2 judgement.

There are a whack of other arguments as to why this "tense-based" view of justification is Scriptural. Perhaps in later posts.

 

[MarkT]

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.

Only in that the Jews were circumcised in the flesh and the Gentiles were not. But Paul is not saying Jesus was sent to bring about peace on earth. No but a sword according to Jesus. But that's not the point.

The 'dividing wall of hostility' is between God and man. Remember no one listened to God. That's why Jesus was sent.

The law was not the cause of enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles.

Look. For a reconciliation to occur there must have been a trespass, and we know we were all sinners. We were all trespassers, both of us (Jews and Gentiles). No one listened to God, neither the Jew nor the Greek. But Paul is saying we were 'both' reconciled to God in one new body, in the body of Christ. In fact we were 'both' reconciled to God in one new man in Christ. We were both reconciled to God by Christ who abolished the law of commandments and ordinances 'in his flesh'. Not that the law was abolished at all but that in Christ there is no law, and where there is no law, there is no sin. So for the believer there is peace in Christ. The peace - God reconciling man to himself in the new man in Christ who is our peace. Therefore God's peace is in us if you are in Christ.

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.

The workings of the law/sin and death. What Bible are you using?

No. Mondar. 'The commonwealth of Israel' is a spiritual term. In the light of Christ - Jesus was sent to find the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Every Gentile is therefore adopted into the flock or as Paul put it, grafted into the 'natural tree.' So there is a commonwealth of Israel, a commonwealth of nations if you will. A commonwealth of all peoples, nations, tribes, and tongues. The Jews were first to receive the gospel. The Gentiles joined the commonwealth. We are fellow citizens as Paul said.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....The workings of the law/sin and death. What Bible are you using?....

That is referring to the Torah (Hebrew for "Law"), not the Laws (or commands if you prefer) Christ has given us.

 

[mondar]

...My assertion is that in Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul is denying the justificatory power of Torah,...

Yes, I think I understood your assertion, and reject it on a contextual basis. I have stated my arguments in the context of verses 11-22, and also within the context of the earlier part of Chapter 1. We can go over that again if you wish.

Unfortunately, you have Romans 2 to deal with. I am sorry if Romans 2 makes the task of figuring out justification difficult - which it does, I grant you. But the response is not to ignore it or make up fanciful theories about how Paul is talking about a path to justification that zero persons will take, and then justify (no pun intended) that view by an erroneous interpretation which, again, mis-reads "works" as "good works", when the context makes it clear that in Romans 3, "works" is again Torah.

I recognize that Romans 2:13 has both a present tense verb for justification and a future tense verb. The context of Romans 2 does not support your understanding of the future tense.

First, Drew, I have never heard you admit that verse 13 is speaking specifically about the Mosaic Law. To assert future justificaion, you would have to use the Mosaic Law as the means. However, that leads to unbiblical absurdities. What verse 13 is actually doing is negating the fact that the hearing of the law is a means of justification. The Jew depended upon their standing before God because of hearing the Law. Paul is simply setting up a contrast. He is saying "hearing the law really does not do much, you have to do it." And yes, if you are going to attempt justification by means of the Mosiac Law, it is clear that Paul taught that you must not fail in any one point, but you must be perfect, and sinless. Of course if you are sinless, you dont need a savior and Jesus shed blood is unneeded. Paul makes this clear in Galatians 3:10.
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.
Paul is of course quoting from Deuteronomy 27:26. If the law is used as a means of justification, then you must not ever sin, or you will need a savior.

Drew, I think the first step in Romans 2 is for you to admit that we are talking about the Mosaic Law.

We need to take everything Paul writes seriously and if that makes for a more complex model of justification, so be it. I suspect that mondar believes that justification is primarily a "lawcourt" term for Paul. It is not. It is primarily a covenantal term.

I recognize the semantic domain of the term "diakaio" includes the making of a person righteous. Yet your statements above fail to recognize that the semantic domain of the term diakaio (justify) is not limited to the concept you suggest. In fact the semantic domain does include the very concepts you deny. So then the term can have a range of meaning. Let me quote a few contexts where the term is used in a legal sense.

Pro 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to Jehovah.
Do still affirm that every time the term justify is used it means to "impart righteousness." Now I recognize that this term was originally in Hebrew, but that is meaningless since the LXX uses the very term "diakaio."

Deu 25:1 If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, and the judges judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked;
Notice the courtroom setting here. There is a judge. There is judgment. This is obviously a courtroom setting, and the term is used in a context that demands a different definition then "the infusion of righteousness." Thisis obviously a context where one is "delcared righteous" by a judge. The person is not infused with righteousness, but declared righteous.

Exo 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked I think this one can be demonstrated to be a legal setting, but I dont wish to bother demonstrating this at this time.

Rom 8:33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth;
Rom 8:34 who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Notice even in Romans the use of the term "justify" is used with courtroom language. Notice the term "charge" and "condemn." Are not these forensic terms?

Again, this does not mean that the term "justify" is only used this way, but each context must then determine its exact meaning. The concept of forensic justification is easily with in the range of meaning of the term.


I think I have provided adequete support for the semantic range of meaning to include lawcourt or forensic justification. So do I believe Paul is using the term in a law court sense? Well, your correct in that I do thing many of Pauls usages of the term is exactly that. Can you provide even close to as good of support for a "covenantal" usage of the term justify within it semantic domain?
You say the term justify is primarily a covenantal term.... evidence please?

***Note to other readers. This is a very important issue. IF the term is used in a forensic sense as I am suggesting in Romans, then God is the divine judge who bangs his gavel and pronounces us justified. There is no works in the kind of justification I am suggesting. It is on the basis of faith alone.

How is this relevant to the issue at hand? I will give a very skeletal argument:

1. Paul's model of justification has tenses to it - there is justification in terms of the past work of Jesus on the Cross, there is the justifiation of the believer who, in the present, does nothing more than place his faith in the shed blood of Jesus, and (although watch as people construct implausible thoeries to avoid it), there is works-based justification in the future as per Romans 2. If you hop up and down at this point and protest that justification is a one-time legal term, you misread Paul - justification is primarily a covenantal term, and has always been so in the Old Testament.

Oh please, I need to jump up and down?

In any case, you make propositions here and present no evidence. My guess is you have only a few disputed passages to point to and nothing like the support I just presented.

2. Paul is thinking covenantally. In the future, the true covenant people will be marked out - that is to say justified (if you make the lawcourt sense of justification, you will get tripped up here) by the works that their lives evidence. But Paul also believes that you know in the present who those people will be - they will be those who do nothing more than place faith in the shed blood of Jesus.

I dont feel the least "tripped up" by Pauls use of the term in non-forensic ways. I have long admitted that there is a semantic range. Even so, where is your support that the term has to be understood covenantally.

[My guess is that you will provide support by doing the word association game again. Yes, the word justify appears and then maybe 5 or 10 verses you will point to the word circumcision. Now that is by no means demonstrating the meaning of the term contextually as I have done above.]

3. Romans 8 then tells us how God can make this work - the Holy Spirit ensures that those marked out as covenant people in the present - by faith, and not works of any kind - will indeed become God's true humanity and will demonstrate the works that will justify them at the end.

Mondar, of course, appeals to the argument that I am setting the works of the Holy Spirit against the shed blood of Jesus. This is not a position I am at all forced to adopt, as I hope the above argument makes clear.

Well, I still dont see it. Any reference to justification on a future basis must be apart from the shed blood. The only justification that saves us from the wrath of God is the justification that is past tense. It is easily noticable that when you quote Romans 2:13, where is the reference to being justified ont he basis of Christs blood? If you quote Romans 2:13 the only possible possition you could take is that the Mosiac Law justifies in the future. So then how will you exlain Romans 2:13 and the reference to the Mosaic Law? Of course I am saying that justification is only on the basis Christs shed blood and faith in his shed blood.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him.
To be saved from the wrath of God, no more is needed then what verse 9 says. In verse 9 we have been saved. Can you save a man that has already been saved?

 

[MarkT]

....The workings of the law/sin and death. What Bible are you using?....

That is referring to the Torah (Hebrew for "Law"), not the Laws (or commands if you prefer) Christ has given us.

That's right. The law of Moses. So what's your point?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....The workings of the law/sin and death. What Bible are you using?....

That is referring to the Torah (Hebrew for "Law"), not the Laws (or commands if you prefer) Christ has given us.

That's right. The law of Moses. So what's your point?

My, snippy, aren't we.
My point is that working the law of Christ does NOT mean death: It means LIFE. And that law is whatever he commanded us to do - love thy neighbor, feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, etc. etc. I challenge you: Read a gospel, and keep your antennae tuned for every time Jesus says you must DO something. You'd better believe, when you se him say DO, its something you MUST do.

And just to stay on topic, doing these things is an act of the will - FREE will - a cooperation with God's grace.

 

[MarkT]

That is referring to the Torah (Hebrew for "Law"), not the Laws (or commands if you prefer) Christ has given us.

That's right. The law of Moses. So what's your point?

My, snippy, aren't we.
My point is that working the law of Christ does NOT mean death: It means LIFE. And that law is whatever he commanded us to do - love thy neighbor, feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, etc. etc. I challenge you: Read a gospel, and keep your antennae tuned for every time Jesus says you must DO something. You'd better believe, when you se him say DO, its something you MUST do.

And just to stay on topic, doing these things is an act of the will - FREE will - a cooperation with God's grace.

An act of will or an act of love? I would hope we do those things because we want to, because it is in our nature to do so. Out of love. Not because we have to. If God's nature abides in you, then you don't have to force yourself to do those things.

 

[Drew]

There is really little doubt that in Ephesians 2, the works that are described in verse 9 are the works of Torah, not the cateobry of "good works" generally. We need to let Paul tell us what he wants to say, not apply our own systems on him. Here is the relevant text with my comments:

9not by works

{***ok, so if we are being objective we entertain both possibilities - that Paul is talking about "good works" in the general sense, or the activities or works of Torah - we then let Paul show us which one he is talking about.}

so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works

{***Here by "good works" Paul indeed means "good works" but this does not logically force us to conclude that he means "good work" in verse 9 - do I really need to demonstrate this?},

which God prepared in advance for us to do.11Therefore,

{****Paul uses the "therefore" to show us that he is now going to fill out the implications of what he has just said. This is important because the corollory of this is that what follows will help disambiguate what Paul means by "works" in verse 9}

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.

{****Paul is clearly now talking about the Jew-Gentile divide, and how the actions of Jesus have brought Jew and Gentile together. Now lets remember the "therefore" from verse 11 - Paul is telling us the implications of his verse 9 statement that none are saved by "works". Now here it becomes clear that these are the works of Torah since, obviously, it is by doing the works of Torah, being "under Torah" as it were, that the Jew could say "I am part of God's covenant people" or I am a member of "Israel". What marks out the nation Israel from the Gentile? Possession and doing of Torah, of course! This is an exceedingly powerful argument - Paul here is obviously talking about the basis on which the Gentiles were excluded from membership in the covenant family - and that basis is obviously the possession of Torah and doing its works.

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

{***How much more clear could Paul be - he is talking about Torah - why people refuse to see this, I really do not know. What has divided the Jew from the Gentile and been the barrier? Good works? Obviously not, both Jew and Gentile are in Adam. It is doing the works of Torah, of course, that is the very thing that the Jew might otherwise boast in and which is now being declared to not be salvific}

We need to treat Paul holistically and let him dictate the terms of his arguments to us. We cannot approach a text like Ephesians 2:8-9, having already committed to the view that "works" means "good works" and then say, "aha! Paul is indeed denying that good works" justify", all the while ignoring what Paul says in verses 11 and following - material that does not cohere with such an interpretation but which obviously makes perfect sense if we understand the "works" in verse 9 as the works of Torah, and not "good works" in the more general sense.

 

[Drew]

Unfortunately, you have Romans 2 to deal with. I am sorry if Romans 2 makes the task of figuring out justification difficult - which it does, I grant you. But the response is not to ignore it or make up fanciful theories about how Paul is talking about a path to justification that zero persons will take, and then justify (no pun intended) that view by an erroneous interpretation which, again, mis-reads "works" as "good works", when the context makes it clear that in Romans 3, "works" is again Torah.

I recognize that Romans 2:13 has both a present tense verb for justification and a future tense verb. The context of Romans 2 does not support your understanding of the future tense.

First, Drew, I have never heard you admit that verse 13 is speaking specifically about the Mosaic Law. To assert future justificaion, you would have to use the Mosaic Law as the means. However, that leads to unbiblical absurdities.

I most certainly do not "have to use the Mosaic Laws" as the means for future justification, and I most certainly would not make such a claim. To keep things from getting too lengthy, I have not explained what I think Paul means by "law" in verse 13. But, I am not forced into the position you claim I am here - Paul is not talking about Torah in verse 13. I do not have time to explain now, but hope to return to this.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

That is referring to the Torah (Hebrew for "Law"), not the Laws (or commands if you prefer) Christ has given us.

[quote:c7cc9]That's right. The law of Moses. So what's your point?

My, snippy, aren't we.
My point is that working the law of Christ does NOT mean death: It means LIFE. And that law is whatever he commanded us to do - love thy neighbor, feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, etc. etc. I challenge you: Read a gospel, and keep your antennae tuned for every time Jesus says you must DO something. You'd better believe, when you se him say DO, its something you MUST do.

And just to stay on topic, doing these things is an act of the will - FREE will - a cooperation with God's grace.

An act of will or an act of love?[/quote:c7cc9]
Why not both?

I would hope we do those things because we want to, because it is in our nature to do so. Out of love. Not because we have to. If God's nature abides in you, then you don't have to force yourself to do those things.

Yes, I hope so too. But, as I said, we are not puppets: God gives us the grace to do good, but it is still an act of the will to actually get up off the couch and DO the things we are called to do. But, yes, out of love, in cooperation with God's grace. Works done WITHOUT Gods grace - like those of an atheist for example - are worthless.

Actually, the term "Merit" is better. You might want to read this about reward and merit:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Reward_and_Merit.asp

 

[Drew]

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.

All that Paul is saying here is that no one can claim "since I did the works of Torah, I am justified". Note what is going on here in mondar's argument: He assumes that his point about "works" being "good works" has been established and then uses that assumption to assert an inconsistency in my argument.

But, of course, if "works" in verse 9 means works of Torah then mondar's argument has no force, since Paul is not denying "boasting" in one own's "good works" but is denying boasting in doing the works of Torah.

And please let no one misrepresent my argument as asserting that since we cannot boast in doing Torah, we therefore can and should "boast" in doing "good works". That would be fallacious reasoning. But in any event, Paul unashamedly does indeed boast in the "good works" that the Spirit has produced in him:

From 1 Thess 2:19 we have this:

19For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes? Is it not you

as you hold out[c] the word of lifeâ€â€in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing

To quote NT Wright:

We are embarrassed about saying this kind of thing; Paul clearly is not. What on earth can have happened to a sola scriptura theology that it should find itself forced to screen out such emphatic, indeed celebratory, statements

 

[Drew]

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.

The reader who knows what I have posted will know that I am in no way denying a complete dependence on the grace of God, except in what I think is the absurd sense where human beings are robbed of the power to accept a gift of grace. That particular sense of grace, while it appeals to our sense that God is responsble for our salvation, does so at the cost of robbing us of creaturehood.

This is the problem of such an extreme position of the sovereignty issue. If all our actions are fully determined by forces external to us, then we become conceptually indistinct from mere "objects" (e.g. rocks) that have no power of self-determination at all and whose actions are fully determined by laws of physics. Or we become mere extensions of God himself.

And we have Romans 2 which undercuts the "good works play no role in justification" position - you watch what people will do with Romans 2 to go around this.

To address mondar's argument above: to take the position that the Spirit is the engine for the works that justify at the end, does not logically require me to deny dependence on the grace of God. This is because the Spirit is only given by an act of grace. Now mondar will perhaps argue that simple free will acceptance somehow is at odds with the concept of "grace".

Again, we need to be careful not to tell Scripture what "grace" really means - to think that grace cannot be synergistic (requiring some degree of participation or cooperation on the part of the redeemed). If we bring such a conceptualization of grace to the text, well of course there will be problems. But if we let the whole sweep of scripture speak to us, we see, I suggest, that grace is indeed a synergistic, not a monergistic, concept.

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.

No - the text in Romans 2 is not talking about the works of the Mosaic code. I understand why you and the other readers might think that I am forced into such a position, but I am not.

The arguments here are somewhat complex, but that is the challenge that Paul has set before us. We know from Romans 9, if not from other texts, that Paul discerns two possible ways of pursuing Torah - pursuing it "by faith" and pursuing it "by works". From Romans 9 as rendered in the NASB:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, (BJ)pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

This bifurcartion - this clear differentiation of 2 modalities of "doing Torah" entirely undercuts mondar's critique of my position. Why? Because I will claim that, as per Romans 9, the salvific mode of keeping Torah is not the "by works of Torah" mode, but rather the "as if by faith" mode.

So while it may be a little unclear as to the real difference between these modes, I can coherently claim that in Romans 2:13, Paul is talking about a mode of doing Torah that does not consist in "doing the works of Torah".

And I suspect that you will know my next move. I will claim that in Ephesians 2:8-9, the mode of "justification by works" that Paul is denying is not this second "by faith" mode, but is rather the first "as if by works" mode.

Sound like a lot of fancy footwork? I can understand why you might think so. But I suggest that I am only following Paul here. And if he discerns 2 modes of doing Torah - which he clearly does - then I am not "playing games" if I exploit this same distinction in service of the argument I am putting forward here.

 

[Drew]

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."

Untrue, and the reader who has been following my argument will know this. I have been very clear that I am arguing for the context of Ephesians 2 - in particular verses 11 and folowing - as being the basis, the grounds, for a conclusion that in verse 9, Paul is referring to the works of Torah. Let that argument be judged. But it is an argument. I am not importing a meaning - I am using relevant context to argue for a meaning.

Please look at Ephesians 2:11-22. The law is mentioned, but the law is a good thing in Ephesians 2.

No. Paul is clear that the Law also serves to create a dividing wall of hostility. Now just because I assert this does not mean that the Law is "a bad thing". The simple fact is that it does divide Jew and Gentile and this is not God's ultimate intent.

For 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.

If one asserts that the Law was not a temporary wall of division between Jew and Gentile that needed to dissolved, then one is arguing with Paul, not me.

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.

If you want to call an actual argument isogesis, then go ahead. I doubt the objective reader will buy it. My argument involves examining what Paul actually goes on to say after he introduces the statement about "works" on verse 9. I am only following Paul here, letting him tell us what he means in verse 9. I suggest that it is you who is importing a meaning here. But at the end of the day, this should be settled in the mind of the reader by the validity of the arguments. I have already presented my argument as to why verses 11 and following show us that "works" in verse 9 means "works of Torah". Let the reader judge the arguments themselves.

 

[Drew]

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.

This is the problem of thinking that justification is primarily a lawcourt term - where indeed there can only be one instant at which one is justified. But, for Paul, justification (following the long tradition of the Old Testament) is first and foremost a covenantal term - a term used to denote the identification of the true covenant people of God. Many in the reforme tradition ignore the primacy of the covenantal sense of justification and think solely in law court terms.

So of course, they see justification as a single event and then have to tie themselves into knots to deal with Romans 2 - suggesting that Paul is talking about a hypothetical path to justification that no one can attain. And they mistake "works" (again) in Romans 3 as being "good works" when it is about Torah again, to justify this rather odd move on Paul's part - telling us something that is not the case in Romans 2 about people being justified by works.

But if we follow Paul and not the reformed tradition, we see that justification is a covenantal term and indeed has multiple tenses - this is entirely consistent with an entire sweep of argument that I have not even begun to exploit here - the idea of "inaugurated eschatology" which clearly and forcefully supports this multiple tense take on justification.

In the present, the true convenant people are marked out as covenant members (that is to say, justified), solely on the basis of faith.

In the future, the true covenant people are marked out by their works - no need to come up with implausible theories about how Paul does not mean what he says in Romans 2.

Again, though, I suggest the fundamental error that is being made here is to see justification in primarily lawcourt terms. It is, I suggest, instead a covenantal term and believe that I can provide scriptural arguments to bear.

But in 21st century western Christianity, when you hear the word "justification", the lawcourt image automatically springs to mind and we run with that, seemingly willing to put up with the problems it engenders - such as the issue of how to deal with Romans 2.

A covenantal take on justification allows us to take Paul seriously at every step.

 

[MarkT]

There is really little doubt that in Ephesians 2, the works that are described in verse 9 are the works of Torah, not the cateobry of "good works" generally. We need to let Paul tell us what he wants to say, not apply our own systems on him. Here is the relevant text with my comments:

9not by works

{***ok, so if we are being objective we entertain both possibilities - that Paul is talking about "good works" in the general sense, or the activities or works of Torah - we then let Paul show us which one he is talking about.

No. Paul says, 'it's not your own doing'. He isn't talking about good works or Torah. In fact he doesn't use the word Torah at all. Let's not try to be scholars here. Don't put words into Paul's mouth. When Paul says, 'your own doing', he means your 'own doing'.

It means we didn't earn the gift of God by doing work or working. It's not a reward.

which God prepared in advance for us to do.11Therefore,

{****Paul uses the "therefore" to show us that he is now going to fill out the implications of what he has just said. This is important because the corollory of this is that what follows will help disambiguate what Paul means by "works" in verse 9}

Nope. 'Therefore' follows from 'For this reason', because I have heard of your faith' Ephesians 1:15 Drew you have to stop reading line by line. Paul is talking about faith, and he's saying, 'therefore', because of this gift, you are now fellow citizens with the saints.

I think the problem with most people is that they can't retain the words of God, or the words of the apostles. They can't follow a train of thought for more than one or two lines. They lose track immediately. So they turn to the scholars thinking they must know. It's a cultural thing.

The scholars analyze every line. But Beware! The LORD said, 'the priest and the prophet reel with strong drink', and they would not hear, and 'they will fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.' Isa. 28:13

 

[Drew]

There is really little doubt that in Ephesians 2, the works that are described in verse 9 are the works of Torah, not the cateobry of "good works" generally. We need to let Paul tell us what he wants to say, not apply our own systems on him. Here is the relevant text with my comments:

9not by works

{***ok, so if we are being objective we entertain both possibilities - that Paul is talking about "good works" in the general sense, or the activities or works of Torah - we then let Paul show us which one he is talking about.

No. Paul says, 'it's not your own doing'. He isn't talking about good works or Torah. In fact he doesn't use the word Torah at all. Let's not try to be scholars here. Don't put words into Paul's mouth. When Paul says, 'your own doing', he means your 'own doing'.

Where does Paul say its "not your doing" - my NASB says "not by works". Please tell me exactly where Paul says this.

Could Paul be talking about the "works of Torah" here? Obviously. To rule this out this possibility without even looking at the evidence for it is simply not fair argument.

And, as per earlier arguments, the hypothesis that he is talking about works of Torah makes much better sense in light of what he goes on to say in verses 11 and following than does the hypothesis that he is talking about the general category of good works.

What Paul says in verses 11 and following make it clear that in verse 9 he denies the justificatory power of Torah. It goes like this:

1. In verse 8, Paul asserts salvation by faith;

2. In verse 9, Paul denies salvation by "works";

3. It is circular argument to assume that "works = good works", just like it is circular argument to assume that "works = works of Torah". So we have to let the context resolve the ambiguity.

4. Paul then makes his "therefore" statement, establishing a clear connection between verses 8-10 and what follows in 11 and following;

5. What follows in 11 is a clear discussion about something that divides the Jew from the Gentile. This has to be Torah

6. The Gentile is described as having been "outside the covenant".

7. The Jew, on the other hand was on the inside. Why? Because of Torah - this is the only thing that distinguishes Jew from Gentile.

8. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that in verse 9, Paul is denying the works of Torah, since these works are the only basis for the Jew-Gentile separation that Paul is now declaring to have been dissolved.