Free will or no free will?

[Drew]

Let's approach this a different way. No one who is a serious participant in this discussion can simply assert that "works" in verse 9 means "good deeds in general". That would, of course, obviously beg the question. The word "works" could also mean the "works of Torah". So we have at least these two possibilities to consider.

Which of these 2 possibilities is more consistent with the material that follows the "therefore"? Clearly, the use of the "therefore" indicates that Paul is going to now tell us the consequences of what he just asserted. And one of the things he has just asserted is that we are not saved by "works".

So which of the 2 alternatives does verse 11 and following support better?

It should be noted that there is nothing inherently illogical with either of the 2 possibilities, even in light of what Paul has said about faith. Either of the 2 following assertions is entirely plausible:

A. Paul denies salvation by "good deeds" and asserts salvation by faith;
B Paul denies salvation by "works of Torah" and asserts salvation by faith.

What about possibility A? Does what is written in verse 11 and following make sense if what Paul is denying is salvation by good deeds? I submit that the answer is rather clearly "no".

Therefore, 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.

What is Paul talking about here? Obviously he is directing this at the Gentiles, telling them that they were outsiders to the promises of God and have now been included in the people of the covenant. This already seems odd if Paul is indeed denying salvation by "good deeds" in verse 9. The material in verses 11 - 13 is clearly the wrong argument to make if he is denying salvation by "good deeds" in verse 9. What is my reasoning here?

Paul clearly thinks that the Gentiles were in some sense on the outside in comparison to the Jews in respect to covenant membership. But if Paul denies salvation by "good works" in verse 9, there is no particular reason to say that the Gentile is any more on the outside than the Jew in this respect. They are both equally in Adam, equally incapable of doing good works. So we have Paul going off on an irrelevant tangent - if salvation is by faith and not by "good works", there is no reason to focus, as Paul clearly does, on a Jew-Gentile divide, since both are now "in" by faith and both are equally excluded by their incapacity to do good 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. 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.

If Paul is really denying justification by "good works" in verse 9, how is the clear reference to Torah in verse 15 and its function as a barrier between Jew and Gentile relevant? In verse 15 Paul is saying that the abolition of Torah is a consequence - remember the "therefore" - of faith being salvific and good works not being salvific. But it clearly is not a consequence:

1. Abolition of Torah has no relation to any possible barrier between Jew and Gentile in respect to faith being salvific - Torah in no way discriminates between Jew and Gentile in respect to a capacity to have faith.

2. Abolition of Torah also has no relation to any possible barrier between Jew and Gentile in respect to good deeds not being salvific - the Jew and the Gentile are equally incapable of being justified by their good deeds (as per Romans 3). And while it makes sense to tell the Jew that the "good deeds" prescribed by Torah are not salvific, this is of no consequence to the Gentile who is not even under Torah. Yet the text is clear, Paul is indeed saying something that is relevant to the Gentile.

In conclusion, what Paul says in verses 11 and following is not really an amplification on a denial of justification by "good works". Since the "threrefore" suggests that it should be, we have reason to be suspicious that Paul is, in fact, denying salvation by "good works" in verse 9.

In a next post, I will argue that verses 11 and following make much more sense if Paul is denying salvation by the works of Torah in verse 9.

 

[MarkT]

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

Ephesians 2:4-10

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

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.

RSV published 1952

 

[Drew]

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.

Fair enough - translation is sometimes a tricky issue and it is too bad that we do not all read Greek.

Here is the same text, rendered in a number of versions:

NASB: "not as a result of works, so that no one may boast"

NIV: "not by works, so that no one can boast.

ASV: "not of works, that no man should glory"

Young's Literal: "not of works, that no one may boast"

New King James: "not of works, lest anyone should boast."

I chose these more or less randomly - I did not "cheat" and selectively choose renderings with "works".

As you can see, "works" seems to be the almost unanimous rendering. I know nothing about Greek, but the "not of your own doing" is clearly the odd man out here. Someone who knows Greek might help us out here.

Again, though, what Paul then goes on to say in verses 11 and after make it seem that he has been talking about Torah in verse 9.

The translation issue is a stickler. I have reason to believe that sometimes translators impose their own systems on the text and let that influence how they translate something. Of course, this cuts both ways in this particular debate, so I am not suggesting that the RSV is a "bad translation".

 

[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?

I have bolded the last question in mondar's post. I think that the words of NT Wright offer a clear answer about the presence of the Spirit in Ephesians 2:

Ephesians offers the most explicit ‘new temple’ theology in Paul. Developing what we saw in 1 Corinthians 3, Ephesians 2 provides an extended picture of the coming together of Jew and Gentile within a single structure – which turns out to be the Temple itself, not now with a barrier keeping Gentiles out, or a law that enables Jews and Jews only to stay in, but with a welcome into a single new humanity, a welcome extended through the cross. ‘Through him (i.e. Jesus Christ) we both have access to the father in the one spirit’: ‘access’ is itself a Temple-word, with the worshipper approaching the holy place reverently but without inappropriate fear or shame because of the cross.

And the final emphasis of the paragraph rams home the point: this building, consisting of human beings from every possible background worshipping together, ‘grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are built together to form a place for God to dwell by the Spirit’. It could hardly be clearer. The Spirit is the Shekinah, dwelling in the new temple which is the single family of those who are rescued by the gospel and renewed by the Spirit.

The unity and coherence of Paul's message is startling. If you look to what Paul says in Romans 2, 8, 10 (and by the reference to Deuteronomy 30), it becomes clear that indeed Paul is saying that the Spirit writes the "law" on the hearts of the redeemed, enabling them to exhibit works which will let them pass the Romans 2 judgement.

 

[Drew]

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.

You are right to assert that Deuteronomy 30:6 does not prove that works save, but you need to do more than merely assert that this is not the case.

No small challenge in light of the thrice-repeated claim in Romans 2 that good deeds indeed are salvific. The reader is encouraged to watch how people will deal with Romans 2 and see whether explanations as to why Paul does not mean what he plainly says are indeed credible.

 

[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.

Far be it from me to differ from the writer of Deuteronomy as to whether regeneration causes works, if by regeneration you means the giving of the Holy Spirit:

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

This is a passage about what happens when God renews the covenant - check out the first part of Deuteronomy 30. And who will disagree that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus renews the covenant? Paul clearly believes precisely this when he quoted the above passage in Romans 10.

And what are we who are in Christ given? The Spirit. Paul again from Romans 2:

No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit,

And what is the consequence of obeying the law written on our hearts by the Spirit? It is life, precisely as per Romans 2. Here is material from Romans 8 to underscore this:

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I don't mean to be dismissive of people's opinions, but to me this whole topic is crazy. The idea that I don't have free will. that I don't choose to do good or bad every day, is crazy to me. It is my choice, to sin or not to sin, to forgive people or not to forgive people. These are acts of the will. I don't see anyway to interpret any scripture that can refute these obvious facts.

Link of interest:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0203dr.asp

 

[MarkT]

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.

Fair enough - translation is sometimes a tricky issue and it is too bad that we do not all read Greek.

Here is the same text, rendered in a number of versions:

NASB: "not as a result of works, so that no one may boast"

NIV: "not by works, so that no one can boast.

ASV: "not of works, that no man should glory"

Young's Literal: "not of works, that no one may boast"

New King James: "not of works, lest anyone should boast."

I chose these more or less randomly - I did not "cheat" and selectively choose renderings with "works".

As you can see, "works" seems to be the almost unanimous rendering. I know nothing about Greek, but the "not of your own doing" is clearly the odd man out here. Someone who knows Greek might help us out here.

No. It's the part before that where he says, 'and that not of yourselves'. NASB The RSV renders it, 'and this is not your own doing' The meaning of 'not of yourselves' is seen in the next part where he says, 'not as a result of works' NASB (the NASB follows that with, 'so that no one may boast'. The RSV and the KJV follow with, 'lest any man should boast') So Paul is simply reiterating what he just said: it's 'not of yourselves' (according to the NASB), reiterating 'it's not as a result of works'. So he's saying the gift of salvation didn't come by the works we did before we were saved, as if it came from you, or of yourself, or by your will. As if you earned it.

Again, though, what Paul then goes on to say in verses 11 and after make it seem that he has been talking about Torah in verse 9.

Well 'Torah' is a nonstarter. Whatever it means, it's not in the Bible. It's funny but some people make 'Torah' the Word of God. So to say we are not saved by the Word of God (Christ) would be wrong. If it simply means the law of Moses, then say the law of Moses. I see no reason for using 'Torah' except to confuse people.

The translation issue is a stickler. I have reason to believe that sometimes translators impose their own systems on the text and let that influence how they translate something. Of course, this cuts both ways in this particular debate, so I am not suggesting that the RSV is a "bad translation".

I'm saying the NASB might be a bad translation. The NASB was published in 1995 so it bears the influence of the time we live in.

The RSV was published in 1952, so it is pre feminism, pre any of the godless movements, like human rights, that started in the 1960's.

 

[Drew]

As you can see, "works" seems to be the almost unanimous rendering. I know nothing about Greek, but the "not of your own doing" is clearly the odd man out here. Someone who knows Greek might help us out here.

No. It's the part before that where he says, 'and that not of yourselves'. NASB The RSV renders it, 'and this is not your own doing' The meaning of 'not of yourselves' is seen in the next part where he says, 'not as a result of works' NASB (the NASB follows that with, 'so that no one may boast'. The RSV and the KJV follow with, 'lest any man should boast') So Paul is simply reiterating what he just said: it's 'not of yourselves' (according to the NASB), reiterating 'it's not as a result of works'. So he's saying the gift of salvation didn't come by the works we did before we were saved, as if it came from you, or of yourself, or by your will. As if you earned it.

Here is the NASB rendering of verses 8 and 9:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

The problem for your argument is that if (repeat if) "works" means Torah, as I have argued, then the "and that not of yourselves" works as well with this view of works than it does with yours.

Can "works of Torah" be described as things that are "of yourselves"? Yes they can, just like "good works" can be described as being "of yourselves".

In short, both your take and my take on what "works" means are such that the works are "of yourselves". So you cannot argue that the fact that the "works" are "of yourselves" discriminates in favour of your interpretation of "works"

A person can boast in doing the works of Torah as much as he can boast in doing "good works". The line of argument you appear to be pursuing is neutral in respect to our disagreement. Both "works of Torah" and "good works in general" are things that humans do. So both are "of yourselves".

 

[Drew]

Again, though, what Paul then goes on to say in verses 11 and after make it seem that he has been talking about Torah in verse 9.

Well 'Torah' is a nonstarter. Whatever it means, it's not in the Bible.It's funny but some people make 'Torah' the Word of God. So to say we are not saved by the Word of God (Christ) would be wrong. If it simply means the law of Moses, then say the law of Moses. I see no reason for using 'Torah' except to confuse people.

I am perfectly happy to use the term "Law of Moses" if that is what you want to use. In that case, substitute "Law of Moses" for "Torah" in everything I have posted - the arguments remain unchanged.

 

[MarkT]

As you can see, "works" seems to be the almost unanimous rendering. I know nothing about Greek, but the "not of your own doing" is clearly the odd man out here. Someone who knows Greek might help us out here.

No. It's the part before that where he says, 'and that not of yourselves'. NASB The RSV renders it, 'and this is not your own doing' The meaning of 'not of yourselves' is seen in the next part where he says, 'not as a result of works' NASB (the NASB follows that with, 'so that no one may boast'. The RSV and the KJV follow with, 'lest any man should boast') So Paul is simply reiterating what he just said: it's 'not of yourselves' (according to the NASB), reiterating 'it's not as a result of works'. So he's saying the gift of salvation didn't come by the works we did before we were saved, as if it came from you, or of yourself, or by your will. As if you earned it.

Here is the NASB rendering of verses 8 and 9:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

The problem for your argument is that if (repeat if) "works" means Torah, as I have argued, then the "and that not of yourselves" works as well with this view of works than it does with yours.

Can "works of Torah" be described as things that are "of yourselves"? Yes they can, just like "good works" can be described as being "of yourselves".

In short, both your take and my take on what "works" means are such that the works are "of yourselves". So you cannot argue that the fact that the "works" are "of yourselves" discriminates in favour of your interpretation of "works"

A person can boast in doing the works of Torah as much as he can boast in doing "good works". The line of argument you appear to be pursuing is neutral in respect to our disagreement. Both "works of Torah" and "good works in general" are things that humans do. So both are "of yourselves".

Yeah. But that question (good works vs Torah) doesn't come into it, as Paul says, 'works', not 'the' works, as if he is speaking of a moral law. 'Works of yourself' don't come from any god. They come from you. So this is why he is not talking about any law when he says, 'not of yourselves'. NASB

Paul said, 'this is not your own doing' RSV, meaning it is God's doing. It's God's mercy. It's God's love. God made us alive in Christ. We didn't deserve it like a workman deserves his wages. Because a workman deserves his wages. But we didn't work for it.

If it was because of your work, then you could boast. But it isn't. God gave us the gift. It is not a wage given for work done.

So I don't read either option into his words.

 

[mondar]

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.

Drew, I dont have time to answer everything right now. I do want to comment on what you wrote here.

Do you understand the concept of a semantic range of meaning? Your thinking would go something like this...

Drew would say----> There is one verse in the entire bible in which Drew thinks the term justification shold not be interpreted in a forensic sense (Rm:2:13) therefore Drew does not have to read the term "justification" in any other context to understand the range of meaning that the term "justification" has. Anywhere the term "justification" appears, it cannot mean forensic justification because of Romans 2:13.

It seems I have an insurmountable problem. Drew, first, I dont think you understand the concept of looking at multiple contexts to determine a range of meaning for a term (semantic domain). Terms can have slightly different meanings in different contexts. Terms have a range of meaning dependent upon the context in which it is used. Drew, think just a little bit here. Why do you think lexicons and dictionaries have multiple meanings attached to definitions? Its called a "Semantic Domain" or "Semantic Range."

The cow runs to the barn.
The cow has the runs.

Time will fly.
A bird can fliy.
Your fly is open.

In greek there are actually several terms... diakaio... diakiaosunh... etc.
All these terms have the same root, and are translated with a variety of meanings within their contexts. I have posted verses in a previous post where I listed contexts in which forensic language is used, and which have obvious forensic contexts.

Your not even bothering to engage what I am saying but merely repeat an argument that carries no weight. That might convince the low hanging fruit (people that cannot understand the idea of context and a terms range of meaning), but it does not even come close to addressing what I am saying. You have not demonstrated that the terms diakaio etc. do not have forensic justificaiton within their semantic domain.

Now maybe you dont understand some of these concepts. I am not intending to present erudite arguments that you do not understand, I am trying to get you not to ignore the arguments I presented and just simply repeat the same old mantra (every occurance of the word justify cannot mean forensic justication).

Please address some of my evidence and address my previous arguments.

 

[Drew]

Yeah. But that question (good works vs Torah) doesn't come into it, as Paul says, 'works', not 'the' works, as if he is speaking of a moral law.

I do not see how the absence of a "the" in front of works means anything at all. I can say "not as a result of works" and mean either:

A. works as in "good deeds";
B: works as in "works of Torah"

The important this is that this ambuguity is clearly resolved in favour of position B by what Paul writes in verse 11 and following where he clearly is addressing the Jew-Gentile divide, something that has everything to do with the works of Torah and nothing to do with an ability to do "good deeds". Paul is saying that "salvation by faith" dissolves this divide and that the Jew cannot claim exclusive access to salvation by doing the things that are for Jews and Jews only - that is the works of Torah.

 

[Drew]

Do you understand the concept of a semantic range of meaning? Your thinking would go something like this...

Drew would say----> There is one verse in the entire bible in which Drew thinks the term justification shold not be interpreted in a forensic sense (Rm:2:13) therefore Drew does not have to read the term "justification" in any other context to understand the range of meaning that the term "justification" has. Anywhere the term "justification" appears, it cannot mean forensic justification because of Romans 2:13.

Drew would not say this at all.

I do not say that there is "one verse" in the entire Bible that speaks in favour of a primarily covenantal sense to the term "justification". I would say that the Old Testament is chock full of material that collectively suggests that the way that the Jew would understand justification would be primarily covenantal - justification is the determination that one is "in" the covenant people.

And look at texts like Romans 3 - the first 20 verse are focused on the Jew-Gentile divide. When Paul says, in verse 9, "what shall we conclude, are we any better?", he is clearly addressing the Jew who thinks that he is "in" the covenant family to the exclusion of the Gentile.

Note what he then goes on to say:

There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus

Since Paul has been talking about the Jew-Gentile divide, the issue here is not merely that all people are sinners - it is something much more particular than that. It is the statement that Jew and Gentile alike are sinners. And then that both Jew and Gentile are justified by God's grace. Now which makes more sense here, a covenantal reading or a forensic one?

Obviously a covenantal one, sine the Jew-Gentile divide is, of course, totally about the question of who is God' true covenant people.

Here is the key point to bear in mind - if it is true that Paul is talking about justification in a forensic sense, why is he so intently focussed on the Jew-Gentile divide, which he again underscores in 3:29 "Is God the God of Jew only? Is He not God of Gentiles too?".. As far as forensic justification is concerned, this division is no more problematic than the male-female division, or the "tall people" - "short people" division.

If, in Romans 3, Paul had been talking all along simply about individual sinners being put right with God, the ethnic question of Jew vs Gentile seems entirely out of place. But Paul hasn't been talking about this. As Romans 4 shows, he has been talking about God’s faithfulness to the covenant with Abraham and about God’s creation of a single family from both halves of sinful humanity. And this echoed in Ephesians 2:11 and following:

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. 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

The key is this: God’s declaring that sinners are now in a right relation to himself and God’s declaring that believing Jews and believing Gentiles belong in the same family are inextricably bound up with one another

I am more than happy to talk at length about the case as to why we should see "justifiation" as primarily a covenantal and not a forensic term.

I certainly do not base this position on Romans 2:13 alone.

 

[Drew]

It seems I have an insurmountable problem. Drew, first, I dont think you understand the concept of looking at multiple contexts to determine a range of meaning for a term (semantic domain). Terms can have slightly different meanings in different contexts.

I do indeed understand this and have been careful to state that "justification" is primarily a covenantal term. It does indeed also have a forensic meaning in some contexts. But, and I think this is key, for Paul, the forensic sense of justification is a metaphor used to elaborate on what is for him primarily a covenantal idea.

Terms have a range of meaning dependent upon the context in which it is used. Drew, think just a little bit here. Why do you think lexicons and dictionaries have multiple meanings attached to definitions? Its called a "Semantic Domain" or "Semantic Range."

The cow runs to the barn.
The cow has the runs.

Time will fly.
A bird can fliy.
Your fly is open.

Duhhh....me no understand...... :-D

I have nowhere demonstrated that I am in need to the lesson you are giving here.

Your not even bothering to engage what I am saying but merely repeat an argument that carries no weight.

I have provided numerous non-question begging arguments. I will leave it to the reader to determine whether these arguments "carry weight" or not. I may not have engaged (yet) each and every point that you have raised, but I only have so much time.

That might convince the low hanging fruit (people that cannot understand the idea of context and a terms range of meaning),....

My arguments are what they are and people are free to critique them.

 

[mondar]

It seems I have an insurmountable problem. Drew, first, I dont think you understand the concept of looking at multiple contexts to determine a range of meaning for a term (semantic domain). Terms can have slightly different meanings in different contexts.

I do indeed understand this and have been careful to state that "justification" is primarily a covenantal term. It does indeed also have a forensic meaning in some contexts. But, and I think this is key, for Paul, the forensic sense of justification is a metaphor used to elaborate on what is for him primarily a covenantal idea.

Evidence please.

I believe I quoted 4 or 5 contexts in which the term justify was exclusively and obviously in a forensic setting. The contexts were fairly self evident that the meaning of the term in those contexts was forensic. Can you do anywhere near that good with your idea of justification being "primarily" a covenantal idea? The best you seem to be able to do is a word association game. Somewhere in the context there is some term that is somewhat related so some covenant somewhere in the bible. Such a methodology does not relate to a context. The contexts I quoted speak of court cases. You just point to another term, not demonstrate anything contextually. Please provide some evidence that a word must me understood in the context the way you say.

You say justification is primarily a metaphor. Can you show the non-literal or methaphoric language that indicates we are to take the term metaphorically? Again, you are making assertions without providing any evidence in any context of metaphorical language.

Your not even bothering to engage what I am saying but merely repeat an argument that carries no weight.

I have provided numerous non-question begging arguments. I will leave it to the reader to determine whether these arguments "carry weight" or not. I may not have engaged (yet) each and every point that you have raised, but I only have so much time.

I understand the lack of time. We all have jobs and real world responsibilities. That is not the problem. You say you provided numerous "non-question begging" arguments. Actually you seem to be making assertions, not arguments. Your not providing evidence. I provided several verses which demonstrate a forensic courtroom setting for the term justification. Have you done anything like that? Have you disputed any of the verses I have provided? Have you shown me a verse that the term justify has a context that is in a covenant cutting setting.

 

[Drew]

It seems I have an insurmountable problem. Drew, first, I dont think you understand the concept of looking at multiple contexts to determine a range of meaning for a term (semantic domain). Terms can have slightly different meanings in different contexts.

I do indeed understand this and have been careful to state that "justification" is primarily a covenantal term. It does indeed also have a forensic meaning in some contexts. But, and I think this is key, for Paul, the forensic sense of justification is a metaphor used to elaborate on what is for him primarily a covenantal idea.

Evidence please.

Evdence of what? My entire post of earlier this morning is a non-question begging argument as to why Paul's use of "justification" in Romans 3 is a covenantal use, not a forensic use. So I have already provided some evidence for a covenantal take on the term "justification". The same argument applies in the context of Ephesians 2. In Ephesians 2,8-9 Paul states that we are saved by grace and not works (of Torah, I have been arguing). FIne. He then goes on in verses 11 and following to explain the consequences of all this.

He is obviously focussed in 11 and following on the Jew-Gentile divide (as he was in Romans 3 in the vicinity of this statements about "justification"). Paul clearly has in mind the notion that the Gentile might see himself as an outsider in respect to possibility of salvation. What could make the Gentile an outsider? The obvious answer - the Gentile does not understand he too can be included in the covenant and receive the covenant blessings, including salvation.

So, yet again but this time in relation to "salvation" and not specifically "justification", Paul is arguing that the Gentile is not on the outside. This is primarily a covenantal argument, not a forensic one. And I doubt that you will disagree with me that in order to be "saved", one must be justified.

Or are you asking for evidence as to my specific claim that the forensic take on justification is used as a metaphor in service of the more fundamental covenantal sense?

 

[Drew]

Just to pre-empt any misunderstanding:

1. I have been (perhaps too implicitly) for a meaning of "justification" that is multi-faceted. I claim (having been convinced by the arguments of NT Wright) that justification has the following three senses: convenantal, forensic, and eschatological.

2. I claim that the covenantal meaning is primary (certainly for Paul at least).

3. But (as per 1), I do not deny that Paul uses the term "justification" in a forensic sense at times. But the covenantal sense is primary and when he uses the forensic sense, he is really doing so in service of the more primary covenantal meaning.

So to be clear - the fact that Paul uses the term in a forensic sense in some places is not going to be disputed by me. However, this does not, in and of itself, undermine the argument that the covenantal meaning is primary.

 

[Drew]

I am going to try to ensure that I have addressed as many of your statements as I can at least once.

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.

I do not hold to the position that you ascribe to me here - I never have stated or implied that I think that "the law as a means of righteousness is being abolished".

I agree that the concept is not Biblical, but you seem to assume that the readers of Ephesians do not need to be convinced of that.

I claim otherwise. While I agree with you that God never intended that people would become righteous by keeping Torah, Paul still needs to make the case to the Gentile. And he does that all over the place in Romans as well as here in Ephesians. So in verse 15, he is abolishing the Torah in the sense that he is denying that Jewish possession and pursuit of Torah is the basis for justification and salvation - something his Gentile readers needed to hear.

 

[mondar]

[quote="Drew]Evdence of what?

...Or are you asking for evidence as to my specific claim that the forensic take on justification is used as a metaphor in service of the more fundamental covenantal sense?[/quote]
I was asking specificly for evidence on two things.

I see us as currently discussing two things. First, we were discussing the semantic range of the word "justification" in any context. While at first, you seemed to be denying that forensic justification was anywhere near the semantic domain of the meaning of the term, now you seem to be allowing it to be within the semantic range of the meaning of the term "to justify."

Now I see your assertions to be that the primary meaning of the term involves some nebulous concept of covenant justification. You seem to be saying this is true even when I can prove by the context that forensic justification is the issue. I am asking for two kinds of evidence.

1st, above you are correct. I am asking for evidence that there is non-literal language (or metaphorical language). You seem to be asserting that there is non-literal language when the term "to justify" is used. Now I certainly agree that metaphorical, symbolic, or non-literal langauge is often used in the scriptures. Yet the non-literal use of any term should be demonstrated to be appropriate by evidence from the context that the term is to be understood in a metaphorical or non-literal way. A good illustration of metaphorical language would be the song of Solomon. When the writer praises the woman and says she has a neck like a tower, I dont see her as having a 50 foot neck. It is axiomatic that the woman was of normal proportions and that we are to see metaphorical language in such contexts. Before you make assertions that the idea of forensic justification is a metaphor for covenantal justification (whatever covenantal justification is) you should demonstrate that the langauge of some context is to be understood non-literally. Comprendo?

2nd, I was also asking for some hard evidence that I should see the term justification has having a "primary" definition related to a covenant. When you point to another word a half of dozen verses later (circumcision) that is not hard evidence. Now if you pointed to the term justification in a context in which a covenant is being cut, or the stipulations of the covenant are being listed, that would be different. Drew, I understand you to be thinking you have presented evidence. From my side of the screen, I see a lot of assertions, but little to no evidence. You did attempt to pick a few words in the context (I called that word association) but you did not lay out the argumentation of any context to demonstrate that the meaning of the term "justify" has to be understood in the covenantal sense.

Let me jump to Ephesians 2. IF you think about it, lets just assume you are correct that the concept of works in Ephesians 2:9 is about the works of the law. That still would not prove your point. To demonstrate that the works of the law do not save in that context is not the same thing as proving that works assist in salvation. Just because the works of the law do not save does not mean that general works do save. Ephesians 2 nowhere asserts that works save or assist in salvation. Paul negates works as saving (or as you say the works of the law), but his positive assertion is that faith saves.

I dont see the point of your assertions. What does it matter if the works are general works, or works of the law? Romans 7 says the law is holy and good. If any works would save, it would be the works of the law. But Romans 7 says the law was weak through the flesh. Then Paul says that that which he wants to do he does not do. What he wants not to do that he does. The works of the law makes alive the power of the flesh. So then you must assert that the greatest law code of righteousness, the only one given by God to any people, has inferior righteousness in it compared to any of your paltry works.

One last thing, I still think you are dodging a question in Romans 2:12-13. That context specificly uses the term "law." What law is it talking about if not the Mosaic Law? Please present evidence from the context of Romans 2 that the term "Law" means.