Ignoring Romans 2: An Error of Exegisis

[glorydaz]

You're correct...any 7th grader could read this and see what Paul is saying. Of course, unlike you, he wouldn't start in the middle of the book and hope to know the meaning. Paul is laying out the plan of salvation. It's known as the Roman Road for a reason...you've stopped at a rut in the road and can't see where the road started or ended. You have no idea what Paul is saying because that one verse has blinded you to everything else.

Drew is not "starting in the middle of a book". He is pointing out a verse that is ignored, that happens to be in the middle of a book. That is the point of departure. I think we agree on the meaning of Romans 1, so there is no need to continue arguing about it. Thus, we will focus on where we disagree. That is normal, and it doesn't follow that he randomly chose this verse and ignored everything else.

It would be helpful if you could support your chastising. Drew's explanation makes perfect sense to me and takes into account all of what Paul says on the issue. As I have said before, Romans 1-3 is related, the theme being "no one can come to God alone". Do we agree, that no one can come to God alone? No one can be justified in God's view, whether pagan without God or whether Jew with a law and no Spirit support. following rituals does not justify. Paul's example in Romans 2 states that GOD is providing the Law written on the hearts of pagans, not that the pagan wrote it there!!! (2:15)

Thus, the pagan of 2:6-10 who is justified is done so because of GOD working there! Not the pagan's work alone. This is God's catholicity in action - salvation made available to all men, because God DESIRES all men to be saved.

Thus, God has no partiality, and will judge based upon our Spirit-moved works on earth, not on the faith that can move mountains, but without love...

Regards

I certainly never said people wrote anything on their own hearts...God's law has been written on our conscience since the beginning. That's what Paul is saying in Romans 1 and 2...Man is without excuse. The verse is not ignored...far from it. Most people understand clearly what Paul is saying. He is not saying we are saved by works.

Those in Romans 2 are those who are seeking eternal life by persistently doing good...such as Cornelius. Then Paul goes on to say one must be justified by faith. They must go on, as Cornelius did...they must partake of the grace of God and faith in Christ or their sins will not be covered. When one stands before the Judgment seat, all his seeking and good works will be judged and found wanting without the justification by faith through Christ. Paul is showing us people like Cornelius...their hearts have been prepared to receive salvation. They show persistence in entering into the kingdom, so they have been drawn. Paul goes on to say they will be judged on their works....which aren't good enough according to Paul in all of Romans 1 and 2..they must go on and be saved by grace through faith. A believer, on the other hand, is justified by faith and will be rewarded for his obedience. His name is written in the Lamb's book of life based on his justification by faith...not works.

 

[glorydaz]

[quote="archangel_300":1ufv7dkk]
But I would think it would be foolish of God to pay for a sin if he knew by foreknowledge that the person would would reject him in the first place. Also God would not be just or righteous because if that person rejects him and sends him/her to hell to pay for their sins when they are already paid for.... God cannot be just.

That's simply faulty human reasoning.

Is it?? And what's faulty about it?[/quote:1ufv7dkk]

Because the person is sent to hell for not accepting the free gift offered them by God. There is nothing unrighteous in that. It's more than just and more than fair. If I throw you a ring buoy when you're drowning and you deliberately turn away from it...you'll drown.

 

[glorydaz]

You're correct...any 7th grader could read this and see what Paul is saying. Of course, unlike you, he wouldn't start in the middle of the book and hope to know the meaning. Paul is laying out the plan of salvation. It's known as the Roman Road for a reason...you've stopped at a rut in the road and can't see where the road started or ended. You have no idea what Paul is saying because that one verse has blinded you to everything else.

The problem, of course, is that as much as you appeal to the "Roman road" concept, you give the reader no reason at all to believe that Paul would write something he knows to be false. What kind of writer would assert "man is ultimately saved by good works" if he is going to go on "the Romans Road" and then change his mind? It is all well and good to appeal to say "Paul will first describe how we would be saved by good works, if this were indeed possible, and then go on to tell us this other way that man is saved". The problem is that, if he were going to do so, Paul would certainly "tip his hand". No rational, competent writer would assert something that he knows to be false unless that statement is appropiately qualified.

In other words, where is the disclaimer? Where does Paul say "this bit about being saved by good works is my description of what would be the case, if being saved by good works were possible"

Yes, I get "hung up" on this one little verse. Your solution - ignore it. I am not willing to go there.

I don't ignore it...I just understand it. I understand it in light of the whole Word of God which is why it's so clear to me. I don't have some agenda concerning being saved by good works that clouds my understanding of Paul's words.

I suppose you've never heard a sermon preached where several points are laid out in a pattern for a reason and then it's all brought together in a way that makes everything clear? I'm sure you realize that "competent" writers and speakers do that all the time. Paul was leading the self-righteous Jews in a very cleaver and skillful way...so they would see they had no reason to be judging the Gentiles. He's asking and answering questions in order to move their reasoning where he wanted them to go. If you take that one verse out of it's context, you only come up with the error you've been preaching all along. The worst of it is...you continue to strip away everything Paul says around that verse...claiming no competent writer would do such a thing. That's plain wrong. Paul gives a series of persuasive arguments and you jerk one out of the middle and lay claim on it. No competent reader would ever do such a thing.

 

[Mysteryman]

I will say this once again ! I Corinth. chapter 3 is not about leadership !

You can say this all you like, the evidence of the text says otherwise:

I gave you milk, not solid food,....

A clear reference to Paul as teacher and leader.....

Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men? 5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe

What is Paul writing about here? - the role of himself and Apollos as leaders in the church.

6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.]

Again, clear allusions to the function of Paul and Apollos in building the church. As much as you need this material to say otherwise to salvage your argument, there is nothing at all here about issues of personal morality or generel behaviour - this is an analysis of the leadership function in the church.

10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

More of the same, this is all about building the church.

Do you not realize the necessity of providence evidence to support your case? Do you think readers will not see that all the references in this material are focused on the issue of leadership?

And who do you follow ? What is the name of your organization ?

And do you worship in buildings made of wood or stones ? What about gold ? Or silver ? Do you have any cups make of gold or silver ?

And even though Paul plants and Apollos waterd, are they anything ?

Who gives the increase ?

Who are God's building ?

 

[Mysteryman]

Salvation is by grace , not of works , lest any man should boast ! !

I have already provided a detailed argument that you are misreading Eph 2:8-9 on page 6 of this very thread. The issue there is the boast in doing the works of Torah.

You seem to think that you can simply ignore arguments that challenge your position.

Why is that? Do you have some special status that elevates you to the point where you simply do not have to engage arguments that are uncomfortable for you?

Direct question: What is your response to my arguments about Eph 2:8-9?

Apparently then, you have not been reading any of my responses ! Forget your reading glasses ? :crazy

 

[glorydaz]

Now you are suggesting being justified by your good works. Romans 3:28

Romans 4:2 - "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory ; but not before God"
Romans 4:4 - "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt"
Romans 4:5 - "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness without works"
Romans 4:6 - "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works"

The works in verse 2, by context are clearly the works of the Law of Moses. Look back at the end of chapter 3 - Paul denies the ability of the Law of Moses to justify. He is not talking about good works. Verse 5 is a metaphor about a workman - why people insist that this verse means that Paul is denying justification by good works is beyond me. Paul is using the analogy of a workman who expects rewards based on what he does. But his real point is that Moses is not justified simply because he does the works of the Law of Moses. Paul is saying that, unlike the workman who expects to be paid because of what he has done, Abraham understood that his salvation is not based on a debt that God "owes" him, just because he kept the Law of Moses.

Galatians 2:16 - "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ , that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by works of the law shall no flesh be justified"

Thank you for making my argument for me. Indeed no one is justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses. But that does not mean that we cannot be justified by doing good works.

Abraham was not under the law of Moses...it had not even been given. So they are "clearly" not the works of the Mosaic Law. This is a perfect example, Drew, of your changing clear scripture to support your doctrine of salvation by works.

 

[glorydaz]

And what do you mean by this comment - "The statment can also read - "that person does not even get a place in the kingdom of Christ and God" < It is comments like this one which expresses private interpretation. Ephesians 5:5 is talking about one's inheritance and nothing else !

As I have already indicated, you are simply assuming that one can be in the kingdom of Heaven without any inhertance. You are engaging in circular reasoning - assuming that "salvation" can exist in the absence of an inheritance. This is a very questionable assumption.

He's incorrect with that verse. Our inheritance is eternal life, and those listed will not be receiving it. Eph. 5 is speaking of the children of disobedience...they do not have an inheritance in the kingdom of God. He is correct about not being saved by good works, however. :yes

For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

 

[Drew]

God's law has been written on our conscience since the beginning. That's what Paul is saying in Romans 1 and 2...Man is without excuse. The verse is not ignored...far from it. Most people understand clearly what Paul is saying. He is not saying we are saved by works.

Paul is indeed saying just what his words indicate: God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

I am not sure it is even possible to more clearly and unambiguously make the assertion that the awarding of eternal is based on what we do (and Paul explains in Romans 8 that the Spirit is behind all this).

And yet you simply deny this statement of Paul's, "justifying" this by a mysterious "Roman Road" argument where we have Paul, for some reason you have yet to provide, telling us something that he believes to be untrue.

And I believe you also misunderstand the Romans 2 claim about the law being written on the heart.

I will post the relevant counter-argument, which I know will simply be ignored. But I feel obliged to stand up for what I believe to be the correct reading of the passage in question. Perhaps it will help someone.

 

[Drew]

Apparently then, you have not been reading any of my responses ! Forget your reading glasses ? :crazy

You have never engaged my argument about Eph 2:8-9. You make your own assertions and arguments about this text, but you have not engaged my argument.

To engage my argument would involve actually finding an error in what I have written. You clearly have done no such thing.

 

[Drew]

Abraham was not under the law of Moses...it had not even been given. So they are "clearly" not the works of the Mosaic Law. This is a perfect example, Drew, of your changing clear scripture to support your doctrine of salvation by works.

No I am not.

However, you do raise a valid point - I did not provide a complete explanation. However, the fact that I made that overight does not mean that my argument is incorrect - it means that I slipped up in the details of explanation.

So I will now correct this. Circumcision, while perhaps technically not part of Torah (its initiation preceded Sinai by > 400 years, I think), is the hallmark of membership in the nation of Israel. And Abraham was indeed circumcized. As one see if one reads on in Romans 4, the issue is not "good works" righteousness, but righteousness being limited to Jews and Jews only.

14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. 16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham

This, of course, is yet another of the many problems with thinking that Romans 4:2 is about "good works" - the rest of the chapter shows that the issue on Paul's mind is whether God's grace is limited to Jews. This is yet another reason why Romans 4:2 is clearly an allusion to the Torah - the national charter of Israel.

So when Paul talks about Abraham not being justified by works, the context of Romans 4, not to mention that of Romans 3, forces us to understand that Paul is denying that being Jewish is enough to be saved. The fact that the Law of Moses comes 400 years is beside the point. The Law – and circumcision which preceded it by 400 years (or whatever) are the ethnic markers of the Jew. And Paul’s argument here is that salvation is not limited to Jews.

The only reason this idea that 4:2 is about “good works†is that the context is ignored – the context is clear: the issue here is not good works, but the relation between national identity and justification.

 

[Mysteryman]

And what do you mean by this comment - "The statment can also read - "that person does not even get a place in the kingdom of Christ and God" < It is comments like this one which expresses private interpretation. Ephesians 5:5 is talking about one's inheritance and nothing else !

As I have already indicated, you are simply assuming that one can be in the kingdom of Heaven without any inhertance. You are engaging in circular reasoning - assuming that "salvation" can exist in the absence of an inheritance. This is a very questionable assumption.

He's incorrect with that verse. Our inheritance is eternal life, and those listed will not be receiving it. Eph. 5 is speaking of the children of disobedience...they do not have an inheritance in the kingdom of God. He is correct about not being saved by good works, however. :yes

For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

Actually, I don't make any mistakes, so we know your response to Drew can't be correct . :rolling

This verse , verse 5 in Ephesians, is how I explained to Drew the word "in" was within the Word of God pertaining to one's inheritance.

Lets not forget verses 3 and 4 which includes the context . Which includes foolish talking, nor jesting -

Just keeping everything in perspective - :D

 

[glorydaz]

On the flawed argument that Eph 2:8-9 denies justification by good works.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast

People simply assume that works = "good works". Is this assumption justified? No it is not. We have rock-solid evidence that Paul deploys the phrase "works" in relation to the Law of Moses:

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, " CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM."

Does this mean that Paul is necessarily using the term "works" in Ephesians 2:8-9 to deny that the works of the Law of Moses (and not good works) are salvific?

Not necessarily. But when you read the whole chapter, it becomes manifestly true that it is indeed the works of the Law of Moses whose salvific power is being denied.

Which no doubt explains why my frequent arguments about this are simply ignored - to accept the fact that it is the works of the Law of Moses in view in Ephesians 2:9 undercuts one of the primary arguments against what Paul says in Romans 2 - and which so many evangelicals gloss over - that ultimate salvation is indeed based on good works.

You aren't ignored...you're simply wrong that our salvation...ultimate or otherwise, is based on good works. We will be known by our fruit...that is as close as you can get to the claims you make.

I love how you decide which law Paul is referring to...depending on how it promotes your notion of salvation by works. You insist Romans 2 is not speaking of the Mosaic law, but Eph. 2 is. Eph. is most certainly NOT speaking of the Mosaic law only, but any law. It is speaking of man's good works...lest any should boast. The eternal moral law of God was unwritten before it was written, and all of mankind is susceptible to boasting of their own efforts. As Paul makes clear in Romans...neither the Jews (under the law of Moses) or the Gentiles who are under their own law dictated by their conscience, are justified by works. These verses are clearly in agreement, and they clearly do no say what you're claiming. Works...of any kind, are a result of our being either children of God or children of satan. Good or bad...our works do not save us. We are justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Then we are given a new heart and good works will follow because it has been ordained by God that we will.

 

[Mysteryman]

Apparently then, you have not been reading any of my responses ! Forget your reading glasses ? :crazy

You have never engaged my argument about Eph 2:8-9. You make your own assertions and arguments about this text, but you have not engaged my argument.

To engage my argument would involve actually finding an error in what I have written. You clearly have done no such thing.

Hi

Actually, I have already. You have just refused to accept the truth. :yes

 

[Drew]

Actually, I have already. You have just refused to accept the truth. :yes

No you have not.

Please reproduce any material where you have actually engaged my argument - actually dealt with its content. Remember - to engage my argument is to deal with its content - providing your own argument about the text is not an engagement of my argument if it does not actually address the content of my argument.

 

[Mysteryman]

Actually, I have already. You have just refused to accept the truth. :yes

No you have not.

Please reproduce any material where you have actually engaged my argument - actually dealt with its content. Remember - to engage my argument is to deal with its content - providing your own argument about the text is not an engagement of my argument if it does not actually address the content of my argument.

Yes, I reproduced -- I have three children

And if you still feel that I have not engaged you in your argument, then you should feel blessed that I havn't.

 

[Drew]

...God's law has been written on our conscience since the beginning. That's what Paul is saying in Romans 1 and 2...

Paul never says anything of the sort, although it is easy to make this error - I, too, used to think this.

In Romans 2, there is a statement about the “law†being written on the heart of the Gentile:

13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Although this text is widely seen as suggesting that God’s “law†is written on the hearts of human beings in general, Paul here is instead describing the writing of the “law†on the hearts of believers (and in this context, specifically Gentile believers).

The entire discussion turns on the Greek word that has been translated here in the NASB as “instinctively†in verse 14. I am going to argue that this rendering does not properly express Paul’s intent. I will argue that Paul basis assertion is not this:

“when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively do the things of the Law…â€

…but instead this:

““when Gentiles who do not have the Law by birth, do the things of the Law….

The reader should note that while the first rendering indeed suggests that pagan Gentiles have a form of law written on their hearts, the second rendering in no sense preferentially supports such a reading over a reading where it is only believing Gentiles that have the law written on their heart (the position that I hold).

The greek root word at issue is “fuseiâ€, which is often translated as “by nature†(although not in the NASB rendering of 2:14 where it is rendered as “instinctivelyâ€). The western reader should be careful to understand this properly. Paul uses this very same word, in other contexts, to denote what is true of someone by virtue of the circumstances of their birth. One example is Ephesian 2:3:

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles

Clearly, Paul means "by birth" here. He is not asserting that Jews are born with fundamentally different inner constitutions than Gentiles.

Perhaps more tellingly, we have this same root “fusei†used just a few verses further on in Romans 2:

27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?

The same Greek root “fusei†is rendered here as “physically†and as “instinctively†in verse 14. Note how the word is rendered in the YLT translation of 2:27:

and the uncircumcision, by nature, fulfilling the law, shall judge thee who, through letter and circumcision, [art] a transgressor of law.

Clearly the term “fusei†should be understood as having a “by birth†meaning here in verse 27 – being uncircumcised is a circumstance of birth for the Gentile. It seems only reasonable that Paul uses this same greek root in the same “by birth†sense only a few verses back in 2:14.

Thus, it is highly plausible that what Paul is saying in about the law in verse 14 is that the Gentiles do not possess it by the circumstances of their birth, and not that the unregenerate Gentile has an innate, or instinctive sense of the law.

In fact, note how Jeremiah, uses very same “law written on the heart†concept:

But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people

Note how the prophet uses “law written on the heart†language to describe something that will happen in the future and will which will be effective only for believers. Paul is deeply knowledgeable of Old Testament concepts and would more likey than not use “law written on the heart†language in the same way it was used in the Old Testament.

 

[Drew]

Actually, I have already. You have just refused to accept the truth. :yes

No you have not.

Please reproduce any material where you have actually engaged my argument - actually dealt with its content. Remember - to engage my argument is to deal with its content - providing your own argument about the text is not an engagement of my argument if it does not actually address the content of my argument.

Yes, I reproduced -- I have three children

And if you still feel that I have not engaged you in your argument, then you should feel blessed that I havn't.

Code for: I know that I have not done what I claim to have done, so I will try to joke my way out of things.

You are aware, aren't you, that Christians are not supposed to bear false witness.

You have been caught in an untruth - own it and let's move on.

 

[glorydaz]

On the flawed argument that Eph 2:8-9 denies justification by good works.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast

People simply assume that works = "good works". Is this assumption justified? No it is not. We have rock-solid evidence that Paul deploys the phrase "works" in relation to the Law of Moses:

Drew,

EVEN IF Paul is not speaking about the Mosaic Law, I think our interlocutors continue to forget that God deals with man in a relational manner. Thus, I bypass the argument and go further:

It is a strange God who claims to be love, and then pushes us out of the way and "doing it Himself". This is not how love works. Love is patient. It draws the beloved to Itself. There is synergy. Thus, the false dichotomy that is present, the "either/or" - either God does it all or man does it all.

Even if Paul means "any work", we certainly cannot boast, since no one moves within themselves the ability to do a good deed. Only God can place those thoughts there - so we certainly cannot boast, since God is our partner, our aid, our rock of salvation.

Regards

I'm pleased to see you're at least open to the idea that Paul is not speaking of the Law of Moses, exclusively, in Eph. 2, because that would limit this verse in a way that belies other portions of the Word that clearly say we're not saved by works...of any kind.

I don't see anyone claiming God pushes us out of the way. It's a question of who gets the glory for the new person we become as we walk in obedience to the Lord. Could we do it on our own? Of course not, we agree on that. Whose love do we show forth when we walk in the Spirit? Is it not the love of God that is shed abroad on our hearts? We are quite good at loving our friends and family...yet we still lose patience, and cling to selfish motives of being loved in return. Eph. 2 is speaking of man's efforts...why are we told it is not through man's efforts? Because man is so apt to boast. The pride of life is our greatest enemy. We're to humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord...not boast in what we could never do in our own efforts. You speak of being perfect....man will never be perfect while we are still in our human flesh. We can be mature, which is what the perfecting of the saints is all about. We're to put off childish things and come to a knowledge of the truth. The truth is that man can do nothing pleasing to God in his own efforts. Our best efforts...apart from the Spirit in us...are as filthy rags. This is why we are never to go ahead of the Lord's leading in our lives. Our motives will not be pure apart from the Spirit that leads and guides us.

 

[glorydaz]

I want to address Romans 4:4-5, a text often used to argue that Paul cannot have meant what he wrote in Romans 2 (and Romans 8 for that matter) about how eternal life is granted according to “how we liveâ€. Here is the relevant material, and I include stuff from the end of Romans 3 for context – remember, it is not Paul who inserts “chapter breaksâ€:

27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith (is one. 31Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we (establish the Law. 1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, …

A vital point is to note that context clearly shows that the “works†in 4:2 are the works of the Law of Moses. In 3:28, Paul talks about how men are not justified by the works of the Law. It should be clear that this is a reference to the Law of Moses, not to “good works†generally. But even if this were not clear from 3:28, 3:29 seals the deal – Paul is talking about the works of the Law of Moses since the Jew who believes that the works of the Law of Moses justifies could claim that the Gentile, who is not under the Law of Moses, would be excluded from justification. And Paul clearly wants to argue that the Gentile is also a candidate for justification.

So there is really no doubt – Paul is making an argument about the Law of Moses, not good works in general. So why anybody thinks 4:2 is about “good works†is a mystery to me – Paul does not arbitrarily change topics without notice. No - in 4:2 Paul says Abraham was not justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses.

So now we come to the workman. I trust we all understand that this is a metaphor. As such, it cannot be taken literally in all its details – it is a comparison, like all metaphors. Paul has just finished arguing that Abraham, like any other Jew, cannot claim that God “owes†justification to the Jew, and only the Jew, in virtue of the cultural marker of the Law of Moses. The issue to this point is not “does someone who does good works have a claim on Godâ€, it is “does the Jew – the one who is under the Law of Moses – have a claim on Godâ€.

The workman expects to be paid because he has done something. Fine. What is the parallel to Abraham? The parallel is that Abraham might think he has claim on justification because of his obedience to the Law of Moses, not because he has done “good worksâ€. Paul is no doubt spinning in his grave, wondering how people have ignored the flow of the argument and instead impose their own “Paul must be denying justification by good works†scheme onto his text.

It's clear that Abraham was justified by faith...before he ever even had a son to put on the altar.

And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Romans 4 should not be "explained away"...it stands firmly and is quite clear without your attempts to claim Abraham was justified by the works of the Mosaic Law that hadn't even been given when Abraham walked the earth.

It's hardly a metephor...and Abraham didn't have the law of Moses when he was justified by faith.
In fact...if you read here, you will see that the law that was given 430 years after Abraham's justification by faith cannot annul the promise.

6Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15Brethren, I speak
after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

 

[Drew]

I'm pleased to see you're at least open to the idea that Paul is not speaking of the Law of Moses, exclusively, in Eph. 2, because that would limit this verse in a way that belies other portions of the Word that clearly say we're not saved by works...of any kind.

Enough of this please.

If you, and / or Mysteryman, or others, are not going to actually engage my argument about Ephesians 2:8-9, please admit it.

The facts are these:

(1) I have produced a detailed argument as to why it is incoherent to read Ephesians 2:8-9 as deyning the salvific power of good works;

(2) No one has actually engaged my argument.

Please engage it, or concede the point, and let's move on.