Ignoring Romans 2: An Error of Exegisis

[glorydaz]

...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).

Paul makes it clear that mankind is without excuse. It's the conscience, Drew. That is where the moral law of God is written. God created us with a conscience...we know right from wrong. That is why man is without excuse. When the law is written in our hearts...it's our heart that has been changed into a heart of flesh instead of a heart of stone. The reason you try so hard to ignore what Paul is saying on this issue is because it will force you to look at all of Romans in the light in which Paul wrote it. He is not speaking of the believing Gentiles here...he says quite clearly that the Jews will perish with the law and the Gentiles will perish without the law.

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

 

[glorydaz]

Those verses are clearly about church leadership:

Who is Appollos? Who is Paul? They are church leaders. Is Paul writing about how they live their lives in general? No. He is talking about their care and nurturance of the flock: Again:

What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 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.

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.

This is really quite clear - Paul is talking about people charged with the responsibility of building the church. And he goes on to say that if they fail in that commission, their eternal salvation is not at risk.

Paul is (thankfully) not contradicting what he has written in Romans 2 - that eternal life is granted based on good works.

Hi

I will say this once again ! I Corinth. chapter 3 is not about leadership ! It is Paul talking to the church members in Corinth. Verses 13 - 16 is talking to the believer, and how they build thereon. If his works can be tried by fire, he could suffer loss. Yet , he himself is saved by fire. This is because , as Paul points out in verse 16 - "Know ye not, that ye are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you? "

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

I agree, MM. We are all workers in the harvest...to say this is talking about church leadership is faulty logic. Whatever "works" we do by our own efforts will be burned up in the refining fire, but we, ourselves, will be saved.

 

[Drew]

Paul makes it clear that mankind is without excuse. It's the conscience, Drew. That is where the moral law of God is written.

I actually agree that Romans 1 teaches that all men have knowledge of the nature of God and that God acts on the consciences of all men.

I perhaps overstated my case. The point of that post was the the material in Romans 2 which talks about the law being on the heart is not making the same point - that material in Romans 2 is about believing Gentiles, not all people in general.

But I do agree that all humans are given knowledge of God and knowledge of "morality". But the "law" in that bit in Romans 2 is not about this kind of knowledge. I do not have time now to explain what I think the difference is - hopefully later.

God created us with a conscience...we know right from wrong. That is why man is without excuse.

I agree with this

The reason you try so hard to ignore what Paul is saying on this issue is because it will force you to look at all of Romans in the light in which Paul wrote it. He is not speaking of the believing Gentiles here...

He is talking about believing Gentiles in the stuff about the law being written on the heart.

Engage my argument - do no merely assert that I am wrong.

 

[glorydaz]

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?

Your detailed argument is incorrect. The verse is NOT about the "works of Torah". There is no "special status" involved in this debate. You have an agenda...one that is not supported in the whole Word of God, therefore you take a verse like this one and insist it means what you claim. It doesn't...that's YOUR personal interpretation and we should all be standing up to you on this one. It's critical to the work of the cross...and proof of man's pride in taking credit for his own salvation.

 

[Drew]

I agree, MM. We are all workers in the harvest...to say this is talking about church leadership is faulty logic. Whatever "works" we do by our own efforts will be burned up in the refining fire, but we, ourselves, will be saved.

Then how about actually engaging my argument. I suspect that you will (yet again) simply ignore material that challenges you, but I will at least throw out the challenge. Please respond, as in actually engage and address, the following re-posted material:

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?

 

[Drew]

Your detailed argument is incorrect. The verse is NOT about the "works of Torah". There is no "special status" involved in this debate. You have an agenda...one that is not supported in the whole Word of God, therefore you take a verse like this one and insist it means what you claim. It doesn't...that's YOUR personal interpretation and we should all be standing up to you on this one. It's critical to the work of the cross...and proof of man's pride in taking credit for his own salvation.

This is not an argument, it is a statement that I am wrong.

You, and others, continue to evade. You have not even touched the content of my argument - you merely make a claim and then tell me that I have an agenda.

Please engage the argument - show how I am mistaken in my analysis, do not simply state that I am.

 

[glorydaz]

The reason you try so hard to ignore what Paul is saying on this issue is because it will force you to look at all of Romans in the light in which Paul wrote it. He is not speaking of the believing Gentiles here...

He is talking about believing Gentiles in the stuff about the law being written on the heart.

Engage my argument - do no merely assert that I am wrong.

I have engaged your argument, and I do assert you are wrong. This is very important point of doctrine, and it can't be left standing as you present it. Paul is talking about people like Cornelius before he went to visit Peter. Cornelius was seeking and living a righteous life, but had not yet entered in by faith in Jesus Christ. (We strive and seek to enter into the kingdom.) Had he failed to do so, he would be judged on his works..eternal life is given if one keeps the whole law. Paul goes on to say God looks at the heart and finds none righteous. One single sin would mean he did not obtain the immortality he sought. It is faith that justifies...not good works. Faith produces good works....and Paul makes that very clear before and after the verse you keep putting out front. You're simply taking that verse out of it's context and hoping it stands alone. Paul is leading us down the Roman Road. I know you hate that term, but it's a famous Road and one that leads many to salvation.

 

[glorydaz]

Your detailed argument is incorrect. The verse is NOT about the "works of Torah". There is no "special status" involved in this debate. You have an agenda...one that is not supported in the whole Word of God, therefore you take a verse like this one and insist it means what you claim. It doesn't...that's YOUR personal interpretation and we should all be standing up to you on this one. It's critical to the work of the cross...and proof of man's pride in taking credit for his own salvation.

This is not an argument, it is a statement that I am wrong.

You, and others, continue to evade. You have not even touched the content of my argument - you merely make a claim and then tell me that I have an agenda.

Please engage the argument - show how I am mistaken in my analysis, do not simply state that I am.

How many times must we engage your argument? It's been engaged over and over again, and you continue to ignore whatever scripture we give. Not only that, but then you insist you know when the Word is talking about the Mosaic Law and the Moral Law of God. You read that exactly backwards from what I do. It's like arguing with a brick wall. To claim we haven't "touched" your argument is far from the truth. Many people have tried to point to scripture and you just keep going like you think by bulling your way through we'll be convinced. I don't understand why you haven't yet seen Romans clearly.

 

[Drew]

I have engaged your argument, and I do assert you are wrong.

I have deleted my response after re-thinking.

 

[Drew]

How many times must we engage your argument?

I would settle for once.

You have not engaged my argument.

You appear to not understand what it means to engage an argument - it means to address its actual content.

If you had actually engaged my argument you would make statement like:

Drew, when you said "because X, then Y", your conclusion is invalid because Y does not actually follow from X for reason Z.

No one has actually addressed the actual content of my argument - you (and others) either merely make assertions or make other arguments - arguments that do not connect with the content of my argument.

Suppose doctor A says "I conclude that Fred has heart disease based on the results of test X".

Now, if doctor B says "I conclude that Fred does not have heart disease based on the results of test Y".

Is doctor B engaging the argument of doctor A? No he is not. In order for doctor B to engage the argument of doctor A, doctor B would need to show that the results of test X (yes, X!!!) do not support the assertion that Fred has heart disease.

I hope this is now clear.

I apologize for suggesting that you are lying. I will take the high road and assume that you do not understand what it means to engage another person's argument - it does not mean to make a different argument about the same text.

 

[glorydaz]

I agree, MM. We are all workers in the harvest...to say this is talking about church leadership is faulty logic. Whatever "works" we do by our own efforts will be burned up in the refining fire, but we, ourselves, will be saved.

Then how about actually engaging my argument. I suspect that you will (yet again) simply ignore material that challenges you, but I will at least throw out the challenge. Please respond, as in actually engage and address, the following re-posted material:

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?

Please note...Paul has laid the foundation (as the Apostles and Prophets did)...Let EVERY MAN take heed how he builds on that foundation. Let EVERY MAN take heed. If ANY MAN build...EVERY MAN'S WORK will be manifest...EVERY MAN'S WORK will be tried. The terms any man and every man are used seven times in those six verses....then Paul says, "know ye not that ye are the temple of God". Are ministers the only ones who plant and water? Are ministers the only ones who are the temple of God? Paul is speaking of every man's work as they labor in the field of this world with the Gospel of Christ. I certainly hope you don't think only certain men are ministers and the rest of us are only observers to be discounted in this portion of scripture.

According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Drew, Do you share the Gospel with your friends? Do you teach the Word of God to those who the Lord sends your way? Do you plant some seeds and water where you can? Are not all believers workers in the field? Those works we do in the Spirit...who abides in all believers...will be as gold. Those works we do in our own efforts...not led by the Spirit, will be burned up. We will be saved, even when we blow it and preach some error...those works will be burned up, but we, ourselves, will be saved.

 

[glorydaz]

How many times must we engage your argument?

I would settle for once.

You have not engaged my argument.

You appear to not understand what it means to engage an argument - it means to address its actual content.

If you had actually engaged my argument you would make statement like:

Drew, when you said "because X, then Y", your conclusion is invalid because Y does not actually follow from X for reason Z.

No one has actually addressed the actual content of my argument - you (and others) either merely make assertions or make other arguments - arguments that do not connect with the content of my argument.

Suppose doctor A says "I conclude that Fred has heart disease based on the results of test X".

Now, if doctor B says "I conclude that Fred does not have heart disease based on the results of test Y".

Is doctor B engaging the argument of doctor A? No he is not. In order for doctor B to engage the argument of doctor A, doctor B would need to show that the results of test X (yes, X!!!) do not support the assertion that Fred has heart disease.

I hope this is now clear.

I apologize for suggesting that you are lying. I will take the high road and assume that you do not understand what it means to engage another person's argument - it does not mean to make a different argument about the same text.

I'm a simple person, Drew. I may not be up to your standards using x's and y's. I've tried to be as clear as I can, and I've watched you dismiss many arguments that have been put forth on this issue, so I doubt I'll be able to convince you of anything. Of course, you haven't been able to convince me your points are correct, so perhaps we're in the same boat after all. You think you are clear and concise, but your arguments are not persuasive to me. I see you claiming to know when Paul is speaking of the Mosaic Law when Abraham was way before the law was given. I see you reaching but I don't see you touching the mark.

 

[ivdavid]

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



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.

You quote verses 14-16 but you ignore verses 9-13

Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

 

[ivdavid]

Hi ppl,

I'm just trying to understand what each one's intent is behind holding these different interpretations of doctrine - what motivates them to interpret it the way they do. And I'd like to visualize the problem in the following way - ( bear with this crude illustration )

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPQQQQQRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Let's assume that the Qs are the narrow path that Jesus Christ commands us to walk in and the Ps are the wayside to the left while the Rs are the wayside to the right.

Let's consider the following representations -
Ps -> Salvation by - faith alone.
Qs -> Salvation by - faith evidenced by works.
Rs -> Salvation by - works alone.

I think, somehow, all true believers in Christ believe in the Qs - that faith and its evidencing works are inseparable. But what's happening is, the believers arguing on this thread choose to refer to this belief as either the Ps or Rs. The person who refers to the Ps ie that salvation is by faith alone, also takes for granted that this faith has to be accompanied by works(the Qs) but doesn't word it aloud with emphasis. Similarly the person who refers to the Rs ie that salvation is by works alone, also takes for granted that these works cannot be wrought without faith(the Qs again) but doesn't word it aloud with emphasis either.

So while everybody believes in the Qs, why is there a confusion in terminology by referring to the Ps and Rs? I think it's because of a selective focus on certain Scriptural verses over others.

The people who refer to the Ps ie who word it as 'salvation by faith alone' point to verses like this -
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
They also deny the people referring to the Rs ie they deny the 'salvation by works alone' through such verses -
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

On the other hand, the people who refer to the Rs ie who word it as 'salvation by works alone' point to verses like this -
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
They also deny the people referring to the Ps ie they deny the 'salvation by faith alone' through such verses -
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.


Can you see what's happening here? Only the Qs are Scripturally sound while the Ps and the Rs are contradictory to Scripture. But the people referring to the Ps point a finger at Rs' contradictions while the people referring to the Rs do the same at Ps' contradictions while both actually are believers of the Qs !!! Isn't the resolution to be found in referring to it as just the Qs - " Salvation by - faith evidenced by works " - through love for the glory of God.

 

[ivdavid]

If one has agreed with my previous post, I'd like to continue.

I hope all of us have agreed upon the following -
faith and works are inseparable.
Faith without works is dead[James 2:17] and works without faith is sin[Romans 14:23].

But which of these determine the other - Is it faith evidenced by works or is it works evidenced by faith? What would the basis for our justification and hence salvation be - faith or works?
At the outset, it may seem redundant to split hairs here since either should mean the same since they're both inseparable and would apply simultaneously. But it is worth taking a closer look to see if there are any differences.


First, we'll have to differentiate between the two kinds of 'works' that are mentioned here -
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

The first verse here talks about Abraham not being justified by works while the second works tell us that he was justified by works. So, obviously, we're referring to two types of 'works' which I'd like to call -
i) Works of self-righteousness.
ii) Works of faith, through love.

i) Works of self-righteousness :
Now, for salvation, we need to stand justified before God and for that, we need to be declared righteous before Him. God gives us the opportunity to earn this righteousness ourselves by keeping His Law completely. This, no man has done except Jesus Christ - and no man can ever do too. It's like God giving us an exam paper(God's Law) of say, a maximum score of 100, and declaring us righteous if we pass the exam. But God being God, sets the score for passing at 100 for this 100-mark paper - absolute perfection. And everybody fails to pass by their own merit, the moment they commit a single sin. So, works of self-righteousness are of no use in imputing righteousness for us. And these works require no faith.

ii) Works of faith, through love :
So, what hope do we have of being declared righteous? Jesus Christ makes the perfect propitiation for our failings on the cross after being the only one to clear the 'exam'. So, only He can be declared righteous - none else. Here's where the new covenant is ushered in for us - the Law of faith.
Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Note, the 'works' here refers to the works of self-righteousness.

Now, the objective of God's initial exam(Law) was never to enable us to earn our own righteousness. It is to make us know the sinfulness of sin in us - and how that corrupts our ability to love God. It is to teach us to rely solely on God's grace for our righteousness, justification, and salvation. It is to surrender our self-pride to Jesus' love through faith. It is to put our faith in Christ alone for our justification and salvation. We are regenerated in our hearts by the Holy Spirit to be enabled to love God as He should be. And what are we to do when we truly love God - we are to be holy as He who called us is Holy. Here arises our 'good works' - the works that evidence our faith. And these works of faith, without love for God and thereby for man, is a tinkling cymbal. So, we see that it is our faith in God that is counted as righteousness for us while this faith is constantly evidenced by our works through love.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

 

[ivdavid]

I'd like to dwell a little more on this from my previous post.

Let's take the example of Abraham. Abraham was justified by His faith.
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

What exactly did Abraham believe that it was imputed unto him for righteousness?
Gen 15:4 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.
Gen 15:5 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.
Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Later, Abraham is asked to sacrifice his own son who was born of the above promise of God. Here is where Abraham's faith is tested. Abraham had to still believe in God's promise - that he would be the father of many nations through this child of promise. What good would it have done if Abraham said that he believed in God's promise but refused to obey God's command to sacrifice Isaac? Would it then be real faith? So you see, this faith which imputed righteousness unto him had to be evidenced by the actual work of obeying God. And this Abraham did obey thereby witnessing the reality of his faith by his works.

Take the alternate scenario - would God have been pleased if Abraham had simply obeyed the commandment without faith in God's promise? Wouldn't that be a statement of faith against God's ability and nature? Works can be performed - but they're declared to be good only when faith drives such works.
And would Abraham still be declared righteous if he had obeyed in faith but without love for God? Could he have gone grudgingly in fear and still be judged righteous for his works of faith? No, faith has to be evidenced by works through love.

Take the analogy of Moses and the exodus from slavery to the promised land. This is Christ leading the exodus from slavery here to the promised Kingdom of God. What righteousness did the Israelites there have to be called unto salvation - similarly we have no righteousness to merit salvation - it's all out of God's love for His glory. What works of self-righteousness did the Israelites do to be declared righteous - similarly, our works don't determine our righteousness. What did God want to teach the Israelites - to believe in Him who has called them. Similarly, we are to put our faith in God to rest in His grace. How did the Israelites lose their salvation - by their wicked sin of unbelief(Hebrews 3:12) that led them to commit other sins as idolatry and immorality. Similarly, we can lose our salvation by our unbelief which would be evidenced by our continuous and willful life of sin. Can we continue willfully in unrepentant sin if we have faith in God - absolutely not.


So to conclude, we are justified and saved by faith evidenced by works, through love - all by God's grace, for His glory alone.

I hope I've made some sense in these posts. Kindly bear with the numerous lengthy posts.

Let us try our best to unite our views according to Scripture.

 

[Drew]

You quote verses 14-16 but you ignore verses 9-13

Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

I am well aware of these verses and they support my argument.

Paul here is continuing an argument about the Jew-Gentile distinction. This material only makes sense if, in verse 2, he is denying that Abraham is justified in virtue of doing the works of the Law of Moses (or, equivalently, being Jewish). Paul here is saying that Abraham was not justified in virtue of being Jewish precisely since he was jusified before he was circumcized.

This is precisely the kind of argument that Paul would mount if, in verse 2, he is denying that Abraham was justified in virtue of being a Jew - remember that it is the Jew who does the works of the Law of Moses.

And, of course, such a treatise (that you think I ignore) is entirely irrelevant to the issue of doing good works - something that does not break down along the lines of the Jew-Gentile divide.

Do you think that the claim that Abraham was justified by faith precludes his being later justified by works? If so, I suggest that you are brinigng your own "template" about the very structure of justification to this text.

I suggest the better route is to use Paul’s model. Remember, Paul repeatedly refers to both justification and salvation in both present and future tenses. This should not be ignored – one cannot claim to be faithful to the details of Paul’s argument if one claims that justification is a “one-time†event. It is not.

 

[Drew]

Let's assume that the Qs are the narrow path that Jesus Christ commands us to walk in and the Ps are the wayside to the left while the Rs are the wayside to the right.

Let's consider the following representations -
Ps -> Salvation by - faith alone.
Qs -> Salvation by - faith evidenced by works.
Rs -> Salvation by - works alone.

I think, somehow, all true believers in Christ believe in the Qs - that faith and its evidencing works are inseparable.

I am not entirely sure I folllow you here but, again, you appear to implicitly deny the possibility of a tense structure to salvation.

This is my point. Paul repeatedly talks about being saved in the present by faith and then in the future by works.

We need to let Paul dictate the terms of his own argument and take him seriously on both counts. How can we be saved in the present by faith and in the future by good works?

I suggest that Paul's argument is this: Those who by faith alone accept Jesus in the present are assured of future salvation by good works precisely because of the action of the Spirit which transforms the person into the kind of person who does good works.

If you want to say that the good works are "evidence" of faith - fine. But let's not bend what Paul says. In both Romans 2 and Romans 8 and elswhere, it is clear that is the good works that are the basis of ultimate salvation, even if these are construed to be "evidence" of faith.

Do you see what I am saying, ivdavid?

 

[Drew]

IFirst, we'll have to differentiate between the two kinds of 'works' that are mentioned here -
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

The first verse here talks about Abraham not being justified by works while the second works tell us that he was justified by works. So, obviously, we're referring to two types of 'works' which I'd like to call -
i) Works of self-righteousness.
ii) Works of faith, through love.

No, at least in relation to Romans 4:2. I suggest that there is no legitimate way to deny that the works in Romans 4:2 are the works of the Law of Moses - works that mark the Jew from the Gentile. Please look at the end of chapter 3 and read through to verse 17 or so of chapter 4.

This is an argument about the Jew-Gentile distinction, not about "good works". Paul is saying that Jews are not saved because they do the works of the Law of Moses, works that the Gentile cannot do. Please note: as per an earlier argument in this thread, we know that Paul sometimes uses the term "works" in relation to the Law of Moses. It is clear from context that this is what he is doing in Romans 4:2.

 

[ivdavid]

This is my point. Paul repeatedly talks about being saved in the present by faith and then in the future by works.

I'm unable to understand this. Please elaborate further.
Is my present justification by faith inadequate that it needs a new justification by works? What are those works? Can faith and works be separated like that?

And when exactly is that future? It's always present to me. I wake up today, I believe I'm justified by Christ's sacrifice on the cross (justification by faith). Christ's love draws me to separate myself from anything that might separate me from His love. I offer myself as a living sacrifice to God and pray that I may receive grace to live by faith this day. I guard against the deception of sin and herein, I believe I may 'work' a few acts of love that are completely by His grace that I can only see His glory working in me and not any righteousness in me. I falter too and I rush to the Lord to confess my sins in true repentance. I experience forgiveness and His love and grace strengthen me to guard further against sin(sanctification). Before I go to bed, I review the day - I can't see any 'good works' of mine that would justify me any differently.
I wake up the next day. I still believe I'm justified by Christ's sacrifice on the cross (still justification by faith). Again, Christ's love draws me to separate myself from anything that might separate me from His love. And so on, by faith.

Now when does this change into a justification by works? Where do I draw the line? Or are you simply referring to this very same justification by different words?

As you can see from above, I don't deny that justification and salvation is a process and not a one-time event. But if I have faith in God's promise, and I live according to that faith evidenced by works, then that salvation seems just as sure as having already been received - basically, that's faith. And I believe that each day should be lived in faith.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

This is the new law - the law of faith - and anything not done in faith is sin. So would I be judged on these sins/wrong works that evidence my lack of faith - i think so - but does that make the works my basis for justification or my faith/lack of faith ? Which determines the other - that would be the judging criteria.

What part of this seems Scripturally wrong?