Romans 4:4-5 - A Challenge to Traditional View

[Drew]

I may not be doing a very good job at getting to Romans 4 - I think I have one more thing to say about Romans 3:

Consider the last verse:

31Do we then nullify the Law through faith? (AY)May it never be! On the contrary, we (AZ)establish the Law.

I am going to suggest that the "traditionalist" - the one who sees Romans 4:4-5 as an argument against justification by good works" and / or sees Romans 3:27 as dealing with the boast of person who seeks to be justified by doing good works - this traditionalist is indeed suggesting that the law has been nullified.

I suggest that to say that our justification has nothing whatsoever with "doing Torah" in any sense, really works out to saying that Paul has replaced one method of justification (by keeping Torah) with another (faith in Jesus Christ). And we pass this off as being consistent with Paul's statement that the "law has been established".

That seems rather dubious to me. I challenge the reader to explain how the "traditional" position really does result in the "establishment of the Law". To do away with the Law as the means by which one is justified - or replace it with something else - hardly seems to establish the Law.

I humbly suggest that the view that Paul is making the case that "establishing the Law" means following the Law in the manner it was always intended to be followed - "by faith". Is the sense of what I mean here unclear? I admit that it certainly seems that way to a degree. I am not sure that I have a deep sense of how such a "faith-based" following of Torah differs from "legalistic" following. Paul himself, in Romans 8, makes it clear that the Spirit is centrally involved in this "true" way of keeping Torah.

But if we see things this way - that in verse 31 Paul is saying that the Law has been established in the sense that the "true" way of doing Torah has been made clear - then at least we can legitimately agree that justification by keeping Torah in this way has been established. The traditionalist - who sees justification as having no connection with Torah at all - cannot make such a claim and I think the traditionalist really does deny what Paul is saying in verse 31 once one analyses what his view really cashes out to.

A final thought. In verse 30, Paul alludes to Deuteronomy 6:4 and following - the famous "schema":

"5Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

6You shall love the LORD your God (H)with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

7These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart.

Do you not see the connection to Romans 2:14-15a:

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,..."

Doing Torah in the way that Paul has "established" is to act in accordance with verse 6 from this Deuteronomy passage. And what is the mechanism by which this is achieved? By the Spirit writing Torah on our hearts.

Paul is not expunging the doing of Torah from the justification landscape - He is expounding on the true way of doing it.

 

[unred typo]

I may not be doing a very good job at getting to Romans 4 - I think I have one more thing to say about Romans 3:

Consider the last verse:

31Do we then nullify the Law through faith? (AY)May it never be! On the contrary, we (AZ)establish the Law.

I am going to suggest that the "traditionalist" - the one who sees Romans 4:4-5 as an argument against justification by good works" and / or sees Romans 3:27 as dealing with the boast of person who seeks to be justified by doing good works - this traditionalist is indeed suggesting that the law has been nullified.

I suggest that to say that our justification has nothing whatsoever with "doing Torah" in any sense, really works out to saying that Paul has replaced one method of justification (by keeping Torah) with another (faith in Jesus Christ). And we pass this off as being consistent with Paul's statement that the "law has been established".

That seems rather dubious to me. I challenge the reader to explain how the "traditional" position really does result in the "establishment of the Law". To do away with the Law as the means by which one is justified - or replace it with something else - hardly seems to establish the Law.

I humbly suggest that the view that Paul is making the case that "establishing the Law" means following the Law in the manner it was always intended to be followed - "by faith". Is the sense of what I mean here unclear? I admit that it certainly seems that way to a degree. I am not sure that I have a deep sense of how such a "faith-based" following of Torah differs from "legalistic" following. Paul himself, in Romans 8, makes it clear that the Spirit is centrally involved in this "true" way of keeping Torah.

But if we see things this way - that in verse 31 Paul is saying that the Law has been established in the sense that the "true" way of doing Torah has been made clear - then at least we can legitimately agree that justification by keeping Torah in this way has been established. The traditionalist - who sees justification as having no connection with Torah at all - cannot make such a claim and I think the traditionalist really does deny what Paul is saying in verse 31 once one analyses what his view really cashes out to.

A final thought. In verse 30, Paul alludes to Deuteronomy 6:4 and following - the famous "schema":

"5Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

6You shall love the LORD your God (H)with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

7These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart.

Do you not see the connection to Romans 2:14-15a:

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,..."

Doing Torah in the way that Paul has "established" is to act in accordance with verse 6 from this Deuteronomy passage. And what is the mechanism by which this is achieved? By the Spirit writing Torah on our hearts.

Paul is not expunging the doing of Torah from the justification landscape - He is expounding on the true way of doing it.

This has been a tremendous thread, Drew. Very well written and understandable, as well as scriptural. Thank you for your hard work in putting it here for us. It’s going in my permanent files.
:smt023

 

[Drew]

And now I finally get to the point of this whole thread - arguing against the view that in Romans 4:4-5, Paul discounts the role of "good works" in respect to justification. I will still need multiple posts to fill this out, however.

Remember what Paul has been talking about at the end of Romans 3 - in verses 21 through 26, he gives a compact statement about how in the present time God's own righteousness - His covenant faithfulness - has been made manifest in the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Then in verse 27 through to the end of the chapter, he argues against the "national boast" of the Jew - that the Jew has an inside track on justification over the Gentile in virtue of possession of Torah. This is the same ethnic boast that Paul describes in 2:17-24. And in verse 30 in particular he declares how the Jew and the Gentile are now alike members of the true covenant family on the same terms:

there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith

Seen from this perspective, and as filled out by content of a lot of my earlier posts, the place of Romans 4 is natural and entirely coherent. It is not an "Old Testament" proof of "justification by faith". Instead, Paul moves from the very specific claims Romans 3:21-31 to the more general claim: all this has taken place precisely in fulfillment of the covenant. We will see that in chapter 4, Paul returns to Genesis 15 - and it is in Genesis 15 that God enters into covenant with Abraham, promising him not only a large family, but also that his family will be delivered in the exodus.

If Paul's claims to this point are to be sustained, clustered around the idea that in Jesus Christ the covenant has reached its climax, it is not at all surprising that Paul returns to the passage where the covenant was established and argues for a meaning to the covenant promise, a meaning that coheres with his claims that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of those very promises.

In this context, certain things are clear to Paul: Abraham is indeed the "father" of the covenant people, but he is not the father according to the flesh. He is the father of all, Jew and Gentile alike, who believe in the God who raised Jesus.

Therefore, and this is a lynchpin of the position I am advocating, the vague (at least as a sentence unto itself) question of Romans 4:1:

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?

can be seen from context to really be this more specific question:

1What then shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?

Paul is anticipating the position that his inclusion of Jew and Gentile in the covenant family, as per just a couple of sentences back in Romans 3:30, will cause people to wonder whether all Christians - Jew and Gentile alike - are to be considered part of the "fleshly" family of Abraham.

And Paul will go on to answer this with a resounding "no".

And this is all relevant to the purpose of my whole argument precisely because the question of Romans 4:1 establishes the interpretive framework by which we read Romans 4:4-5. And the reader will probably see where I am going. When Paul talks of works in Romans 4:2, he is not talking about "good works", but rather the elements of Torah that distinguishes the Jew from his pagan (Gentile) neighbour. We will see that Romans 4:4-5 serves as a metaphor in support of his argument. Paul is not suggesting that "good works" do not serve a role in our justification.

 

[mondar]

Remember what Paul has been talking about at the end of Romans 3 - in verses 21 through 26, he gives a compact statement about how in the present time God's own righteousness - His covenant faithfulness -

I did not read any demonstration from the context in Romans 3 of covenant faithfulness.

has been made manifest in the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Then in verse 27 through to the end of the chapter, he argues against the "national boast" of the Jew - that the Jew has an inside track on justification over the Gentile in virtue of possession of Torah.

Possession of the Torah is not the same concept as covenant faithfulness. Typical covenant faithfulness language is "and YHWH remembered his covenant." Such language is absent from Romans 3.

This is the same ethnic boast that Paul describes in 2:17-24. And in verse 30 in particular he declares how the Jew and the Gentile are now alike members of the true covenant family on the same terms:

there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith

On what basis are you using the terms "covenant family." Covenant is not the issue of Romans 2.

Seen from this perspective, and as filled out by content of a lot of my earlier posts, the place of Romans 4 is natural and entirely coherent. It is not an "Old Testament" proof of "justification by faith".

If it is not an OT proof the why would Paul quote Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:3?
(I am writing this off the top of my head--I hope I am getting references right)

Instead, Paul moves from the very specific claims Romans 3:21-31 to the more general claim: all this has taken place precisely in fulfillment of the covenant. We will see that in chapter 4, Paul returns to Genesis 15 - and it is in Genesis 15 that God enters into covenant with Abraham, promising him not only a large family, but also that his family will be delivered in the exodus.

It is very noticable that the only part of Genesis 15 that Paul quotes is verse 6. He does not quote any part of the covenant material in Genesis 15. It seems to me that you are taking Pauls quote as referring to everything in Genesis 15 except verse 6. That is the exact opposite of what Paul quotes.

If Paul's claims to this point are to be sustained, clustered around the idea that in Jesus Christ the covenant has reached its climax, it is not at all surprising that Paul returns to the passage where the covenant was established and argues for a meaning to the covenant promise, a meaning that coheres with his claims that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of those very promises.

In this context, certain things are clear to Paul: Abraham is indeed the "father" of the covenant people, but he is not the father according to the flesh. He is the father of all, Jew and Gentile alike, who believe in the God who raised Jesus.

Therefore, and this is a lynchpin of the position I am advocating, the vague (at least as a sentence unto itself) question of Romans 4:1:

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?

can be seen from context to really be this more specific question:

1What then shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?

Paul is anticipating the position that his inclusion of Jew and Gentile in the covenant family, as per just a couple of sentences back in Romans 3:30, will cause people to wonder whether all Christians - Jew and Gentile alike - are to be considered part of the "fleshly" family of Abraham.

And Paul will go on to answer this with a resounding "no".

And this is all relevant to the purpose of my whole argument precisely because the question of Romans 4:1 establishes the interpretive framework by which we read Romans 4:4-5. And the reader will probably see where I am going. When Paul talks of works in Romans 4:2, he is not talking about "good works", but rather the elements of Torah that distinguishes the Jew from his pagan (Gentile) neighbour. We will see that Romans 4:4-5 serves as a metaphor in support of his argument. Paul is not suggesting that "good works" do not serve a role in our justification.

The word flesh is a parallel to the concept of works in Romans 4. Abraham found nothing according to the flesh, but his righteousness was imputed because of his faith. To deny imputed righteousness in Romans 4 is absurd. I have demonstrated that the word "logozemai" (imputed) is the main issue of Romans 4. The word occurs too many times in 4:3-10 to ignore that it is the topic of Romans 4.

This imputation comes by faith and not any works. It is the clear subject of Romans 4:3-5.

Drew, it is very noticable that you are not working with the langauge and grammar of Romans 4:4-5. Do you show repeated terminology? Do you show the meaning of a term within its context?

Works brings debt. Read the text.

 

[Drew]

has been made manifest in the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Then in verse 27 through to the end of the chapter, he argues against the "national boast" of the Jew - that the Jew has an inside track on justification over the Gentile in virtue of possession of Torah.

Possession of the Torah is not the same concept as covenant faithfulness. Typical covenant faithfulness language is "and YHWH remembered his covenant." Such language is absent from Romans 3.

I have never claimed that "possession of Torah" is the same thing as covenant faithfulness. The former is an attribute of the Jew, the latter of an attribute of God.

Nevertheless, Romans 3 is indeed about God's covenant faithfulness. The early part of the chapter is about how the Jews "dropped the ball" in respect to the covenant:

But if our (***the Jew's) unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say

Although the above verse also addresses God's righteousness - his covenant faithfulness.

The later part of Romans 3, is about how God has been faithful in despite of the failure of the Jew:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets

As for the absence of "covenant lanuguage" from Romans 3, let the reader consider whether Paul is talking about the covenant in chapter 3 in light of the following points:

1. In verse 2 we have "Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God". The oracles of God have been entrusted to the Jews for a reason. When one "entrusts" an oracle to someone, one gives them that oracle, not for their own sake, but for the sake of someone else. This is covenant language albeit not in the direct form of which you speak. I think it can be argued that the purpose of the covenant was do solve the Adamic sin problem for "all the nations". Covenental references to "return from exile" (e.g. from Genesis 15) are seen by Paul as a metaphor for rescue from death - death that entered the world via Adam.

2. In verses 5 to 8, Paul writes:

But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?"

From context, Paul is specifically talking about the Jews. He is talking about the election of Israel that he also describes in the famous account of the potter and his clay vessel in Romans 9. As Paul argues in chapters 5, 7, 9 and 11 - he does so here. In all these chapters, Paul argues about such things as how the law has "intensfied the sin the Israel", how "the law was added so that trespass might increase", how "because of the transgression of Israel, salvation has come to the Gentile".

This is all covenantal - since the covenant is God's plan to rescue man from the sin problem. Israel has been elected to "be cast away so that the nations might be saved" in God's redemptive plan. That is what Paul is talking about here in Romans 3: Israel has been given the oracles of God - not for her own sake but for the world's (verse 2). She is the covenant vessel by which the world will be saved. How can Israel rescue the world? By Torah? No - the sin problem is woven into the very fabric of the cosmos. In the strange purposes of God, Israel has been elected to be the place where the sin of the world is accumulated so that it can then be borne by her faithful Messiah.

3. In the middle part of chapter 3, Paul indeed addresses the universality of sin, But he does so in a covenental context as just argued. The Jews have failed (early part of chapter 3), the Gentiles are equally under Adam and Torah itself will not justify. How then can God be faithful to His covenant? Not by "changing his plan", but rather by finding a faithful Israelite - one who truly represents her people. In verse 22, he identifies this faithful Israelite - thus showing that indeed "Israel" - specifically her representative Messiah - has indeed been the means by which the covenant has been fulfilled.

The reader is invited to consider whether these arguments support my assertion that the theme of covenant is not deeply woven into chapter 3.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew - who are you to question Orthodoxy?

 

[unred typo]

Drew - who are you to question Orthodoxy?

LOL… For a second, I thought you were going to say, who are you to question God. But then, for some people, it's the same thing. I know it was for the scribes and Pharisees who crucified the Lord.


p.s. BTW, RadicalReformer, nice costume....

 

[Drew]

Seen from this perspective, and as filled out by content of a lot of my earlier posts, the place of Romans 4 is natural and entirely coherent. It is not an "Old Testament" proof of "justification by faith".

If it is not an OT proof the why would Paul quote Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:3?

Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully. The use of Abraham is indeed an example of justification by faith. But certainly not faith as set against good works. The specific use of Abraham can be clearly seen to be more than simply an example of a person who is justified by faith. After all, what has Paul just been talking about in Romans 3?

Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

Paul is centrally concerned with presenting an apologetic as to why the above can be true in light of the covenant promise which seem to be confined to the Jews. So the question Paul asks in verse 1 of Romans 4 is really "are we to consider that Jew and Gentile alike are to be considered part of Abraham's fleshly family? And Paul goes on to argue that the answer is "no".

He summarizes his treatment of this issuse of the relation of the ethnic Jew to the Gentile in verse 16 and following:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspringâ€â€not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."

Paul is defining who "true Israel" is - all those who have the faith of Abraham. So Abraham is not presented as a mere example of justification by faith, although he is indeed that. He is presented in service of Paul's argument that the covenant promise of Genesis 15 - that God will make Abraham's offpsring will be like the stars of the heaven - has been fulfilled in the grafting in of the Gentiles into a true Israel.

One needs to remember that chapters 1 through 4 largely involve Paul's effort to explain how the covenant has been fulfilled. In chapter 4, he argues for a meaning to the Genesis 15 promises that supports that very goal.

 

[Drew]

Drew - who are you to question Orthodoxy?

I am a person centrally interested in what St. Paul has to say, not only in what the Reformers have to say about what St. Paul has to say.

Scripture is scripture, the writings of the reformers are not scripture. In any event, let the arguments speak for themselves. If you see errors and weaknesses, by all means point them out.

 

[Drew]

[To deny imputed righteousness in Romans 4 is absurd. I have demonstrated that the word "logozemai" (imputed) is the main issue of Romans 4. The word occurs too many times in 4:3-10 to ignore that it is the topic of Romans 4.

If each one of these uses is consistent with the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer, how do you explain the use here in Romans 4:6-8 as rendered in the NKJV which explicitly renders the word "impute":

just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.

In this text we see that the man is blessed because sin has not been imputed or ascribed to him - the essence of the blessing is in this very thing. Does the text show that the man is blessed because Christ's own moral perfection has been ascribed to him? No it does not. The man is blessed, because sin was not ascribed to him - the man is declared to have the status of the acquitted defendent in the lawcourt, he is not declared to have the moral righteousness of some other person, such as Jesus.

I plan to address this issue in more detail, explaining why it is that Paul never argues that the righteousness of Christ is imputed or ascribed to the believer.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew - who are you to question Orthodoxy?

LOL… For a second, I thought you were going to say, who are you to question God. But then, for some people, it's the same thing. I know it was for the scribes and Pharisees who crucified the Lord.


p.s. BTW, RadicalReformer, nice costume....

Orthodoxy comes from God. God is Truth. There can be only ONE Orthodox.

There cannot be multiple versions or variations of Truth - then it is no longer Truth.

A common belief of Jainism is that there are multiple "versions" or "variations" of Truth. The more modern version is "what is true for you might not be true for me". That is not truth.

God is Truth. Period.

We are to seek the Truth, and God has promised to reveal that Truth to us. However, God will not reveal multiple variations.

The Pharisees are not much different than you and me. I would not use the term pharisee to insult - we all have pharisee-ical moments.

You misunderstood the question.

If I were wore a custome or a mask, you would not know who was "underneath' - therefore, it is not a custome that I wear.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew - who are you to question Orthodoxy?

I am a person centrally interested in what St. Paul has to say, not only in what the Reformers have to say about what St. Paul has to say.

Scripture is scripture, the writings of the reformers are not scripture. In any event, let the arguments speak for themselves. If you see errors and weaknesses, by all means point them out.

Drew - and how does one know that what you are suggesting is what Paul really had to say? For example, you are referring to him as "St. Paul" - where has Paul ever referred to himself as such? While all believers are saints, Paul would not have presummed a title of "Saint". "Saint" is man-made.

Just because you can string together a list of convicinig aruguements and logic - that does not make it Truth.

God uses the foolish to shame the wise.

 

[Drew]

Hello Radical Reformer:

I think we all agree that "truth is truth". If the ideas that I am presenting are not true, not Scriptural, then of course you wll be able to expose the error. You are invited to do so. No serious person will simply accept an argument that "such and such a view is not orthodox and is therefore wrong".

That, of course, begs the central question at issue, whether the content of the "orthodox" position is in fact correct.

 

[Drew]

Just because you can string together a list of convicinig aruguements and logic - that does not make it Truth.

Interesting statement. How do we discern truth if not by studying the Scriptures, thinking about them, and make valid, logically and rationally defensible interpretations?

 

[unred typo]

Quote by RadicalReformer:
Orthodoxy comes from God. God is Truth. There can be only ONE Orthodox.

Perhaps you meant something other than ‘orthodox’ since ‘orthodox’ only means traditional, not truth. They both begin with ‘tr’ but that’s about it. They are not synonyms.

Quote by RadicalReformer:
There cannot be multiple versions or variations of Truth - then it is no longer Truth.

A common belief of Jainism is that there are multiple "versions" or "variations" of Truth. The more modern version is "what is true for you might not be true for me". That is not truth.

God is Truth. Period.

We are to seek the Truth, and God has promised to reveal that Truth to us. However, God will not reveal multiple variations.

Well, there ya go. There are thousands of orthodox beliefs so ‘orthodox’ can’t be used as a synonym for the one truth from God, now can it?

Quote by RadicalReformer:
The Pharisees are not much different than you and me. I would not use the term pharisee to insult - we all have pharisee-ical moments.

You misunderstood the question.

I don’t think so, on either count.

Quote by RadicalReformer:
If I were wore a custome or a mask, you would not know who was "underneath' - therefore, it is not a custome that I wear.

Your costume is your misleading moniker, since you’re pretending to be a radical reformer but inside, you’re just s.o.s. orthodox. How radical is an establishment view that’s how many hundred years old?

 

[RadicalReformer]

unred - you might want to look up what Orthodox means. If you do not mind, I did it for you - the next time I will have to charge. *grin*

• orthodox
  
  1581, from L.L. orthodoxus, from Gk. orthodoxos "having the right opinion," from orthos "right, true, straight" + doxa "opinion, praise," from dokein "to seem," from PIE base *dek- "to take, accept" (see decent). As the name of the Eastern Church, first recorded in Eng. 1772; in the sense of branch of Judaism, first recorded 1853.

source: http://www.dictionary.com

Orthodox simply defined means "right belief". It can be paired with Orthopraxis which simply defined means "right action". The Christian walk needs to have both "orthodoxy" and "orthopraxis".

Therefore, Orthodox does equal Truth. Not tradtion. Unless I am to understand that you are a member of the Roman Catholic Church, tradition IMHO is not sacred - though there is much to learn from tradition. Tradition is not "holy", "divine" or even made to be as such. Tradition is useful, and one can say it is inspiring, but it is not inspired (ie: God-breathed).

unred - it would be helpful for you to read up on history to understand who were the Radical Reformers.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Just because you can string together a list of convicinig aruguements and logic - that does not make it Truth.

Interesting statement. How do we discern truth if not by studying the Scriptures, thinking about them, and make valid, logically and rationally defensible interpretations?

Logical, valid, rational - these are all man made. Just because I could "tickle your ears", dazzle you with brillance, and form a perceived logical arguement does not mean that what I speak is truth.

The Greeks were enamored with the mind, and logic.

Faith, and Truth, go beyond mere logic. A God that can create ex nihilo is not logical - does that mean you disagree with the Truth that God created out of nothing, and spoke into existance all that you see?

Is the hypo-static union, logical? Yet Christ was both completly divine and human - does this stand up to logic and rational thought? Does this mean you do not agree with it?

 

[Drew]

To proceed with the main thrust of my argument, I have claimed that the vague (at least as a sentence unto itself) question of Romans 4:1:

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter?

can be seen from context to really be this more specific question:

1What then shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?

Paul is anticipating the position that his inclusion of Jew and Gentile in the covenant family, as per just a couple of sentences back in Romans 3:30, will cause people to wonder whether all Christians - Jew and Gentile alike - are to be considered part of the "fleshly" family of Abraham.

And Paul goes on to answer "no" to this question. "No" is the answer in Romans 4:2-8, sinceAbraham was not considered to be part of the covenant family in virtue of "works of Torah" (same thing goes for David too):

If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works (***I claim these are works of Torah, not moral good works), he had something to boast aboutâ€â€but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a] 4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him.

Now of course, this block of text contains the very chunk that this thread was originally intended to address (verse 4 and 5). I will return to these.

His answer is again "no" in verses 9-12, since Abraham was declared to be a covenant member before he was circumcised. The reader needs to ask himself: which makes more sense in light of 9-12 which deals with the topic of circumcision:

1. The works in verse 2 are "moral good works"
2. The works in verse 2 are "works of Torah" - those which demarcate the Jew from the Gentile.

Here is the relevant text:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

I'll cast my vote for number 2, since circumcision is clearly a demarcating aspect of Torah and not a matter of moral right or wrong and it makes more sense to have Paul continuing a single line of thought goes all the way back to Romans 3:30:

since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith

Paul is clearly addressing the relation of the ethnic Jew to the Gentile in the context of the characterising the covenant family - he is not arguing against "Pelegianism" (or however that is spelled).

And finally the answer of "no" to the question of verse 1 is driven home in 16 - 17:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspringâ€â€not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believedâ€â€the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

In light of the foregoing, the "man who works" in verses 4-5 functions as a metaphor and only as a metaphor. More later.

 

[unred typo]

quote by RadicalReformer:
unred - you might want to look up what Orthodox means. If you do not mind, I did it for you - the next time I will have to charge. *grin*

orthodox

1581, from L.L. orthodoxus, from Gk. orthodoxos "having the right opinion," from orthos "right, true, straight" + doxa "opinion, praise," from dokein "to seem," from PIE base *dek- "to take, accept" (see decent). As the name of the Eastern Church, first recorded in Eng. 1772; in the sense of branch of Judaism, first recorded 1853.
source: http://www.dictionary.com

Orthodox simply defined means "right belief". It can be paired with Orthopraxis which simply defined means "right action". The Christian walk needs to have both "orthodoxy" and "orthopraxis".

Therefore, Orthodox does equal Truth. Not tradtion.

Nice snow job. Actually, I was right. I took a couple minutes to look up several free ( free \ˈfrē\ Etymology: Middle English, from Old English frēo; akin to Old High German frī free, Sanskrit priya own, dear) dictionaries and this is what I found:
From Wiktionary:
orthodox (comparative more orthodox, superlative most orthodox)
Conforming to the established, accepted or traditional faith or religion.
Adhering to whatever is traditional, customary or generally accepted.

Synonyms: (adhering to whatever is traditional, customary, accepted): conventional, conservative, mainstream

Ahhh… no absolute truth there. It wouldn’t even make sense to be true, more true or most true, would it?

From http://www.yourDictionary.com:
or·tho·dox· (ôr′t̸hə däks′)
adjective
conforming to the usual beliefs or established doctrines, as in religion, politics, etc.; approved or conventional [orthodox ideas]; specif.,
conforming to the Christian faith as formulated in the early ecumenical creeds and confessions
strictly conforming to the rites and traditions of Judaism, such as kashrut, the Sabbath, etc., as formulated by the Torah and Talmud

Nope, no absolute truth there.

From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1or·tho·dox
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: 'o r-th&-"däks
Etymology: Middle English orthodoxe, from Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French orthodoxe, from Late Latin orthodoxus, from Late Greek orthodoxos, from Greek orth- + doxa opinion -- more at DOXOLOGY
1 a : conforming to established doctrine especially in religion b : CONVENTIONAL
2 capitalized : of, relating to, or constituting any of various conservative religious or political groups: as a : EASTERN ORTHODOX b : of or relating to Orthodox Judaism
- or·tho·dox·ly adverb

Still no absolute truth.

From WordNet (r) 2.0 :

Orthodox
adj 1: of or pertaining to or characteristic of Judaism; "Orthodox Judaism" [syn: Jewish-Orthodox]

2: adhering to what is commonly accepted; "an orthodox view of
the world" [ant: unorthodox]

3: of or relating to or characteristic of the Eastern Orthodox
Church [syn: Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Greek
Orthodox]

Did you see 'absolute truth' there?

From MSN works Word dictionary:
or·tho·dox [áwrthə dòks]
adj following traditional doctrine: following the established or traditional rules of a political or religious belief, a philosophy, or a way of life


So what do you have? Obviously, fudging the definition from the Etymology of the word is not the most orthodox way to define a word.

quote by RadicalReformer:
Unless I am to understand that you are a member of the Roman Catholic Church, tradition IMHO is not sacred - though there is much to learn from tradition. Tradition is not "holy", "divine" or even made to be as such. Tradition is useful, and one can say it is inspiring, but it is not inspired (ie: God-breathed).

And unless you are from some other planet, ‘orthodox’ is not ‘orthos’ ("right, true, straight") and it doesn’t equal ‘absolute truth’ which does not equal ‘God’ which also is not a synonym for ‘orthodox’ either. Watch this: orthodox is a synonym for traditional, not for absolute truth. So your definition is absolutely unorthodox. Which has nothing to do with the fact that Drew can question orthodoxy without fear of being burned at the stake, which is more than can be said for some of your 'radical reformers' and their opponents.

quote by RadicalReformer:
unred - it would be helpful for you to read up on history to understand who were the Radical Reformers.

I must admit my ignorance of most church history but life is too short to spend it watching the Simpson’s or reading how the reformation came together /fell apart and keeping track of who burned who at the stake and why. By their fruits, you should know these men knew nothing of the truths that Jesus Christ taught.

What would really be helpful is if you would read what Drew has offered and point out any errors if you think there are any. I think you’ll be hard pressed to do so. He’s done his homework and yours has gone to the dogs.

 

[RadicalReformer]

What I find interesting, unred, is that it appears Drew could comprehend the question that I asked of him when he responded with:

I am a person centrally interested in what St. Paul has to say, not only in what the Reformers have to say about what St. Paul has to say.

Scripture is scripture, the writings of the reformers are not scripture. In any event, let the arguments speak for themselves. If you see errors and weaknesses, by all means point them out.

And yet, you seem to fail at comprehending the question and merely bring out ad hom attacks.

My question was not an insult to Drew. While I might agree or disagree with Drew, my question was an effort to understand where Drew was coming from. There are those who will merely question to question, to raise doubt, to undermind.

Perhaps unred, it would be best for you not to respond to posts that are directed specifically to someone else. It would appear that you are merely mudding the waters.