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

[unred typo]

Quote by 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.â€Â


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.

Oh get off it, RadiCalRef. You framed your question as ad hom as you could without getting accused of it. Did you read Drew’s carefully presented treatise and ask about specific points that you saw as errors or did you not just ask him who he thought he was, to dare question the high and mighty orthodoxy that you obviously consider to be your god on earth? Let’s look again at your “effort to understand where Drew was coming from:â€Â

Quote by RadicalReformer on Mon Dec 31, 2007:
Drew - who are you to question Orthodoxy?

Yeah, looks pretty sincere alright.
But, you’re correct in your assessment of Drew. He knew exactly what you were getting at and chose to respond in his usually forgiving manner, giving you the benefit of the doubt you were hiding behind.

Quote by RadicalReformer:
There are those who will merely question to question, to raise doubt, to undermind.

Yes, quite so. These people are not interested in truth, are they? They cling to tradition and merely want to snuff out the truth, right? They make their appeal to something other than the truth of scripture and I think we can safely rule out Drew, by virtue of his thoroughly scriptural presentation. If he were just a flimflam man, he would pull out a couple verses and string them together with some other out of context gems to make a point that none of the rest of the Bible supports without a similar twisting.

Quote by RadicalReformer:
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.

Perhaps you might have gotten away with your little charade if you hadn’t equated Orthodoxy with Truth and then pulled the slip to God himself. If I were a student of logic, I could probably name that little maneuver:

Quote by RadicalReformer:
Orthodoxy comes from God. (*insert your mangled definition of ‘orthodoxy’ here*) God is Truth. There can be only ONE Orthodox.

But you’re absolutely correct in your assessment of this response. (my apologies to Drew for the distraction) An ad hom can be used as such a distraction from an issue that cannot be otherwise addressed. I would hate to think such a thing of you, since we have hardly gotten to know one another. I certainly would hope your original question was not intended to muddy the waters. But now that we have cleared up what you meant by ‘orthodoxy,’ I think we can move on to what you think of that which Drew has presented, and quite brilliantly, too, wouldn’t you agree? (Or maybe I should say, 'scripturally' since 'brilliantly' may appear to be less like the 'foolish things' that you admire. 'Foolishness' is not a synonym for 'God-inspired,' btw. )

 

[Drew]

Please consider Romans 4:2

If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast aboutâ€â€but not before God.

Viewed as an isolated statement, it is clear that Paul could be saying either of the following (and there are perhaps other possibilities as well):

1. If Abraham was justified by doing good works, then..........
2. If Abraham was justified by the works of Torah that mark out the Jew from the Gentile.....

If one comes to verse 2, simply reads the word "works" and then uncritically assumes meaning number 1, then one is not really objectively standing back and being open to alternatives. We all (myself included) need to be able to step back and challenge the "received wisdom" about what this text means. And obviously interpretation 2 is indeed a possibility.

Granted, verses 4 and 5 with their non-Torah specificity of a man working for his pay do, at first glance anyway, do seem to suggest that Paul is talking issues of "effort" as set against "faith". I will not talk yet about these verses in detail, except to point out the obvious - the workman is a metaphor, and we need to temper our reading of those verses in that light. There is zero doubt that this is indeed a metaphor since the topic at hand is not about how workers get compensated, it is about justification of the believer. To be fair, the fact that these 2 verses are metaphorical does not rule out interpretation number 1 in respect to what Paul is talking about in verse 2. I hope to deal with verses 4 and 5 in more detail in a future post.

Anyway, when we ask ourselves what Paul is really talking about in verse 2, it helps to read on and see what he says - his following statements do indeed resolve the ambiguity in favour of reading 2 - that Paul is talking about the distinctive works of Torah, not "good works" in verse 2.

To be fair, the verse 3 through verse 8 block is open to both construals about the issue in verse 2. I think that there is not much there to favour one interpretation over the other. In defence of my position I would argue that it is telling that Paul picks specifically on the father of national Israel as his example here. To me, this suggests that he is focussing on Torah specifities and not "good works" in general. But, I do not think this is a particularly strong point. Here is the text:

What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
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."

On the other hand, verses 9-12 strongly suggest that Paul has indeed been talking about the ethnic specificities of Torah all along in chapter 4, and in particular, verse 2. What does this block of verses deal with? It deals with circumcision - an aspect of Torah that marked out the Jew from his pagan neighbour:

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.

Here is where I would request an answer from those who believe that Paul is making a "faith versus good works" argument in the first bit of Romans 4: Why, if Paul wants to set faith against "good works", does he specifically amplify his treatment of Abraham with a discussion of circumcision - an act that is clearly an ethnic specificity of Torah and is most definitely not an act that anyone would consider to be a fundamental issue of acting "morally", ie.performing 'good work'?

If Paul was really talking about justification by faith and not by 'good works', why not have an example where Abraham was described to have been justified independent of his having given money to an orphan or cared for the sick? These are clearly "good works" and would have strongly suggested that Paul was indeed setting faith against 'good works'.

But, of course, Paul does not do this, he homes in on circumcision as he amplifies on what he says in verse 2. Circumcision is a well known act that specifically marks out ethnic Israel. It is not an issue of 'good works'.

 

[Drew]

Before addressing verses 4 and 5 in Romans 4, I would like to give a higher level view of what I believe Paul's "big picture" theology is, seen specifically from where we are right now. This excursion will probably require muliple posts.

Paul has just argued that Abraham is the father of the true covenant people "by grace" and not "according to the flesh".

I would like to return to 1:18-25 and compare ith with 4:18-21, which I believes "echoes" the passage from Romans 1.

Here is the material from Romans 1:18-25:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ€â€his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorâ€â€who is forever praised. Amen.

Now here is 4:18-21

18Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be."[d] 19Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as deadâ€â€since he was about a hundred years oldâ€â€and that Sarah's womb was also dead. 20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.

The Romans 1 passage is essentially the Adamic position - mankind refuses to give glory to the creator. In description of Abraham, in the chapter 4 passage, we have a position that is set against the Adamic position - unlike Adam, Abraham has faith the creator God.

I have been maintaining that the purpose of the covenant with Abraham was not some kind of thing that is relevant only to the Jews and then Jesus comes along later and does something that is disconected from this Abrahamic covnenant. The Abrahamic covenant has, as its ultimate goal, solving the Adamic problem of sin for the entire world.

Paul is making a case that all of us who share that same Abrahamic faith - regardless of whether we are "possessors of Torah" or not - are members of the family that inherit the covenant promises (Romans 4:23-25):

The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousnessâ€â€for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

I will continue in the next post - I am aware that I need to actually explain the relation between my claim about "covenant promises" and what Paul says here about being "credited righteousness" and being justified.

 

[Drew]

This post will probably only make sense if you read my immediately preceding post.

If the covenental theme is actually seen here (in Romans 4), we realize that Paul is not addressing "Pelegianism" at all in. He is addressing who is in the covenant family and on what basis they are reckoned to be in that family.

It seems that Romans 4 is often treated without consideration of the following: the Jews were awaiting national vindication before the nations - to be shown to be the "true people of God" in front of their pagan neighbours. This is the big covenant promise for Israel - to be justified in the sight of the nations. Why am I talking about this? What relevance does it have to my main point, namely that Paul, in Romans 4, is not arguing against justification by "good works"? Hopefully, the following will explain this:

Paul is bending over backwards in Romans to re-work 2 central pillars of Judaism:

1. Election - the idea that the Jews were the special covenant people of God and the inheritors of the covenant promises (including national vindication or justification);

2. Monotheism - the idea that "the Lord your God is one"

Paul, in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus, concludes the following:

1. Election - the true covenant family are all those - Jew and Gentile alike - who place their faith in Jesus Christ.

2. Monotheism - Jesus is indeed God.

For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the covenant promise for the vindication of national Israel, with Israel being duly "re-defined" as per Paul's "re-definition" of the doctrine of election.

So the true covenant people get the covenant blessing of justification which has turned out to be the gift of eternal life (as seen in Jesus' resurrection from death) and not national vindication for ethnic Israel after all.

The point being that, in this framework of thinking, an argument against "Pelegianism" - justification by doing good things - has no logical place. Paul is concerned with being crystal clear that the true covenant people is not marked out by "works of Torah" as the prevailing Jewish view would be, but rather that the family includes all who believe in Christ.

Since Paul is so obviously concerned with who is in the covenant family, it makes perfect sense to see Romans 4:2 as a statement that Abraham was not declared to be in this family (which gets the covenant promise of justification) by his "possessing the works of Torah", and not as a statement about Abraham not being justified by his moral self-effort ('good works').

If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast aboutâ€â€but not before God

And, of course, the "boast" here is not the boast of the morally self-righteous who thinks he can earn his way to heaven - it is the boast of the Jew who still thinks that possession of Torah is the grounds for covenant membership.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Quote by 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.â€Â


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.

Oh get off it, RadiCalRef. You framed your question as ad hom as you could without getting accused of it. Did you read Drew’s carefully presented treatise and ask about specific points that you saw as errors or did you not just ask him who he thought he was, to dare question the high and mighty orthodoxy that you obviously consider to be your god on earth? Let’s look again at your “effort to understand where Drew was coming from:â€Â

[quote:b3882]Quote by RadicalReformer on Mon Dec 31, 2007:
Drew - who are you to question Orthodoxy?

Yeah, looks pretty sincere alright.
But, you’re correct in your assessment of Drew. He knew exactly what you were getting at and chose to respond in his usually forgiving manner, giving you the benefit of the doubt you were hiding behind.

Quote by RadicalReformer:
There are those who will merely question to question, to raise doubt, to undermind.

Yes, quite so. These people are not interested in truth, are they? They cling to tradition and merely want to snuff out the truth, right? They make their appeal to something other than the truth of scripture and I think we can safely rule out Drew, by virtue of his thoroughly scriptural presentation. If he were just a flimflam man, he would pull out a couple verses and string them together with some other out of context gems to make a point that none of the rest of the Bible supports without a similar twisting.

Quote by RadicalReformer:
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.

Perhaps you might have gotten away with your little charade if you hadn’t equated Orthodoxy with Truth and then pulled the slip to God himself. If I were a student of logic, I could probably name that little maneuver:

Quote by RadicalReformer:
Orthodoxy comes from God. (*insert your mangled definition of ‘orthodoxy’ here*) God is Truth. There can be only ONE Orthodox.

But you’re absolutely correct in your assessment of this response. (my apologies to Drew for the distraction) An ad hom can be used as such a distraction from an issue that cannot be otherwise addressed. I would hate to think such a thing of you, since we have hardly gotten to know one another. I certainly would hope your original question was not intended to muddy the waters. But now that we have cleared up what you meant by ‘orthodoxy,’ I think we can move on to what you think of that which Drew has presented, and quite brilliantly, too, wouldn’t you agree? (Or maybe I should say, 'scripturally' since 'brilliantly' may appear to be less like the 'foolish things' that you admire. 'Foolishness' is not a synonym for 'God-inspired,' btw. )[/quote:b3882]

Here is what I do not understand - why you felt compelled to "attack" me, whereas Drew did not even see the need to and my comment was directed at him, not you!

unred, I have not attempted to read Drew's comments on the passage, because I first wanted to see where Drew was coming from. Once that has been established, then I might proceed. However, my question to Drew did not need or warrant your commentary.

Unless, you are his "attack dog" to keep his nose clean! Is this the case unred?

 

[Drew]

Finally, I get to Romans 4:4-5, the verses whose interpretation stimulated this entire thread:

Now 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.

Any who have been reading this thread will know that I do not think Paul uses the metaphor of verse 4 to then say that men are not justified by doing good works.

Let there be no doubt - verse 4 is a metaphor. Paul is making a comparison from the subject he is dealing with to a man who gets paid to work. Paul is not in the middle of a discussion about workers and their compensation. So the workman is clearly metaphorical.

And be assured, the fact that it is a methaphor does not in and of itself prove that Paul is not redressing "good works" justification. But I would hope that previous threads have already made the case that justification by good works is not in view here at all.

I have argued that the question of verse 1 is really the question as to whether Gentile Christian believers are to be considered as members of the "fleshly" or "genetic" family of Abraham along with believing Jews. I want to underscore - I have not merely assumed that this is the question - I have made a case that this is the question. Challenge that case if you want. But I am not just assuming here.

Note the "for" at the beginning of v2 as rendered in the NASB (I admit I am intentionally giving the NASB interpretation here - the original Greek indeed does use the word "for"):

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God

This "for", which in Pauline fashion functions like "because" links the verse 4-5 text to the question of verse 1. The question of verse is 1 is not whether Abraham was "morally good" but rather whether those that are in Christ have become members of his fleshly family.

When a workman works, what he receives is "due" to him - the boss is "obliged" to pay. Not so with the Christian Paul says in verse 5 - the structure of the justification 'transaction' is one where the believer places his faith in a God who offers him a gift, as contrasted with the structure of the workman's relation to his employer.

Just because the metaphorical character of the workman "works" - this is not a licence to jump to the conclusion that Paul is dealing with the issue of justification by 'good works'. Remember, the workman who digs a hole in the ground and then gets paid may not be doing something morally good anyway - perhaps the hole is used in support of some immoral activity. However, that is not the main point here.

The main point is that the fact that verse 4, which deals with a transaction between a worker and his boss, is so obviously metaphorical that it leaves open the question about what the transaction being alluded to in the metaphor is all about.

When one reads an extended metaphor like the book "Animal Farm", we know the subject at issue is not the relation of farm animals to one another - the book is (so I am told) an allegorical treatment of Russian communism. Please do not take what is obviously a metaphor as literal.

To repeat: It is the 'structure' or 'nature' of the transaction that is the point of the metaphor in verse 4 - the overlord is obliged to give the worker his payment. By contrast, God is not under obligation to justify the believer - the justification offered is a gift. Paul is talking about the "gift through faith" nature of what God has done for us. And, believe it or not, the fact that justification is a gift does not, repeat not, logically compel us to think to that works are not required for justification.

This objection would have some force if it were not so clear that it is the freely given Spirit that is the power behind the works that will justify us. In no reasonable sense are we "earning our own justification". Do not be misled by those who would stretch a humble free will act of acceptance of grace into a picture where we stand proudly before God and claim to have "earned" our justification.

An additional implication of Romans 4:4-5: Paul is saying, among other things, that God does "owe" the ethnic Jew justification simply because he is born into the genetic familty of Abraham. That kind expectation parallels the obligation the overlord has to the worker.

It is not like this with those in Christ - justification is a gift from God, not something he owes us.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew - if I may ask another question of you...

What is your intent? Why do you wish to "challenge the traditional view"?

It would appear, that you already had an idea of what you wanted Romans 4:4-5 to say, and have taken the readers on a four page thread to "prove" what you already believed.

 

[Drew]

Drew - if I may ask another question of you...

What is your intent? Why do you wish to "challenge the traditional view"?

It would appear, that you already had an idea of what you wanted Romans 4:4-5 to say, and have taken the readers on a four page thread to "prove" what you already believed.

First of all, what view I had in mind when I came to the text is not important. What is important is whether the arguments that I provide are sound. If the arguments are unsound, people should be able to specifically say how they are unsound. A number of critiques have been provided (I think only by mondar) and I have reponded to them (perhaps I have missed some - I still need to flesh out the case against the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer). The objective reader will judge the result.

It will not escape the reader's notice that one could use your "you already had an idea that you wanted to prove, so that's what you did" argument against any position that anyone holds.

My intent is to get at the truth. I used to hold the "standard" reformed position. After some study and reading, I now think there is a problem with it.

Let's say that I indeed approached the text with a bias to make it believe a certain thing. In that case, the argument will be so much the weaker. So please, tell me where I have erred. But, don't just tell me I am wrong, make a case to that effect.

Although I am not comparing myself to this luminary, let's say that Pythagorus desperately wanted to prove a certain theorem in geometry - he desperately wants to believe that the sum of the angles in any triangle is 180 degrees.

His desire will not get him anywhere unless he can provide the relevant proof. And if he does provide a proof that cannot be countered, his initial bias is entirely irrelevant.

What errors can you find in the argument? And I do thank you for taking the time to read at least parts of what I have written.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew - if I may ask another question of you...

What is your intent? Why do you wish to "challenge the traditional view"?

It would appear, that you already had an idea of what you wanted Romans 4:4-5 to say, and have taken the readers on a four page thread to "prove" what you already believed.

First of all, what view I had in mind when I came to the text is not important. What is important is whether the arguments that I provide are sound. If the arguments are unsound, people should be able to specifically say how they are unsound. A number of critiques have been provided (I think only by mondar) and I have reponded to them (perhaps I have missed some - I still need to flesh out the case against the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer). The objective reader will judge the result.

It will not escape the reader's notice that one could use your "you already had an idea that you wanted to prove, so that's what you did" argument against any position that anyone holds.

My intent is to get at the truth. I used to hold the "standard" reformed position. After some study and reading, I now think there is a problem with it.

Let's say that I indeed approached the text with a bias to make it believe a certain thing. In that case, the argument will be so much the weaker. So please, tell me where I have erred. But, don't just tell me I am wrong, make a case to that effect.

Although I am not comparing myself to this luminary, let's say that Pythagorus desperately wanted to prove a certain theorem in geometry - he desperately wants to believe that the sum of the angles in any triangle is 180 degrees.

His desire will not get him anywhere unless he can provide the relevant proof. And if he does provide a proof that cannot be countered, his initial bias is entirely irrelevant.

What errors can you find in the argument? And I do thank you for taking the time to read at least parts of what I have written.

We have become so quick to argue and prove ourselves correct.... I never said that you are wrong or correct. That your arguements are sound or not sound.

Initial bias is entirely relevant. We are "bias" beings - we are not blank slates. We all have a bias, and when we approach Scripture it is important to recognize our bias, and the bias of others.

You posted this thread in the Apologetics forum - therefore, I can only conclude that by doing so, you have a preconceived notion, are you are here in an effort to 'defend' it - to prove that it is worthy or correct.

You did not post it in the Bible study section, where people post in an effort to study a passage.

Just some observations - but before we can understand what you are writing, we need to understand where you have come from, and what bias you bring to the text as well.

 

[unred typo]

Here is what I do not understand - why you felt compelled to "attack" me, whereas Drew did not even see the need to and my comment was directed at him, not you!

unred, I have not attempted to read Drew's comments on the passage, because I first wanted to see where Drew was coming from. Once that has been established, then I might proceed. However, my question to Drew did not need or warrant your commentary.

Unless, you are his "attack dog" to keep his nose clean! Is this the case unred?

Let’s see. If I merely want to know where Drew is coming from, I don’t frame a question to him in this manner: “Drew - who are you to question Orthodoxy?â€Â, I simply ask, “Why do you feel the traditional view needs to be challenged?†or “What caused you to challenge the traditional view?â€Â
or as I see you have finally come around to ask:

Drew - if I may ask another question of you...

What is your intent? Why do you wish to "challenge the traditional view"?

I personally read your first question as an attempt to imply that the traditional view could not or should not ever be challenged. A strange notion coming from a radical reformer, wouldn’t you agree? I found your whole post to be ironically intriguing. Methinks you protest too loudly. Your very reaction reveals your true intentions to intimidate which you only slightly veiled. Now everyone can see where you are coming from. :smt108 :smt084

Drew’s attack dog? Please. :-D If I have ‘attacked’ you, it was for my own satisfaction since I got a whiff of wolf in that fleece. :smt106 Drew doesn’t encourage or engage in such trivialities or even acknowledge such deceitful tactics in others. You’ll rarely provoke him to be other than Christ-like in his behavior. Just because you didn’t incite a reaction from him doesn’t mean he didn’t catch your drift either.


Putting these personal variances aside, I would like to offer an explanation as to what is wrong with the traditional view and why I personally applaud Drew‘s efforts to set the record straight as to what Paul really meant, other than the obvious reason, which you have overlooked, which is to present the truth.

The traditional view removes all works from the salvation equation, which puts it in direct conflict with practically everything that Jesus himself taught. If that doesn’t constitute ‘just cause’ to reexamine the traditional view, I don’t know what does. There are many other inconsistencies that arise from the usual view but that is the first and foremost for me. How about it? Doesn’t that at least deserve a look at Drew’s explanation of how Paul and Jesus could be reconciled in regard to good works? Or do you have your own personal "bias" against works being vital for salvation?

 

[RadicalReformer]

Let’s see. If I merely want to know where Drew is coming from, I don’t frame a question to him in this manner: “Drew - who are you to question Orthodoxy?â€Â, I simply ask, “Why do you feel the traditional view needs to be challenged?†or “What caused you to challenge the traditional view?â€Â
or as I see you have finally come around to ask:

Drew - if I may ask another question of you...

What is your intent? Why do you wish to "challenge the traditional view"?

Am I to apologize because I do not fram my questions the same way that you do? Perhaps you should wait before speaking.

I personally read your first question as an attempt to imply that the traditional view could not or should not ever be challenged. A strange notion coming from a radical reformer, wouldn’t you agree? I found your whole post to be ironically intriguing. Methinks you protest too loudly. Your very reaction reveals your true intentions to intimidate which you only slightly veiled. Now everyone can see where you are coming from. :smt108 :smt084

You implied something into the question, rather than reading the words that were there. I never said that the traditional view was correct, could not be challeneged, or should not be challeneged. I merely asked who was Drew to challenge it!

Drew’s attack dog? Please. :-D If I have ‘attacked’ you, it was for my own satisfaction since I got a whiff of wolf in that fleece. :smt106 Drew doesn’t encourage or engage in such trivialities or even acknowledge such deceitful tactics in others. You’ll rarely provoke him to be other than Christ-like in his behavior. Just because you didn’t incite a reaction from him doesn’t mean he didn’t catch your drift either.


Putting these personal variances aside, I would like to offer an explanation as to what is wrong with the traditional view and why I personally applaud Drew‘s efforts to set the record straight as to what Paul really meant, other than the obvious reason, which you have overlooked, which is to present the truth.

The traditional view removes all works from the salvation equation, which puts it in direct conflict with practically everything that Jesus himself taught. If that doesn’t constitute ‘just cause’ to reexamine the traditional view, I don’t know what does. There are many other inconsistencies that arise from the usual view but that is the first and foremost for me. How about it? Doesn’t that at least deserve a look at Drew’s explanation of how Paul and Jesus could be reconciled in regard to good works? Or do you have your own personal "bias" against works being vital for salvation?

And now we see the bias that your bring to the text. Thank you.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew, did you overlook my response to your question?

Drew wrote:[quote:c9c5c]
RadicalReformer wrote:
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?[/quote:c9c5c]

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?

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew, forgive me - two more questions:

1) Are you influenced by the writings of NT Wright? And has his writings influenced what you wrote here on Romans?

2) Are you familiar with the "New Perspective of Paul" movement that Wright is associated with?


source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NT_Wright

 

[unred typo]

quote by RadicalReformer:
Am I to apologize because I do not fram my questions the same way that you do? Perhaps you should wait before speaking.

The first step is always to acknowledge your transgression, of course. Denial only works as long as we believe you’re innocent. You tipped your hand so now we see what you meant. I just called it early so no one would miss what you were up to.

quote by RadicalReformer:
Unred wrote: “I personally read your first question as an attempt to imply that the traditional view could not or should not ever be challenged. A strange notion coming from a radical reformer, wouldn’t you agree? I found your whole post to be ironically intriguing. Methinks you protest too loudly. Your very reaction reveals your true intentions to intimidate which you only slightly veiled. Now everyone can see where you are coming from.â€Â

You implied something into the question, rather than reading the words that were there. I never said that the traditional view was correct, could not be challeneged, or should not be challeneged. I merely asked who was Drew to challenge it!

No, actually, I read the exact words that were there. You, in fact, did say the traditional view was correct when you changed the words, ’traditional view’ to ’orthodoxy’ and then changed the definition of ’orthodoxy’ to ’absolute truth’ and then proclaimed that God is truth. Hey, can’t get much clearer than that. Maybe you forgot what you wrote? I have it right here:

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.

And here:

Therefore, Orthodox does equal Truth. Not tradtion.

It is what it is. Orthodoxy is your god. In your mind it is truth from God that cannot be challenged. You’re just upset because you were exposed. Give it up. Or maybe you didn’t realize you were worshipping ’orthodoxy’ as God. We call that ’denial’. Would you like me to look that up for you? The first hundred words are free. :wink:

quote by RadicalReformer:
unred wrote:The traditional view removes all works from the salvation equation, which puts it in direct conflict with practically everything that Jesus himself taught. If that doesn’t constitute ‘just cause’ to reexamine the traditional view, I don’t know what does. There are many other inconsistencies that arise from the usual view but that is the first and foremost for me. How about it? Doesn’t that at least deserve a look at Drew’s explanation of how Paul and Jesus could be reconciled in regard to good works? Or do you have your own personal "bias" against works being vital for salvation?


And now we see the bias that your bring to the text. Thank you.

And now we see how you avoid answering a direct question. But I’m not giving you the benefit of the doubt, am I? Maybe you were just too anxious to run off to the web site that tears apart NT Wright’s work for you.

I do hope you will at least be able to answer those questions soon. They weren’t meant to be rhetorical. BTW, all I know of his works is what Drew has offered in his posts in the forum here, which he freely admits are influenced by Wright, if you had checked out any of his previous posts. Since you’re so ’new’ here, you might not have realized the feature where you can get all Drew’s posts with the touch of a button, and avoid the whole, ’where are you coming from’ issue. You’re forgiven. And welcome to the boards. :-D

 

[mondar]

The traditional view removes all works from the salvation equation, which puts it in direct conflict with practically everything that Jesus himself taught. If that doesn’t constitute ‘just cause’ to reexamine the traditional view, I don’t know what does. There are many other inconsistencies that arise from the usual view but that is the first and foremost for me. How about it? Doesn’t that at least deserve a look at Drew’s explanation of how Paul and Jesus could be reconciled in regard to good works? Or do you have your own personal "bias" against works being vital for salvation?

unred,
I would recommend a book by John McArther called "The Gospel of Jesus." While Justification is by faith alone without works, the reformed view also says that works are always the fruits of justification. We can show our faith by our works. The Calvinist view absolutely includes the concept of works, but not for the purpose of justification, but as a result of salvation. However we have nothing to boast of in our works because we recognize that even our works are due to the grace of God as he works in our lives.

Your concept that Calvinists do not have works is a mere straw man.

 

[unred typo]

quote by Mondar:
unred,
I would recommend a book by John McArther called "The Gospel of Jesus." While Justification is by faith alone without works, the reformed view also says that works are always the fruits of justification. We can show our faith by our works. The Calvinist view absolutely includes the concept of works, but not for the purpose of justification, but as a result of salvation. However we have nothing to boast of in our works because we recognize that even our works are due to the grace of God as he works in our lives.

No thanks, Mondar. I don’t have time to read McArthur anymore. I read enough of his stuff to last a lifetime. Now I just read my Bible and what you drag in here of his and regurgitate for me to see. That’s enough for me.

quote by Mondar:
Your concept that Calvinists do not have works is a mere straw man.

Where do you get that straw man allegation? I say that Justification is irrepealably tied to works, not works of the law, ceremonies or rites performed but good works done in faith that what Jesus promised is worthy of our trust and that the way he taught can be followed to inherit eternal life. I am quite aware that some Calvinists hold the view that works are the result of justification. The reason I am accused of heresy by you all (Calvinists, hyper, semi hyper, 5 point, radical, reformed, whatever ) is because of the fact, which I do not deny, that I believe that without works, we will not be saved and that works are essential to salvation and that is how we will be judged to determine our final destiny.

Once more, let me say Calvinists deny that doing good works is essential to salvation. Is this a false statement? If so, please correct me.

 

[mondar]

quote by Mondar:
unred,
I would recommend a book by John McArther called "The Gospel of Jesus." While Justification is by faith alone without works, the reformed view also says that works are always the fruits of justification. We can show our faith by our works. The Calvinist view absolutely includes the concept of works, but not for the purpose of justification, but as a result of salvation. However we have nothing to boast of in our works because we recognize that even our works are due to the grace of God as he works in our lives.

No thanks, Mondar. I don’t have time to read McArthur anymore. I read enough of his stuff to last a lifetime. Now I just read my Bible and what you drag in here of his and regurgitate for me to see. That’s enough for me.


[quote:ca6d5] quote by Mondar:
Your concept that Calvinists do not have works is a mere straw man.

Where do you get that straw man allegation? I say that Justification is irrepealably tied to works, not works of the law, ceremonies or rites performed but good works done in faith that what Jesus promised is worthy of our trust and that the way he taught can be followed to inherit eternal life. I am quite aware that some Calvinists hold the view that works are the result of justification. The reason I am accused of heresy by you all (Calvinists, hyper, semi hyper, 5 point, radical, reformed, whatever ) is because of the fact, which I do not deny, that I believe that without works, we will not be saved and that works are essential to salvation and that is how we will be judged to determine our final destiny.

Once more, let me say Calvinists deny that doing good works is essential to salvation. Is this a false statement? If so, please correct me.[/quote:ca6d5]

Your original statement was "The traditional view removes all works from the salvation equation"

I guess it depends upon how you look at that statement. Of course Calvinists have works. Calvinists affirm works, but say salvation results in works. You think you have to be righteous enough to merit or earn salvation with your works. Both have works in the equation.

Now above you clarify what you mean (of course you include some name calling-thats nothing new for you). Now by the above post that you made, are you allowing for Calvinists to include works in the equation.... You accept that Calvinists believe salvation always results in works?

 

[Drew]

Just some observations - but before we can understand what you are writing, we need to understand where you have come from, and what bias you bring to the text as well.

I really do not think this is a fruitful avenue to pursue - why can we simply not discuss the text? It is obviously true that a person has some position when they approach a text - there is no such thing as an entirely objective stance. However, the central issue is not where a person is when they come to the text, but rather what attitude they bring to the text. People can fall into at least the following categories:

1. Not willing to revise their default position - they will make every effort, no matter how awkward, to force-fit the text into their default position.

2. Willing to let the text speak afresh - and revise their position to the position that best explains the text.

I would like to think I fall into category 2. For > 20 years, I held the "standard reformed" position on this matter (justification). I have changed my mind now.

The scriptures are scripture, the Westminster Confession, for all its merits, is not scripture.

 

[Drew]

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?

The problem is that the only tools we have to collaboratively work out the meaning of the scriptures are the good old fashioned ones - understanding what words mean (and more importantly what they meant to the writer), understanding the culture in which the scriptures were written, thinking logically, avoiding inconsistency, not begging the question, achieving coherence, etc.

I do not know about you, but I cannot "beam truth" into the minds of others without using the very public, very "mundance" instruments that mediate our common discourse - language, logical reasoning, consistency, etc.

If a certain truth cannot be explicated in such terms, then there simply is no way we can talk productively about it. Is it possible that God "beams" truth into the human mind using a mechanism that bypasses these "conventional" human faculties and capabilities?

Obviously, this is possible. But if one cannot express a well-formed explanation of what has been beamed into your mind using the common tools of human interaction, then the "truth" you have received will always remain private and we may as well stop this internet "chit-chat" (as my wife calls it) and spend our time doing something else.

I suspect that the reformers argued their positions using the "conventional" tools. We can do no better than this.

 

[Drew]

Drew, forgive me - two more questions:

1) Are you influenced by the writings of NT Wright? And has his writings influenced what you wrote here on Romans?

2) Are you familiar with the "New Perspective of Paul" movement that Wright is associated with?

Answer to question 1: Yes on all counts.

Answer to question 2: Yes.