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

[Drew]

Actually, I do have to agree with RadicalReformer. The image of Spock does come to mind when I read your posts. :-D

You both better steer clear of me when It is the ponn farr - the time of mating :-D

 

[unred typo]

quote by Drew, AKA Spock:
You both better steer clear of me when It is the ponn farr - the time of mating

You’re taking this cheerleader thing waaaay too far… :smt100
Drew on a hormonal blood lust rampage... it's just too scarey... :smt044

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew - you want to rely on logic, but then when pushed about things that seem "illogical" - you back away... fine, let's keep with Romans.

Two quick questions:

1) Was Abraham considered a Jew or a Gentile?

2) If a Jew - when was he considered a Jew? (hint, when was Abraham circumcised?)

 

[unred typo]

Drew - you want to rely on logic, but then when pushed about things that seem "illogical" - you back away... fine, let's keep with Romans.

Wasn’t God pleased with Solomon when he asked for wisdom? So pleased that God gave him both wisdom and riches. Now it seems like we are to extol those who value foolishness. I think you have confused the wisdom of the world with the logical understanding of truth. There is a logic that is faulty and deceives men into believing fallacies, and there is a logic helps man understand the things that are true. These are examples of the wise and logical words of Solomon:

Proverbs 14:8
The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.

Proverbs 14:6-8
A scorner seeks wisdom, and finds it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understands.
Go from the presence of a foolish man, when you perceive not in him the lips of knowledge. (If I’m not mistaken, Drew has gone ponn farr away… :-D )
The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.

Proverbs 16:22
Understanding is a wellspring of life unto him that has it: but the instruction of fools is folly.

quote by Rad:

Two quick questions:

1) Was Abraham considered a Jew or a Gentile?

2) If a Jew - when was he considered a Jew? (hint, when was Abraham circumcised?)

Here’s a multiple choice question for you, Rad:

Which of the Proverbs 26 options do you go with?

A)4Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like unto him.
B)5Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

(Hint: it’s a lose/lose)

:fadein:

 

[RadicalReformer]

unred, I would appreciate it if you would stop the ad hom attacks. I do not know if this is set up this way, but I would hope that Drew would distance himself from you, because you shed a negative light not only on yourself, but those that you associate with.

If you would be willing to answer the Abraham question, I believe it would help you and Drew in understanding the Romans 4 passage. If you wish not to answer, that is fine - you will more than likely continue in your own folly.

Your attacks on me are unwarranted, and are sidestepping the issue of this thread and the discussion of Romans 4:4-5.

There is a difference between the desire for wisdom (Solomon) and the love of logic (the Greeks). I seek not to undermine the desire for wisdom which is knowledge of the Truh of God. However, I do not seek the love of logic, which is displayed in many of our colleges that deny the existance of God and His Truth.

unred, if you have nothing to contribute to the discussion of Romans 4 - then perhaps you should pick another thread to post on.

 

[Vic C.]

Drew - you want to rely on logic, but then when pushed about things that seem "illogical" - you back away... fine, let's keep with Romans.

Two quick questions:

1) Was Abraham considered a Jew or a Gentile?

2) If a Jew - when was he considered a Jew? (hint, when was Abraham circumcised?)

Ooh, ooh... he wasn't a Jew. (hey, that rhymes) He couldn't have been. There weren't any Jews at that time ( or Israelites). He was a Hebrew. 8-)

Do I win anything for getting it correct? ;-)

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew - you want to rely on logic, but then when pushed about things that seem "illogical" - you back away... fine, let's keep with Romans.

Two quick questions:

1) Was Abraham considered a Jew or a Gentile?

2) If a Jew - when was he considered a Jew? (hint, when was Abraham circumcised?)

Ooh, ooh... he wasn't a Jew. (hey, that rhymes) He couldn't have been. There weren't any Jews at that time ( or Israelites). He was a Hebrew. 8-)

Do I win anything for getting it correct? ;-)

Well.. you did only answer one of the questions, and the one you did answer you did provide a full answer.

Question 1 again: Was Abraham considered a Jew or a Gentile? Perhaps I do need to add to it a tad...

Reworded Question 1: From a Jewish POV, was Abraham considered a Jew or a Gentile?

There.. perhaps that is worded better.

 

[Vic C.]

A Jewish believer would consider him a Patriarch of Judaism; the first actually. 8-) Before that, he was a gentile, I guess. He was brought up in a polytheistic culture.

http://www.jewfaq.org/origins.htm

 

[Drew]

Drew - you want to rely on logic, but then when pushed about things that seem "illogical" - you back away... fine, let's keep with Romans.

This is, of course, yet another blatant misrepresentation. I "backed away" because I am hoping to keep this thread on Romans 4, not on the fundamental issue of how "the rational mind" and the action of the Spirit work together to discern truth.

Two quick questions:

1) Was Abraham considered a Jew or a Gentile?

2) If a Jew - when was he considered a Jew? (hint, when was Abraham circumcised?)

I do indeed believe that Abraham transitioned from "non-Jew" to Jew at the point he was circumcised. Paul seems to be clear in Romans generally - he uses the event of circumcision as the "marker" that distinguishes Jew from Gentile.

From Romans 2:

If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[a] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical

From Romans 3:

1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?

His whole argument of 4:9-12 involves countering the position that justification is based on being a Jew - doing the works of Torah especially in respect to their function of demarcating the Jew from the Gentile.

 

[RadicalReformer]

A Jewish believer would consider him a Patriarch of Judaism; the first actually. 8-) Before that, he was a gentile, I guess. He was brought up in a polytheistic culture.

http://www.jewfaq.org/origins.htm

Now, when did Abraham become a "Jew"? When was Abraham circumcised? It is in Scripture!

Abraham was declared RIGHTEOUS when he was in the state of UNCIRCUMCISION!

 

[unred typo]

quote by RadicalReformer:
unred, I would appreciate it if you would stop the ad hom attacks. I do not know if this is set up this way, but I would hope that Drew would distance himself from you, because you shed a negative light not only on yourself, but those that you associate with.

My ad homs are just not as surreptitious as yours. You imply all kinds of rude things about Drew and pass it off as innocent and honest inquiry. He doesn’t deserve that kind of treatment. How do you like it when it is done to you?

quote by RadicalReformer:
If you would be willing to answer the Abraham question, I believe it would help you and Drew in understanding the Romans 4 passage. If you wish not to answer, that is fine - you will more than likely continue in your own folly.

Is that a warning of Proverbs 26:4? Too late, I’m afraid…. Just ask Vic…

quote by RadicalReformer:
Your attacks on me are unwarranted, and are sidestepping the issue of this thread and the discussion of Romans 4:4-5.

Why didn’t you just tell us what the answer to the Abram question has to do, in your mind, with Romans 4:4-5, and how it helps your traditional “orthodox†view and why it is that you do not understand how it helps Drew’s POV, since Drew has explained that the answer to this is also Paul’s point that he is trying to make.

quote by RadicalReformer:
There is a difference between the desire for wisdom (Solomon) and the love of logic (the Greeks). I seek not to undermine the desire for wisdom which is knowledge of the Truh of God. However, I do not seek the love of logic, which is displayed in many of our colleges that deny the existance of God and His Truth.

Logic can be good or bad reasoning:
Logic:
1. philosophy theory of reasoning: the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of deductive and inductive arguments and aims to distinguish good from bad reasoning

2. system or instance of reasoning: any system of, or an instance of, reasoning and inference
(Encarta ® World English Dictionary © )

Wisdom is specifically good reasoning:
Wisdom:
1. good sense: the ability to make sensible decisions and judgments based on personal knowledge and experience.

2. wise decision: good sense shown in a way of thinking, judgment, or action.
(Encarta ® World English Dictionary © )

quote by RadicalReformer:
unred, if you have nothing to contribute to the discussion of Romans 4 - then perhaps you should pick another thread to post on.

Whaaat? I thought you said my function here was to keep his nose clean and to do the cheerleader bit. If Drew wants me to leave, he can say so, or pm me. It is his thread. At least I’m reading what he writes and not asking redundant questions about things that have been previously dealt with in detail or making up definitions for words and questioning what is wisdom, and where does Drew get his ideas.

See the slider tab on the side? If you don't want to read my posts, just do what everyone else does; right click, slide by. :-D

 

[RadicalReformer]

I have not attacked Drew in any ad hom manner. My questions are what they are - you have read into them things which are not there. It shows much of your character.

 

[unred typo]

RadicalReformer, perhaps you are oblivious to what you have asked and the implications of your questions. Practically everything you have written has not dealt with Romans at all. You seem to be more interested in casting doubt on motives, unscrupulous methods, the unimportance of logic and whatever side issue you can stir up other than the actual subject, which is Drew’s very scriptural challenge to the traditional view of Romans. Here are examples of the way you approach the subject:

quote by RadicalReformer: Perhaps Drew, you should read Scripture and not NT Wright.

quote by RadicalReformer: This is troubling to me, because nowhere do I read credit given to the Holy Spirit, guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the role of the Holy Spirit to guide us in our understandings of the words that HE wrote.

quote by RadicalReformer: Drew, do you like to search for verses that APPEAR to support you? Because when you do, you negate the context of the verses - you are plucking them right out of the context.

quote by RadicalReformer:
Drew, I believe you are doing a dis-service to the "study" of these two verses when you are not taking them in the complete context.

quote by RadicalReformer:
I return you to the question that I poised earlier.. is an ex nihilo creation, logical? Is the Cross, logical? In fact, Paul calls the Cross a stumbling block to the "learned".

quote by RadicalReformer:
Drew - you want to rely on logic, but then when pushed about things that seem "illogical" - you back away...

quote by RadicalReformer:
How does Paul direct the believers to understand Scripture? To read NT Wright? No - the early believers did not have NT Wright, or Luther, or any other Theologian.

quote by RadicalReformer:
How do we know that you are just not having your 'ears tickled' by Wright, so you agree with him?

quote by RadicalReformer:
You are making assumptions like your cheerleader, unred.

quote by RadicalReformer:
If you would be willing to answer the Abraham question, I believe it would help you and Drew in understanding the Romans 4 passage. If you wish not to answer, that is fine - you will more than likely continue in your own folly.

Your two “quick questions†about the actual biblical content were previously answered in great detail as key to Drew‘s argument:

quote by Rad:
Two quick questions:
1) Was Abraham considered a Jew or a Gentile?
2) If a Jew - when was he considered a Jew? (hint, when was Abraham circumcised?)

Here are some of Drew’s posts that have already extensively answered this and actually help form an underpinning of his argument:

quote by Drew on Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:53 am
mondar wrote:“Drew, the torah is not in view in Romans 4:2. This is obvious because Abraham is before the giving of the Law.â€Â

I really do not think this works. It appears that you are arguing that since Abraham is described as being justified before the giving of Torah, Torah is not in view in 4:2. Here is the relevant text:

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!

I agree with you - Abraham was "credited righteousness" before Torah was given. But this certainly does not means that 4:2 is not about Torah.

Paul underscores this "timing" issue in support of his point that Abraham's justification could not be grounded in the ethnic specificities of Torah precisely because his justification precedes the giving of Torah.

I do not see how the "timing" issue at all undermines the plausibility of the assertion that Torah (and specifically its 'ethnic specificities' such as circumcision) are not in view in 4:2.

quote by Drew on Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:33 am
mondar wrote:“Drew, the rite of circumcision may have also been part of the later law, but that is not an issue when Abraham is mentioned. Abraham and circumcision preceeds the giving of the torah. The actual giving of the Law to Israel occurs in Exodus in the days of Moses. The rite of circumcision begins in Genesis 18 with Abraham. How could Abraham be under the Law when the Law was not yet given? Moses and the law is not in view in Romans 4.â€Â

I have already responded to this concern. The fact that Abraham was not under Law is precisely the point in relation to the claim that Torah is indeed in view in Romans 4:2. Abraham's justification could not be grounded in the ethnic specificities of Torah precisely because his justification precedes the giving of Torah. I have never stated that Abraham was under law at the time he was declared by Paul to have been justified. I think the timing issue actually supports my case. Since Abraham is declared to have been justified before circumcision / giving of Torah, this means, in the context of my overall argument, that Abraham was not justified by the ethnic specificities of Torah. This is consistent with the following from 3:30 where Paul makes it clear that justification is not just for the Jews.

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

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but you appear to be ascribing to me the view that Abraham was under Torah when he was declared to be justified. I would have to be nuts to hold that position, since it would obviously undercut my whole position.

quote by Drew on Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:20 am
mondar wrote:“We could look at Chapter 2. Their the word "Law" and "Circumcision" appears in the same context. But that would only support my point that the issue of circumcision is not the issue of Chapter 4. My reasoning is again that Abraham lived and died long before Moses. Abraham was not under law.â€Â

I cannot emphasize enough - I agree that Abraham was neither circumcized nor under Torah when he was justfied. These facts support my position. If Abraham were under Torah when he was declared to be justified then Paul could not have argued that Abraham was not justified by the works of Torah. It is precisely this separation in time that establishes Paul's point - Abraham's justification was not based on doing the works of Torah. If Abraham were under Torah at the time he was declared to be justified, the reader might imagine it was being under Torah that justifies him. I hope this clears up any confusion.

Now, if it can be shown that when Paul refers to "works" in 4:2, he is not intending to include circumcision under that term, then your objection gains considerable force. Can you give us non-question-begging reasons to believe this? In other words, how do you know that circumcision is not part of Torah? I would think that the "circumcision was ordered long before Moses was given the Ten Commandments plus other rules" argument is not, in and of itself very convincing.

Why? Because I see no a priori reason to think that the giving of Torah is a "one-time download" as it were. If you can make the case that it was, please do so. It would strengthen your argument considerably, although it would make Paul a rather schizophrenic writer since in 3:29 - 30, just a breath back of 4:2, he is obviously deeply concerned with a distinction between Jew and Gentile that he specifically grounds in the issue of circumcision.

For my part, I will, for the moment, refer to Paul's treatment of circumcision in Galatians 5:

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

This seems to be a rather clear knitting together of circumcision together with Torah. I think the most natural reading of the above is that circimsion is seen by Paul as a sign of embracing Torah. And in verse 3, when he uses the term "law", Paul is obviously referring to Torah and not 'good works'. So it is rather clear that in verse 4, Paul criticizes attempts to be justified by keeping Torah - he sets Torah against grace, not 'good works' against grace, something that is entirely consistent with the position I am arguing for.

quote by Drew on Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:03 am
RadicalReformer wrote:“Drew - Abraham's faith was CREDITED to him as rightouesness PRIOR. Verses 7 and 8 are quoting from the Psalms. Where do you get this notion of "doing the works of Torah" for Abraham?â€Â

I have already dealt with this repeatedly. Paul's argument is that since Abraham was justified before he came under the dictates of Torah, one cannot conclude that he was justified by doing Torah. (unred note: circumcision being part of torah, ^ scroll up ^ )

I hope you have understood where Drew was “coming from†by now. Now, do you have a ‘traditional’ view of Rmans 4 that you feel is more “orthodox†or were you just here to disrupt this thread?

:-?

 

[RadicalReformer]

Ahh... there is an "iggy list".... makes this thread much much nicer now.

 

[unred typo]

Ahh... there is an "iggy list".... makes this thread much much nicer now.

The first half is all about you, so you should be pleased. The second half is more of a ‘going to the monitors for an instant replay.’ Now that you have some idea of what Drew presented, I hope you’re working on a proper response where you submit the case for your view of Romans 4, if you indeed have one. I hope you are not going to assume that we know which ‘orthodox’ theology you hold simply by your moniker. After all, to be honest, you have to at least consider that Drew may be presenting the true orthodox version and the traditional or present ‘orthodox’ view may be a distortion of the truth.

The best way to do that is by prayerful reading of the actual content of what was written by Drew and comparing it to what Paul wrote and also to what the traditional view is. This may be scary for you to step out of the most accepted belief and use your God-given logical faculties to discern truth, but that is apparently what the first 'radical reformers' did when they disagreed with not only tradition but also the corrections instituted by Calvin and Luther. That doesn’t mean they were able to arrive at the ultimate truth of the matter, being no doubt, hindered by vengeful human prejudices and bitterness spawned by ruthless leaders.

You seem to fear the use of logic in the presentation here. How else is this truth going to be given in this forum? By freely inviting comparison to the standard answer, Drew is preaching truth in a very open, biblically sound and understandable format. I don’t know of another way but by the ‘foolishness of preaching’ via keyboard that Drew has done that he is supposed to make his case. Are you going to deal with it honestly or come up with another disruption?

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew - allow me to submit that if you have dealt with these questions prior, I am sorry if I did not see your answers. I attempt to speak clearly, and sucinctly (if even my spelling is terrible).

Perhaps, you could answer the two questions about Abraham in light of Genesis 15:6

It appears to me atleast that Genesis 15:6 needs to be the springboard in understanding Romans 4. From the Jewish POV, at the time God spoke to Abraham in Genesis 15, Abraham was a gentile. Hence why Paul uses him in Romans. To show that not only are the Gentiles apart of the conventant, but that they were there in the beginning with Abraham. That is was the "faith of Abraham" that God "reckoned" as righteousness - not necessarily the deeds of Abraham. One must start with faith.

 

[Drew]

It appears to me atleast that Genesis 15:6 needs to be the springboard in understanding Romans 4. From the Jewish POV, at the time God spoke to Abraham in Genesis 15, Abraham was a gentile. Hence why Paul uses him in Romans. To show that not only are the Gentiles apart of the convenant, but that they were there in the beginning with Abraham. That is was the "faith of Abraham" that God "reckoned" as righteousness - not necessarily the deeds of Abraham. One must start with faith.

I agree with you - at the time that God spoke to Abraham in Genesis 15, Abraham was not yet a "Jew". Are you of the mind that I (Drew) deny that Abraham's faith (as opposed to his deeds) were reckoned to him as righteousness?

I do not hold such a position. I agree that even before Abraham was a Jew, his faith (and not his "deeds") was the basis for his being declared righteous - at least his faith justified him "in the present".

This is where things get a little complicated and I can understand how my view on the entire matter of justification might seem a tad confusing. I admit this: on my view (actually based on my understanding the thinking of NT Wright), I see justification as having a relatively complex "structure".

My understanding of the standard "reformed" view is this: a single act of genuine acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus justifies you once and for all. This is a very simple model for justification, but I am inclined to think it is unscriptural.

I think that justification actually has 2 "parts": A present justification - those who place their faith in Jesus are declared to be justified in the here and now. This is really an event where a future justification verdict - based on the works exhibited in one's life a la Romans 2:7, 2:13 - is declared in the present.

How can this work? Paul explains in texts like Romans 8:1 and following and Romans 10:6 (with its obvious allusion to Deuteronomy 30) - the act of placing your faith in Jesus results in the gift of the Spirit, who will then ensure that the works needed for eventual justification are indeed performed. And, I do think that there is a degree to which we, as "free" agents, have the responsibility to "daily" place ourselves in subjection to the Spirit. So there is indeed a sense in which "we do something", but it really is the weakest of all possible senses, one that does not turn us into "puppets".

Despite its relative complexity, I do think that justification indeed has this structure based on what I see in the Scriptures.

And one must remember, the existence this kind of complex structure in the time dimension has clear precedent. Jesus has been raised from the dead and given a new body. Have we been raised from the dead? No and I think that those who have died in Christ are not "partying in Heaven" but rather sleeping in their graves. We are indeed new creatures already. But there is a sense in which we are not yet fully redeemed. That will happen when we are raised from the sleep of death and given immortal redeemed bodies - remember, all of creation is presently "groaning" for redemption. There is very much a "we are new creatures and yet we are not yet fully restored" kind of model.

This "new creature in the present, fully restored creature in the future" structure strikes me as supporting a parallel structure in respect to the issue of justification. There is a sense in which we justified in the present by faith and faith alone, and there is a sense in which we will be justified in the future based on the works that we have allowed the Spirit to do in our lives.

In fact, and maybe some of you will know what I am about to conclude - the "new creature in the present, fully restored creature in the future" issue is not merely "parallel" to a "justified in the present by faith and in the future by works" - they are essentially the very same thing.

As per the dual meaning of the Ezekial 37: the justification we long for will take the form of being raised from the dead. Israel expected to inherit the covenant promise of restoration and return from exile - to be "justified" in the sight of the nations. In the wonderful and mysterious purposes of God, the justification will not take this form at all. The "exile" that we return from is not political - it is the exile of death that we all took in Adam. So our restoration will not be political either - it will be eternal life. And it will not be for "Israel according to the flesh", it will be for all believers, Jew or Gentile.

Have we been raised from the dead yet? Obviously not. So we have not been fully justified yet, either.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Of one thing I think we can agree Drew - you have made a simple doctrine of Justification, complicated. It does not surprise me that this complication comes from the errant belief of "soul sleep". But that is a discussion for another time.

I am wondering if you are not Roman Catholic to some degree, especially with your readings of "catholic-lites" like Wright (if I am not mistaken he is Anglican). Perhaps Spong is up your ally as well.

Why do you confuse Justification and Sanctification?

 

[Drew]

Of one thing I think we can agree Drew - you have made a simple doctrine of Justification, complicated.

When did I say that I have made a "simple" doctrine complex? I never claimed the doctrine of justification was simple. Please be fair and accurate in representing my views.

I am wondering if you are not Roman Catholic to some degree, especially with your readings of "catholic-lites" like Wright (if I am not mistaken he is Anglican). Perhaps Spong is up your ally as well.

Why do you confuse Justification and Sanctification?

Do you not think the reader might think that you are trying to play a bit of a game of rhetoric here - trying to take advantage of the all the protestant - catholic division. Why not argue the point itself more (I am not saying you have never argued the issue)?

I dislike Spong intensely (his views, that is)

Perhaps you can tell us precisely how it is that I have confused justification with sanctification? Then I can respond.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Of one thing I think we can agree Drew - you have made a simple doctrine of Justification, complicated.

When did I say that I have made a "simple" doctrine complex? I never claimed the doctrine of justification was simple. Please be fair and accurate in representing my views.

What I said was that you have made a simple doctrine "Complex". Did you not say yourself that you think it is complicated? How many pages did it take you to finally communicate Wright's view on Romans 4:4-5?

Yes, you have comlicated something that is not complex.

I am wondering if you are not Roman Catholic to some degree, especially with your readings of "catholic-lites" like Wright (if I am not mistaken he is Anglican). Perhaps Spong is up your ally as well.

Why do you confuse Justification and Sanctification?

Do you not think the reader might think that you are trying to play a bit of a game of rhetoric here - trying to take advantage of the all the protestant - catholic division. Why not argue the point itself more (I am not saying you have never argued the issue)?

I dislike Spong intensely (his views, that is)

Perhaps you can tell us precisely how it is that I have confused justification with sanctification? Then I can respond.

Read above - you have complicated the doctrine of justification. The works that you so quickly want to attribute to justification, belong with sanctification.