The Work of Repentance Versus Faith Only

[Jethro Bodine]

So righteousness is something that has to be done to be righteous...

That is the 'works gospel'.

What you do and rely on to be saved is your righteousness. But the righteousness that comes by faith in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of unrighteousness is the righteousness that comes from God--it's the grace (unmerited favor) of God, a gift we can not boast in or take credit for. That is the righteousness that saves...the righteousness of faith, not the (so called) righteousness of our righteous behavior. That couldn't justify a flea. If I thought it was true that my righteous work could justify me I would not have come to Christ.

You quoted Rom 4:5 and it just so happens I started a thread on that exact verse entitled "The Worker Vs. the Non-worker Who Believes". Take a look at it.

I will.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

That is the 'works gospel'.

What you do and rely on to be saved is your righteousness. But the righteousness that comes by faith in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of unrighteousness is the righteousness that comes from God--it's the grace (unmerited favor) of God, a gift we can not boast in or take credit for. That is the righteousness that saves...the righteousness of faith, not the (so called) righteousness of our righteous behavior. That couldn't justify a flea. If I thought it was true that my righteous work could justify me I would not have come to Christ.



I will.

No one can be saved by doing their own righteousness but by doing God's righteousness (commands). This contrast can be seen clearly in Rom 10:3:

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

Paul says the Jews were lost for they were doing their own righteous and had not submitted (obeyed) the righteousness (commandments) of God.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No one can be saved by doing their own righteousness but by doing God's righteousness (commands). This contrast can be seen clearly in Rom 10:3:

This is a very clever twist on scripture. But it is still the damnable 'works gospel'--the gospel that says you save yourself on the merit of having done righteous things.

'Faith apart from works', as it is properly called, says a person is justified solely on the basis of their faith and trust in Christ's blood to remove sin guilt and be made righteous--righteous work then being the result of the righteousness that comes from having your sins forgiven. It in no way says a person doesn't have to have good works. It's just that the good works that accompany a declaration of righteous by faith are simply not the basis upon which a person is justified (made righteous). Faith in Christ's forgiveness is.

It only makes sense--a person is made righteous by having sin guilt removed, not by doing good things. Forgiveness of sin is the ONLY way a person can become righteous. There is no amount of good work that can make a person righteous before God. But a person who has had their sins forgiven by faith in Christ will do good work--if they have been truly forgiven by God. Their good work being the way we know they have been forgiven.

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

Paul says the Jews were lost for they were doing their own righteous and had not submitted (obeyed) the righteousness (commandments) of God.

How can this be since Paul speaks of a righteousness that comes from God in contrast with the righteousness of law, not equated to it. Paul is speaking about a righteousness that comes from God and which puts an end to the righteousness that comes from keeping the commands of the law (doing righteous things).

2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

How can you even make this argument anyway? Aren't you one that is careful to make the distinction between 'works of the law', and other 'works', when it comes to being justified by your works? But now you are saying it is the keeping of the commands of the law that is the righteousness we have from God. Your argument is confusing.

 

[Butch5]

This is a very clever twist on scripture. But it is still the damnable 'works gospel'--the gospel that says you save yourself on the merit of having done righteous things.

'Faith apart from works', as it is properly called, says a person is justified solely on the basis of their faith and trust in Christ's blood to remove sin guilt--righteous work then being the result of the righteousness that comes from having your sins forgiven. It in no way says a person doesn't have to have good works. It's just that the good works that accompany a declaration of righteous by faith are simply not the basis upon which a person is justified (made righteous). Faith in Christ's forgiveness is. It only makes sense--a person is made righteous by having sin guilt removed, not by doing good things. Forgiveness of sin is the ONLY way a person can become righteous. There is no amount of good work that can make a person righteous before God. But a person who has had their sins forgiven by faith in Christ will do good work.




How can this be since Paul speaks of a righteousness that comes from God in contrast with the righteousness of law, not equated to it. Paul is speaking about a righteous that comes from God and which puts an end to the righteousness that comes from keeping the commands of the law (doing righteous things).

2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

How can you even make this argument anyway? Aren't you one that is careful to make the distinction between 'works of the law', and other 'works', when it comes to being justified by your works? But now you are saying it is the keeping of the commands of the law that is the righteousness we have from God. Your argument is confusing.

I believe it is this statement that is at the source of the confusion. You said,

Paul is speaking about a righteous that comes from God and which puts an end to the righteousness that comes from keeping the commands of the law (doing righteous things).

Keeping the commands of the Mosaic Law does not equate to doing righteous things. While keeping the commands of the Mosaic Law may be righteous things, not all righteous things equate to keeping the Mosaic Law. Paul's argument is specifically geared towards the Mosaic Law not general good deeds or the commands of Christ. Thus the requirement to keep Christ's commands does not counter Paul's argument in anyway at all.

 

[rrowell]

How can this be since Paul speaks of a righteousness that comes from God in contrast with the righteousness of law, not equated to it. Paul is speaking about a righteousness that comes from God and which puts an end to the righteousness that comes from keeping the commands of the law (doing righteous things).

2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

How can you even make this argument anyway? Aren't you one that is careful to make the distinction between 'works of the law', and other 'works', when it comes to being justified by your works? But now you are saying it is the keeping of the commands of the law that is the righteousness we have from God. Your argument is confusing.

In verse 3 Paul is telling them they lost sight of how God provides men to become righteous and were making themselves righteous by works of keeping the Jewish law obeying the traditions of men and not through Christ.

Paul is not putting the law in contrast in verse 4, he is saying if you don't believe the end of the law and that it brought us to Christ, then they did not understand the law from the beginning.

The same thought is expressed here:

Galatians 3:24-25 (KJV)
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The very same faith that requires works:

James 2:17 (KJV)
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

This is a very clever twist on scripture. But it is still the damnable 'works gospel'--the gospel that says you save yourself on the merit of having done righteous things.

'Faith apart from works', as it is properly called, says a person is justified solely on the basis of their faith and trust in Christ's blood to remove sin guilt and be made righteous--righteous work then being the result of the righteousness that comes from having your sins forgiven. It in no way says a person doesn't have to have good works. It's just that the good works that accompany a declaration of righteous by faith are simply not the basis upon which a person is justified (made righteous). Faith in Christ's forgiveness is.

It only makes sense--a person is made righteous by having sin guilt removed, not by doing good things. Forgiveness of sin is the ONLY way a person can become righteous. There is no amount of good work that can make a person righteous before God. But a person who has had their sins forgiven by faith in Christ will do good work--if they have been truly forgiven by God. Their good work being the way we know they have been forgiven.




How can this be since Paul speaks of a righteousness that comes from God in contrast with the righteousness of law, not equated to it. Paul is speaking about a righteousness that comes from God and which puts an end to the righteousness that comes from keeping the commands of the law (doing righteous things).

2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

How can you even make this argument anyway? Aren't you one that is careful to make the distinction between 'works of the law', and other 'works', when it comes to being justified by your works? But now you are saying it is the keeping of the commands of the law that is the righteousness we have from God. Your argument is confusing.

Rom 10:3 is no twist, it's biblical fact. Paul plainly says the Jews were lost for they were going about doing their own righteousness (works of merit) and not submitted to God's righteousness (obedient faith as Abraham).

I never said one is forgiven by God for doing good works but one is forgiven for doing God's righteous commands in believing, repenting, confessing with the mouth and being water baptized for remission of sins. This is what Paul said the Jews would not submit to, as Paul said "they have not all obeyed the gospel".


From reading your post, you seem to think any works a person does automatically means he is trying to earn something. But all works do not earn something for free gifts offered to you can come with conditions and meeting those conditions do not earn you the free gift. Jn 6:27 Jesus said to work for everlasting life which He gives. He gives it so it's free but one must meet the condition of believing Jesus put upon His free gift.

 

[BobE]

I agree that belief is an action therefore belief only is void of action. So believeth and believeth only are two completely different things.

In Lk 13:3,5 Jesus said..nay except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.

John said whosoever that believeth should not perish.

So we have:

Jesus saying repent or perish

John saying believe or perish

Since the bible harmonizes and there is just one way to be saved (not perish) then belief must include repentance whereas belief only would exclude repentance and undermines Jesus' words of Lk 13:3,5.

Yes, I agree with you. The "belief" that embraces forgiveness for sin, without embracing freedom from sin is incomplete.

Sometimes, though, I think semantics can get in the way of mutual understanding. Someone might say, "I have faith in God to keep me from sin." This implies repentance, though the word is never used.

For myself, I'm comfortable with either language, as long as the concept is present. I could say, "I've turned from sin to God in repentance." I could also say, "I've received the righteousness of God by faith." I'd be saying the same thing either way.

I'm aware that I probably do not hold the kind of "faith only" view you would have trouble with. I gather you're thinking of those who say, "as long as I believe, I can live any way I like."

I don't think the Bible teaches that. Paul seems to object to that interpretation of grace quite strongly. Tbh, though, I don't know many people who embrace that kind of thinking--that grace by faith is a license to sin. I'm sure there are some, but I don't happen to know any. More often I see good Christian folks getting tangled up in semantics and philosophy.

Or, I see Christians who began their journey by faith (and repentance), but now feel that they need to keep themselves "unstained by the world" via their own self-righteous conduct. They seem to forget that the righteousness of God--the fruit of the Holy Spirit--is also a gift that comes to us by grace through faith.

 

[dadof10]

Paul uses "works" as a counterpoint term to "faith". This is not the general Greek use of the term "works". He is using it in a special sense. When the word is used in this way -- and not in the conventional Greek sense of just "doing [things]" -- then Paul is using it in a special sense. But it's not about the Mosaic Law.

The why are the terms "works" and "works of the law" used interchangeably by Paul so often? Here is one of many:

"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; 26 it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.
27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. 28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.
31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

In fact, Paul doesn't refer to "works of the law" except in two letters: Romans and Galatians.

Oh, is that all?

If "works-of-law" were meant, the other letters would be largely misunderstood by their recipients. The churches he sends letters to without "works of law" are predominantly in Gentile areas -- multiplying the confusion.

What confusion? Paul lived with these communities and interacted with them. They knew what he meant by the word "works" without him having to add "of the law" to every instance. If you and a friend of yours from your church were talking and you said "in the Bible it says...", he would know by the word "Bible" you mean the 66 books accepted by Protestants. He would probably even know what version you were referring to. You wouldn't have to say "in 66 books I consider inspired, the KJV version of the Bible, published in 1999 it says...". For Paul to use the word "works" with people he was quite familiar with, is not confusing at all.

Paul has another definition, but it's not stated the same way in every letter, leading us to look around for a wider meaning -- not narrower -- of "works" in religion. And we find it in both the Greek and in Jewish theology, the idea that people are absolved of their sins before God by actions done in order to be absolved: whether that takes the form of ritualism, of sacrifice or sacrament, or of doing what God commands, "works" covers them all. In his longest letter Paul objects to them as a "work-for-wages" system of absolution (see Romans 4).

Again, I'm not denying that "works" includes "works-of-law", for the record. Paul uses "works-of-law" as an example. But I'm saying that Paul does not limit "works" to that. In Romans 4 he uses Abraham (pre-law) to illustrate the clear problem with a system of works-for-wages. It is this system, "doing certain things to gain / keep salvation", that Paul objects to.

He uses Abraham as an example of someone who was justified without THE LAW. This is plain from the text.

Yet the Law commands us to believe, the Law commands us to keep its own commandments, the Law commands us to perform charitable acts and even to some extent to sacrifice for one another. The Law covers these points. They are indeed, "works of law". In fact the Ten Commandments are an obvious list of the Mosaic Law. They're what Moses delivered on tablets from Sinai. They're "the Law, the Ten Commandments".

Yet for Paul, your salvation is "not of works" (Ep 2:9). Paul doesn't even mention "works of law" in Ephesians. Why would he've omitted it?

Yet Paul says "you have been saved ... not [out] of works" Ep 2:8-9 It hasn't come from your works, whether they were done in faith or not. No, Paul rather says "you have been saved through faith" Ep 2:8. That is, your salvation has come through your faith, not out of works, and "not out of yourselves". Ep 2:8

Paul has already denied that deeds are salvific at all, not only in Eph 2:8-9, but in 2 Tim 1:9, Titus 3:5, Rom 3:27, Rom 4:5, Rom 9:32, confirmed in Heb 4:10, Heb 9:14.

And therein lies the difference. I don't think Paul is referring to "doing" in its most general Greek way. Paul does scope "works" -- but not specifically by the example of "works-of-law". Paul is specifically calling out and denying any work-for-wages system of salvation. He specifically attacks this in Romans 4:1-5. It's done directly, plainly, openly.

I didn't see the rite of circumcision as salvific. And correspondingly I don't see the rite of baptism as salvific either.

That's an interesting question, but again, I don't think God changing our will constitutes our work. The will makes decisions, but making decisions isn't particularly the work Paul has in view. I think God changes wills, through which He saves people, and works follow. Note the idea of "through faith" not "out of faith". I quoted the Westminster Confession to this effect earlier.

As above, that's not the case. Not only is being baptized a passive action (so not my works), its performance no more saves than circumcision (so not by works).

Hebrews 3-4 is talking about entering God's rest Today, not about the afterlife.

As stated in the citation, the power of Christ's blood is by grace, but through faith. And as stated in the thread, it's salvation through faith because God promises to change hearts of faith; not because God sees faith in people as if it's some kind of work.

I don't have much time lately, so let's assume you are right. That Paul is not really talking about the law except as an example of "work for wages" theology, which is his main point. I'm going to give you two examples of acts you consider non-salvific and you tell me how they fit under the "work for wages" theology.

A baby is given the Grace of being born into a Christian household. He is taken and baptized, which Scripture says "saves you". What did this baby do to merit the salvation that Scripture says he received? How is this an example of "works for wages" salvation?

A person is walking (by Grace) down the street, and he sees (by Grace) a homeless person. He is moved (by Grace) to walk over to him and give him some money (he received by Grace). If it is God that gives this person ALL he has so he can cooperate with this Grace, how is this a "work for wages" non-salvific act?

Paul is referring directly to "works of the law", but also an attitude of putting God in obligation to man by our actions. This would include the ACT of faith, which you mention above is included in "the law". Do you believe, as some do, that God is OBLIGED to save whoever has faith in Jesus?

 

[dadof10]

Hi there Dadof10,

I don't see where you and I are saying anything different.

Just to summarize my thoughts, I believe we receive salvation through faith in Jesus and his work on the cross on our behalf. I believe that we also receive the Holy Spirit who works within us to produce the righteousness of God in our lives.

I see this as a separate process from attempting to merit salvation by keeping the law of the Old Testament, including the observance of rituals like circumcision.

I'm aware that our faith in Christ can be expressed through actions like baptism, taking communion etc. I do not see these actions as "works of the law" to merit salvation. I see them as expressions of our faith.

When I'm kind to a neighbour, for example, this is not a "work of the law" designed to merit salvation. It is "faith expressing itself through love."

When I was baptized it was an expression of my faith that I now belong to Christ, that my old life has passed away, and that a new life for God has begun.

When I take communion it is an expression of my faith that Christ's blood was shed and his body broken for my sins. It's an outward expression and reinforcement of an inner belief.

As James' suggests, my faith and its outward expressions cannot, and should not, be separated.

Does that make sense?

Yes, but certainly we don't do good works EVERY time the opportunity presents itself, and certainly even saved people still sin. So, my question is, does NOT DOING good deeds or SINNING effect our salvation?

 

[heymikey80]

The why are the terms "works" and "works of the law" used interchangeably by Paul so often? Here is one of many:

"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; 26 it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.
27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. 28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.
31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

There're far fewer than you think, and this isn't one of them. This shows there's exactly one instance which itself is arguable, that refers solely to "works".

And really, what Paul is saying here is that if you treat the Law as a works system (or principle), then it fails just as readily as any other works system.

Paul is accurately pointing out that the best works system that could possibly exist is a works system based on the Law from God's Own Voice and Hand.

"if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin" -- Gal 3:21b-22a

Oh, is that all?

What confusion? Paul lived with these communities and interacted with them. They knew what he meant by the word "works" without him having to add "of the law" to every instance. If you and a friend of yours from your church were talking and you said "in the Bible it says...", he would know by the word "Bible" you mean the 66 books accepted by Protestants. He would probably even know what version you were referring to. You wouldn't have to say "in 66 books I consider inspired, the KJV version of the Bible, published in 1999 it says...". For Paul to use the word "works" with people he was quite familiar with, is not confusing at all.

Yes, it is quite confusing. You claim "works of law" is explicitly interchanged with "works" in a lot of instances. Omit Romans and Galatians. Now find one.

Go ahead. Cite them.

As you're beginning to see, even churches where he taught for just a few weeks, they're given the least amount of information about "works".

He uses Abraham as an example of someone who was justified without THE LAW. This is plain from the text.

The text denies this. Paul uses Abraham as an example of someone justified without works. Paul says this explicitly. I already quoted it, but again:

For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, Rom 4:3-5​

Okay, so now you've established quite well the distinction in so many words. Paul's saying it's not working but believing. dadof10's saying it's not law.

I don't have much time lately, so let's assume you are right. That Paul is not really talking about the law except as an example of "work for wages" theology, which is his main point. I'm going to give you two examples of acts you consider non-salvific and you tell me how they fit under the "work for wages" theology.

A baby is given the Grace of being born into a Christian household. He is taken and baptized, which Scripture says "saves you". What did this baby do to merit the salvation that Scripture says he received? How is this an example of "works for wages" salvation?

The work of someone else can certainly involve that person in your salvation. But the fact is, this Scripture itself says it's not the water but the confession of a clean conscience, that's the baptism that saves.

And of course, it's not that confession alone saves either. Peter was clear about the context of this for salvation. Peter's talking about the progress of the Spirit's work in our lives. He's not talking about water washing the baptized. He said so.

A person is walking (by Grace) down the street, and he sees (by Grace) a homeless person. He is moved (by Grace) to walk over to him and give him some money (he received by Grace). If it is God that gives this person ALL he has so he can cooperate with this Grace, how is this a "work for wages" non-salvific act?

Jesus Christ Himself has demanded that not simply the action, but the motivation for the action -- the heart -- is involved in whether an action is righteous or not.

Someone motivated by working in order to gain salvation is not motivated rightly:

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness Rom 4:5

Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. 1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Rom 7:24-8:4

Paul is referring directly to "works of the law", but also an attitude of putting God in obligation to man by our actions. This would include the ACT of faith, which you mention above is included in "the law". Do you believe, as some do, that God is OBLIGED to save whoever has faith in Jesus?

So, Paul is pointing to lawkeeping as not working, because it's a works-for-wages system in Romans 4. Paul is pointing to Christians (in fact, himself as example) as lawbreakers in Romans 7. And Paul is stating that for such Christians serving the law of sin -- there is now no condemnation.

This all fits the Protestant view that through faith Christ saves, and through the Spirit works follow.

 

[dadof10]

There're far fewer than you think, and this isn't one of them. This shows there's exactly one instance which itself is arguable, that refers solely to "works".

One instance in Scripture or in Romans 3 & 4?

Paul spends two whole chapters talking about the MOSAIC LAW before this:

"Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. 28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law."

Paul is contrasting "works" with "faith", then contrasts "faith" with "works of the law". Do you think he means "works of the law" here when he uses the word "works"? If not, I really don't know how much more obvious Paul could make his meaning, or what else I can say. He goes on:

29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.
31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

He is still talking about "the law" here as he was two chapters ago.

"1 What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God."

When the words "therefore" or "what then" are used, it is a clue that the author is CONTINUING THE THOUGHT from what was written previously, which is the contrast of "faith" and "works of the Mosaic Law", specifically circumcision. There is really no other way to interpret the word "works" here except as "works of the law".

And really, what Paul is saying here is that if you treat the Law as a works system (or principle), then it fails just as readily as any other works system.

What if "the law" was NOT treated as a "works system", but as a Grace system? In other words, does our ATTITUDE TOWARD OUR GOOD DEEDS (charity, baptism etc.) make the "system" what it truly is? If we do good deeds with an attitude of thanksgiving instead of an attitude of OBLIGATION, does that negate the "works for wages" system in your mind?

Yes, it is quite confusing. You claim "works of law" is explicitly interchanged with "works" in a lot of instances. Omit Romans and Galatians. Now find one.

Go ahead. Cite them.

You are joking, right? Omit two entire books of GOD BREATHED SCRIPTURE that prove my point, then prove my point? This is absurd because YOU DON'T OMIT THEM FROM YOUR ARGUMENTS, why should I? Are Romans and Galatians less inspired than, say...Philemon? C'mon, Mikey. I'll tell you what, you cite the verses that contrast faith with baptism and charity, and call them "works", and I'll believe they are included in Paul's definition. You can use the entire Bible, all 72 books. You can even use ALL the works of the Early Church Fathers and ALL Christian writings up to 1400 A.D. Go ahead. Cite them. ;)

As you're beginning to see, even churches where he taught for just a few weeks, they're given the least amount of information about "works".

What does the length of time he spent with each community have to do with his use of the word "works"? Are you saying Paul couldn't possibly have become familiar enough with these communities for them to know that he meant "works of the law" by the word "works", yet they knew he meant "a works for wages system of salvation" in those SAME FEW SHORT WEEKS? This can't really be your argument...

The text denies this. Paul uses Abraham as an example of someone justified without works. Paul says this explicitly. I already quoted it, but again:

For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.†4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, Rom 4:3-5​

Yes, without "works" by which he means "works of the Mosaic law", not baptism or charity or keeping the commandments or faith or sacrifice, unless these things are done to put God in OBLIGATION TO MAN. Here are the verses that lead up to the verses you posted, and so add CONTEXT, which I already posted above.

"Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. 28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.
31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

4 1 What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

It is obvious he is contrasting faith with works OF THE LAW, specifically circumcision. Again, I agree that he is IMPLICITLY including the attitude of man putting God in obligation to him (which I think you mean by "works for wages"). I just don't see baptism and charitable giving as examples of this attitude, and Scripture NEVER draws this connection.

Okay, so now you've established quite well the distinction in so many words. Paul's saying it's not working but believing. dadof10's saying it's not law.

???

The work of someone else can certainly involve that person in your salvation. But the fact is, this Scripture itself says it's not the water but the confession of a clean conscience, that's the baptism that saves.

And of course, it's not that confession alone saves either. Peter was clear about the context of this for salvation. Peter's talking about the progress of the Spirit's work in our lives. He's not talking about water washing the baptized. He said so.

Jesus Christ Himself has demanded that not simply the action, but the motivation for the action -- the heart -- is involved in whether an action is righteous or not.

Someone motivated by working in order to gain salvation is not motivated rightly:

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness Rom 4:5

Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. 1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Rom 7:24-8:4

So, Paul is pointing to lawkeeping as not working, because it's a works-for-wages system in Romans 4. Paul is pointing to Christians (in fact, himself as example) as lawbreakers in Romans 7. And Paul is stating that for such Christians serving the law of sin -- there is now no condemnation.

This all fits the Protestant view that through faith Christ saves, and through the Spirit works follow.

I still don't see where my two examples (baptism and charity) fit under your definition of "works for wages". Maybe I'm not being clear enough. Here is an example of what I consider "works for wages" or man putting God in obligation.

A man reads Scripture and comes to the conclusion that to be saved he must "accept Jesus" or "trust in the blood of Christ" or "have faith in Jesus" to be saved and go directly to Heaven upon death. He repents of his former life, says the sinners prayer, accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior, and attempts to change his life. This man has DONE the only thing possible to be saved and (Scripture says) God has promised to save him. Therefore, since God cannot lie and He promised to save anyone who accepts His Son, God is OBLIGED (because of His promise) to take this man directly to Heaven upon death.

This attitude is "works for wages" salvation BECAUSE the man had to perform an ACT in order to MERIT SALVATION. If the man didn't perform this act, he would not be saved, but since he did, God is OBLIGATED to save him. You may not have this attitude, Mikey, but others do, and THIS is the attitude the Pharisees had, this is the mindset Paul was railing against and this is the attitude inherent in "the law". Now it's your turn. I've showed you how your doctrine (well, maybe not yours personally) of sola-fide CAN BE "works for wages", depending on the person's ATTITUDE, now show me how our doctrine of infant baptism with the attitude of GRACE ALONE, for example, is an example of "works for wages" salvation.

 

[heymikey80]

One instance in Scripture or in Romans 3 & 4?

Paul spends two whole chapters talking about the MOSAIC LAW before this:

No, sorry, he doesn't. It's awfully clear that it's only half of chapter 2.

Plus, have you noticed that in Romans 3 Paul uses two phrases: "works of law", yes, it happens there, but also "law of works", contrasting with "law of faith". These are definitely more general than "MOSAIC LAW". They indict not simply Mosaic Law -- but any law of works. To include Christian attempts to make lists of behavior rules, which are simply laws ... of works. "Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law" Rom 3:27-28 So Paul excludes (1) works of law, but also (2) any other law (rule) of works.

Paul isn't always talking about Mosaic Law whenever the word "law" appears. It makes quite a few of his assertions superfluous. Often they become flat-out duplicates of a prior sentence. Parchment is costly. And this is a waste of it. It would not be plausible for him to do this.

So when looking at the differing phraseology, it's quite clear Paul is making a point. A law of works shows that the whole system of work-for-wages is being destroyed. In fact Paul points out, the Law itself destroys it by condemning everyone under sin.

Paul also makes this point explicitly in the only other direct reference to "works of law". "if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." Gal 3:21-22 So here it can't possibly be Mosaic Law on its own: Paul's saying there isn't any law that'd impart life. That'd include every law, it includes any attempt to create a system of work for righteousness. Paul is saying no such system actually imparts life. Not now, not after faith. After all, Paul is talking to Galatians: Christians already.

 

[heymikey80]

You are joking, right? Omit two entire books of GOD BREATHED SCRIPTURE that prove my point, then prove my point? This is absurd because YOU DON'T OMIT THEM FROM YOUR ARGUMENTS, why should I? Are Romans and Galatians less inspired than, say...Philemon? C'mon, Mikey.

So what you're telling me is that Paul intends the Colossians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Ephesians, he intends to confuse them all by not mentioning "works of law", while assailing "works" -- but he hands this idea over to the Galatians and the Romans ... in two sections?

No, I'm not coming on. If you want to make the case that "works" is always "works of law", I think you're done. In seven letters Paul doesn't even use the phrase. In the other two Paul uses them in a restricted context, often shifting out of them to prove his broader point: salvation is not of works. It is for good works; but it is not from works. Once again, that's what Ephesians 2:9-10 actually says. Paul says it, in so many words. I've no reason to object to what Paul says directly. Why would you?

It's much, much more plausible that Paul is making an argument by citing "works of law", and then pressing it into the wider issue, which is works, which is plastered consistently across all his letters.

Otherwise Paul is wagging the dog with a couple of tails in Galatians and Romans.

That's my point. Paul's argument is limited by the very obvious fact that he limited his own argument to a couple of paragraphs. Even there, as I pointed out above, Paul is stating the situation much more generally even when he is granting the MOSAIC LAW as the BEST description of commands REGARDING GOOD WORKS encompassing good attitude, good behavior, good submission, and good religion. The MOSAIC LAW is all these things. And Paul is saying "God's best law is not enough to save you. Don't look for any other work-for-wages system to replace it, it doesn't exist."

 

[heymikey80]

What does the length of time he spent with each community have to do with his use of the word "works"? Are you saying Paul couldn't possibly have become familiar enough with these communities for them to know that he meant "works of the law" by the word "works", yet they knew he meant "a works for wages system of salvation" in those SAME FEW SHORT WEEKS? This can't really be your argument...

The assumption that working justly returns a wage is a lot more prevalent to the ancient mind than the assumption that works includes law, and thus Mosaic Law. "This can't really be your argument ..."

4 1 What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

It is obvious he is contrasting faith with works OF THE LAW, specifically circumcision. Again, I agree that he is IMPLICITLY including the attitude of man putting God in obligation to him (which I think you mean by "works for wages"). I just don't see baptism and charitable giving as examples of this attitude, and Scripture NEVER draws this connection.

Wow. David, too? I mean, David's cited, isn't he.

No, clearly Paul shifts to the issue of circumcision again after 4:6. Paul's including it among all other possible "good works".

I still don't see where my two examples (baptism and charity) fit under your definition of "works for wages".

Even after making such an argument that in Abraham Paul is talking about the sacrament of circumcision, you still don't see how it applies to baptism? Okay: circumcision is a sacrament. Baptism is a sacrament. If circumcision is excluded -- then so is baptism.

That's awfully clear.

Second, the MOSAIC LAW says, "Love God with all; Love your neighbor as yourself". In fact all the law and the prophets hang on these two laws of charity (that is, agapae as defined in Greek). So if we're talking about works of law, then we're done here. The MOSAIC LAW commanded it, and with the MOSAIC LAW excluded, we're done here.

The MOSAIC LAW is one of the best descriptions of good works. Judaism is in modern times based on mitzvahs, that is, "good works" done as God's representative. They are either commended or commanded in the Law or the Prophets.

I wish that were more concerning to Christians today. Christianity doesn't work on the Judaic system. Paul objected to Judaic theology on these points. And he was objecting to this system of "good works" just as surely as he was objecting to sacraments of circumcision as Judaizing requirements for being saved, as well.

 

[dadof10]

No, sorry, he doesn't. ["spend two whole chapters talking about the MOSAIC LAW before this"] It's awfully clear that it's only half of chapter 2.

He starts in 2:12 "All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law."

He then goes on to mention "the law" 26 more times before the start of chapter 4, nine times in Chapter three alone. If he's not talking about the Mosaic law, what does he mean by "law" outside of "half of chapter 2"?

Plus, have you noticed that in Romans 3 Paul uses two phrases: "works of law", yes, it happens there, but also "law of works", contrasting with "law of faith".

He is telling his readers why boasting is excluded, on the "law of faith".

"Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith".

Boasting is excluded by the "law of faith", not the "law of works". Certainly there is a contrast, but it is specifically to rule out boasting not to "broaden" Paul's meaning of the word "works". If this were the case, why would he go on to say:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law."

If he had just made the case that now there is a new definition of the word "works", why did he go right back to using the term he had used for TWO CHAPTERS BEFORE that meant "works of the law"? He then goes on:

"Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.
31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."

Again, I don't know how much clearer it could be.

These are definitely more general than "MOSAIC LAW". They indict not simply Mosaic Law -- but any law of works. To include Christian attempts to make lists of behavior rules, which are simply laws ... of works. "Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law" Rom 3:27-28 So Paul excludes (1) works of law, but also (2) any other law (rule) of works. Paul isn't always talking about Mosaic Law whenever the word "law" appears. It makes quite a few of his assertions superfluous. Often they become flat-out duplicates of a prior sentence. Parchment is costly. And this is a waste of it. It would not be plausible for him to do this.

So when looking at the differing phraseology, it's quite clear Paul is making a point. A law of works shows that the whole system of work-for-wages is being destroyed. In fact Paul points out, the Law itself destroys it by condemning everyone under sin.

Paul also makes this point explicitly in the only other direct reference to "works of law". "if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." Gal 3:21-22 So here it can't possibly be Mosaic Law on its own: Paul's saying there isn't any law that'd impart life. That'd include every law, it includes any attempt to create a system of work for righteousness. Paul is saying no such system actually imparts life. Not now, not after faith. After all, Paul is talking to Galatians: Christians already.

Here is what I wrote in my last post:

Again, I agree that he is IMPLICITLY including the attitude of man putting God in obligation to him (which I think you mean by "works for wages"). I just don't see baptism and charitable giving as examples of this attitude, and Scripture NEVER draws this connection.

I then gave the example of the man who "accepts Jesus" and thinks God is OBLIGATED to save him.

My point is, any action CAN be "works for wages", EVEN FAITH, if the ATTITUDE of the man is one of God being OBLIGATED to the man because of something he does.

So, for the sake of argument (and brevity), suppose you are right. Paul is using the example of "works of the law" to drive home his larger point, that ANY "works for wages system" is contrary to true Christian doctrine. Can you please show me how infant baptism and TRUE CHRISTIAN charity fall under this system? I have given an example of a person who is laboring under a "works for wages" system. Let me start you out:

Infant baptism is a "works for wages" act because...

True Christian charitable works are "works for wages" acts because...

 

[dadof10]

So what you're telling me is that Paul intends the Colossians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Ephesians, he intends to confuse them all by not mentioning "works of law", while assailing "works" -- but he hands this idea over to the Galatians and the Romans ... in two sections?

Are you saying that "Colossians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Ephesians" ALL know that Paul means "ANY works for wages system" when he uses the word "works"? How did they get that idea? Chapter and verse, please. And remember, "works"="any works for wages system" MUST be stated within the text of EACH of these letters for you to remain consistent?

No, I'm not coming on. If you want to make the case that "works" is always "works of law", I think you're done. In seven letters Paul doesn't even use the phrase.

So, were counting now? How many times and in how many letters, does he use the term "works for wages"?

In the other two Paul uses them in a restricted context, often shifting out of them to prove his broader point: salvation is not of works. It is for good works; but it is not from works. Once again, that's what Ephesians 2:9-10 actually says. Paul says it, in so many words. I've no reason to object to what Paul says directly. Why would you?

Please...I don't "object" to Paul's words, because by "works" in Ephesians 2 he means "works of the law". If you disagree, and think he means "any works for wages system" here, please prove it USING THE CONTEXT OF EPHESIANS. Let me show you what I mean:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God -- 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands -- 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end."

Hummm....I don't see any mention of a "works for wages system", only the contrast of faith with CIRCUMCISION. Again Paul brings "the law" back into the conversation, yet not any mention of a "works for wages system". If you want to "broaden" the context here, go ahead. Just show me where PAUL broadens the context HERE.

It's much, much more plausible that Paul is making an argument by citing "works of law", and then pressing it into the wider issue, which is works, which is plastered consistently across all his letters.

Nice try. You have to PROVE that when Paul uses the word "works" he means a "works for wages system", you can't just say "the wider issue is works" and assume it means "works for wages". This has to be proved. Can you? Remember, it has to be in EVERY LETTER for it to be valid proof, at least according to your rules.

Otherwise Paul is wagging the dog with a couple of tails in Galatians and Romans.

Again, why isn't this enough for you? How many dogs does the "work for wages system" wag?

That's my point. Paul's argument is limited by the very obvious fact that he limited his own argument to a couple of paragraphs. Even there, as I pointed out above, Paul is stating the situation much more generally even when he is granting the MOSAIC LAW as the BEST description of commands REGARDING GOOD WORKS encompassing good attitude, good behavior, good submission, and good religion. The MOSAIC LAW is all these things. And Paul is saying "God's best law is not enough to save you. Don't look for any other work-for-wages system to replace it, it doesn't exist."

Again, I agree with the red above. How are baptism and charity examples of "works for wages" if the man realizes that GRACE ALONE SAVES?

 

[dadof10]

The assumption that working justly returns a wage is a lot more prevalent to the ancient mind than the assumption that works includes law, and thus Mosaic Law. "This can't really be your argument ..."

Where did you get this idea? Please prove that your idea is "a lot more prevalent to the ancient mind" than mine.

Wow. David, too? I mean, David's cited, isn't he.

No, David is not "cited" as someone who is justified apart from the law, like Abraham. David is cited as someone who "pronounced a blessing" on someone who was not under the law.

What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 4 Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. 5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. 6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin."

Again, nice try.

No, clearly Paul shifts to the issue of circumcision again after 4:6. Paul's including it among all other possible "good works".

Well, let's see...

"Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, 12 and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised."

Nope, no mention of "other works", only circumcision. What about after this. What does he "shift" to.

"The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. 16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants -- not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all,
17 as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations" -- in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist."

The BROADER SUBJECT OF THE LAW. Still no mention of other works. Maybe you can find it, I sure can't.

Even after making such an argument that in Abraham Paul is talking about the sacrament of circumcision, you still don't see how it applies to baptism? Okay: circumcision is a sacrament. Baptism is a sacrament. If circumcision is excluded -- then so is baptism.

That's awfully clear.

Where is circumcision called a "sacrament"? Where is baptism tied to "works"?

Second, the MOSAIC LAW says, "Love God with all; Love your neighbor as yourself". In fact all the law and the prophets hang on these two laws of charity (that is, agapae as defined in Greek). So if we're talking about works of law, then we're done here. The MOSAIC LAW commanded it, and with the MOSAIC LAW excluded, we're done here.

It's obvious that Paul doesn't include EVERY ASPECT of "the law" within his definition then, right? He excludes faith in God, which you admit is a part of the law. I'm not making the claim that EVERYTHING mentioned in the law is included within Paul's definition of "works". Again, only those ACTIONS WHICH PUT GOD IN OBLIGATION TO MAN (especially circumcision), which excludes faith, love, charity, BAPTISM, etc.

The MOSAIC LAW is one of the best descriptions of good works. Judaism is in modern times based on mitzvahs, that is, "good works" done as God's representative. They are either commended or commanded in the Law or the Prophets.

That doesn't mean every good work was included in Paul's definition.

I wish that were more concerning to Christians today. Christianity doesn't work on the Judaic system. Paul objected to Judaic theology on these points. And he was objecting to this system of "good works" just as surely as he was objecting to sacraments of circumcision as Judaizing requirements for being saved, as well.

He was objecting to the view that the Jews were saved by performance of "the law", specifically circumcision. He was not objecting to salvation by lifelong obedience to God through faith. He is NOT objecting to the salvific nature of baptism or charity. This is my "system" of salvation and is not a "works for wages" system.

 

[heymikey80]

Where did you get this idea? Please prove that your idea is "a lot more prevalent to the ancient mind" than mine.

You're kidding, right?

Ancient Rome precedes its takeover of Palestine:

http://www.mariamilani.com/ancient_rome/ancient_roman_jobs.htm

Note how people are paid wages for doing work. The principle is quite clear.

How about Egypt?

http://www.riverschool.org/students/work/culture.e.econ.htm

The concept of working for wages far precedes any Christian idea of the medieval period that "work" means "good works according to law".

No, David is not "cited" as someone who is justified apart from the law, like Abraham. David is cited as someone who "pronounced a blessing" on someone who was not under the law.

So you're saying David was not blessed as being not under law -- yet Paul's saying everyone under the law is condemned by it, thus to include David (Rom 3:19). So -- David's in Hell?

"Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, 12 and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised."

Nope, no mention of "other works", only circumcision. What about after this. What does he "shift" to.

"circumcision" isn't part of the Law -- because nothing is part of the Law when Abraham is commanded to be circumcised.

But hey, "nice try".

"The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. 16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants -- not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all,
17 as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations" -- in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist."

The BROADER SUBJECT OF THE LAW. Still no mention of other works. Maybe you can find it, I sure can't.

Paul shifts from circumcision to law, addressing another possible excuse to keep Judaism: maybe it's not circumcision itself, maybe it's keeping the works of the law that's important. He answers it in a couple of sentences. It's not Paul's main point! Here Paul then returns to his basic prior response in Romans 3:9-19, that the law condemns everyone.

But Paul sums up the issue once again by referring back to the lack of works -- here's aging Abe, someone who can't do works, yet he grows ever stronger in faith: He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. 20 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” Rom 4:19-22

Y'catch that? If it were works, Abe should've kept his body going to assure the promise of God would be fulfilled. But Abe realized (1) his body wasn't capable of doing this work, and (2) God was more and more to be relied-on to do this work.

Abe's reliance -- that is, Abe's faith -- in God's promise counted him righteous.

Now in this case the promise wasn't anything in the Law: it was a promise of a son.

So too in our case the promise wasn't anything in the Law: it was a promise of a Son.

But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. Rom 4:23-25

 

[dadof10]

You're kidding, right?

Ancient Rome precedes its takeover of Palestine:

http://www.mariamilani.com/ancient_rome/ancient_roman_jobs.htm

Note how people are paid wages for doing work. The principle is quite clear.

How about Egypt?

http://www.riverschool.org/students/work/culture.e.econ.htm

The concept of working for wages far precedes any Christian idea of the medieval period that "work" means "good works according to law".

Humm...Yep. I think you're right on this one. I assumed you meant to the ancient Jewish mind, not the known ancient world.

So you're saying David was not blessed as being not under law -- yet Paul's saying everyone under the law is condemned by it, thus to include David (Rom 3:19). So -- David's in Hell?

: David is not mentioned in 3:19. I said, commenting on Rom 4:1:

"It is obvious he is contrasting faith with works OF THE LAW, specifically circumcision. Again, I agree that he is IMPLICITLY including the attitude of man putting God in obligation to him (which I think you mean by "works for wages"). I just don't see baptism and charitable giving as examples of this attitude, and Scripture NEVER draws this connection."

You responded:

"Wow. David, too? I mean, David's cited, isn't he."

I assume you are referring to Rom. 4:6-9 where David is mentioned by name:

"So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin."
9 Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised?

David is not being cited for anything here except for pronouncing a blessing on "the man" who is not circumcised. This has nothing to do with the state of David's soul. Paul only brings him up because David thought it appropriate that a blessing COULD BE GIVEN to an uncircumcised person. I don't understand your point here. How does the fact that David is mentioned bolster your case that the "works" in Rom 4:2 means "a works for wages system"?

"circumcision" isn't part of the Law -- because nothing is part of the Law when Abraham is commanded to be circumcised.

Again, I'm at a loss. Circumcision isn't part of the law? It is to Paul. Again, Paul's letters weren't written in a vacuum. Much in his letters, especially the "faith v. works" passages, were written in reaction to the "Judaizers" who "were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1) Abraham is cited here as someone who is justified BEFORE circumcision, therefore circumcision is not necessary for salvation.

Paul shifts from circumcision to law, addressing another possible excuse to keep Judaism: maybe it's not circumcision itself, maybe it's keeping the works of the law that's important. He answers it in a couple of sentences. It's not Paul's main point! Here Paul then returns to his basic prior response in Romans 3:9-19, that the law condemns everyone.

First of all, Rom. 3:9-19 shows ALL have sinned, even the Jews, who thought they were above sin because they kept the LAW.

"What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin".

Secondly, even if I granted the point that these verses say "the law condemns everyone", where does he return to this point here? Granted, it's taught elsewhere, but not here as part of a "broader" point. Do you mean in Rom. 4:15? "For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression."

But Paul sums up the issue once again by referring back to the lack of works -- here's aging Abe, someone who can't do works, yet he grows ever stronger in faith: He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. 20 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.†Rom 4:19-22

Y'catch that? If it were works, Abe should've kept his body going to assure the promise of God would be fulfilled. But Abe realized (1) his body wasn't capable of doing this work, and (2) God was more and more to be relied-on to do this work.

This is a reference to Abraham's faith that God would give him a son, even though Sarah was barren. This has nothing to do with "aging Abe's" works. Again, you are ignoring context. The verses IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THOSE YOU POSTED:

Rom. 4:16-18: "That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants -- not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all,
17 as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations" -- in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. 18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations; as he had been told, "So shall your descendants be."

So, in answer to your question, no, I didn't "catch that". You are really reaching.

Abe's reliance -- that is, Abe's faith -- in God's promise counted him righteous.

Right, it wasn't because he was circumcised. This is Paul's point in reaction to the "Judaizers".

Now in this case the promise wasn't anything in the Law: it was a promise of a son.

So too in our case the promise wasn't anything in the Law: it was a promise of a Son.

So now you are making my point? Paul is using Abraham as an example of someone who is justified without the law. When Paul constructs a "faith v. works" scenario, he is not including ALL DEEDS within this scenario, only works of the law. I'll ask again, where is baptism tied to "works"? Where is Christian charity? Where is circumcision called a "sacrament", as you posted previously?

Will another post be forthcoming addressing your point that if Paul meant "works of the law" by the word "works" he would have used the term in Colossians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Corinthians and Ephesians? That, in these letters, he means a "works for wages system"?

 

[heymikey80]

Humm...Yep. I think you're right on this one. I assumed you meant to the ancient Jewish mind, not the known ancient world.

I think they're connected, yes.

: David is not mentioned in 3:19. I said, commenting on Rom 4:1:

"It is obvious he is contrasting faith with works OF THE LAW, specifically circumcision. Again, I agree that he is IMPLICITLY including the attitude of man putting God in obligation to him (which I think you mean by "works for wages"). I just don't see baptism and charitable giving as examples of this attitude, and Scripture NEVER draws this connection."

You responded:

"Wow. David, too? I mean, David's cited, isn't he."

I assume you are referring to Rom. 4:6-9 where David is mentioned by name:

"So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin."
9 Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised?

Here's the problem I've tried to identify: David's not talking about "iniquities and sins" as if they are avoiding circumcision. David is talking about real iniquities and sins. What's more, the Psalm is referring first-personally to David's iniquities and sins.

I think I've made a mish-mash of the argument, so we might go on. But ... take the citation directly, and Paul's not talking about uncircumcision. David's circumcised.

In fact, Paul would not ask the question in 4:9 if he expected us to think of this as uncircumcision.

Paul is talking generally about works and faith as requisites to salvation. He's not talking specifically about works-of-law, Abraham excludes the law stuff, and he's not talking specifically about circumcision, David's citation, example of himself, the audience of Psalms (all being circumcised) and reference to sin and iniquity, all rail against this limited view of David's citation.