The Work of Repentance Versus Faith Only

[heymikey80]

Again, I'm at a loss. Circumcision isn't part of the law? It is to Paul.

It is not to Abraham. Paul is asking, "What about the case of Abraham?" in Rom 4:1. Do you think Paul missed that Abraham was pre-Law?

Even given his previous argument to the Galatians?
the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Gal 3:17-18

It's with a great deal of certainty that I can respond, based on Galatians 3: Paul already realizes that in the case of Abraham, the only thing anyone can talk about is a lack of law, not a presence of law.

 

[heymikey80]

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".

Well, to me it shows something much more. Because all the citations refer to wickedness and sinfulness of men. That is, the indictment from the Law isn't, "You haven't kept the law". The indictment Paul is quoting and citing is, "You are condemned as sinful."

That's how the conclusion ramps up at 3:19 to the point of, "every mouth is silenced." The law condemns everyone.

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."

Paul's arguments against the Judaizers emphasize that Abraham was not under law. So it would be quite an issue to think Paul is reintroducing law under Abraham, only to take it away.

And that's what Paul recalls here, "the law brings wrath, but no law -- no offense; that is why it [justification] depends on faith" Rom 4:15-16. Paul builds an argument from law to faith. But in how many verses? Four.

The reference to "law" doesn't appear in between 3:31 and 4:13, because Abraham isn't following a law, and circumcision isn't a reference to law.

We tend to "gentilize" this and other passages, implying that anyone circumcised in Abraham is somehow suspicious due to the Judaizing issue Gentiles must watch out for. But among Jewish converts, Christians, circumcision is pervasive. Paul can't have missed that. And Paul's not opposed to circumcised believers. What Paul is saying in Romans 4:1-12 is that circumcision is not a factor in embracing the faith of Abraham, either. Abe for years was uncircumcised and faithful. But that holds no case regarding the Law, which was 430 years later.

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.

No, I'm not. Why would Abraham even consider his own body? There's one, solitary reason: considering works. And for Paul to bring this up -- why would Paul argue that Abraham considered his own body? There's one, solitary reason: considering works.

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.

There's no reason to consider his body. There's no reason to bring it up in Paul's argument. It's a waste of parchment; unless it's about considering works vs. faith.

 

[heymikey80]

So now you are making my point? Paul is using Abraham as an example of someone who is justified without the law.

I'm not really making your point -- though I can see why you might think so.

My point is that the law is nowhere to be found -- it's not in opposition to the son. It's not the promise made to Abraham: Galatians 3 expands on this point if you want to see Paul answer the issue about law and promise, directly.

But here -- here in Rom 4, you have to find law present at points where in Galatians 3 Paul has already said it's not.

 

[heymikey80]

So to sum up, as I've been involved in a couple of threads ...

No works may be harnessed to empower and pull us into God's salvation. Because once one work intrudes, all work must be perfect to meet God's standard.

But reliance on God -- reliance has never had to be perfect. You can rely imperfectly and frightfully on a helicopter, and it'll still hold you aloft. It's because it's the nature of the helicopter that holds you, not your faith in it. So too with God: you can rely imperfectly and frightfully on God, and He will still sustain you.

The Law was written to describe this perfect work, and it condemns us for not doing these perfect works. And so the Law is intertwined with works. But we're not limiting works to "following the law" -- that would not match the purpose of the Law, nor match the rejection of works that Paul explicitly states.

 

[Deborah13]

So returning the horse is a deed, a work that is a necessary deed or else one is not repentant of his thief and will be lost.

Yet the faith only crowd will say if one's salvation is conditional upon works then he has a works based theology and is trying to earn savlation by returning the horse. They put themselves in the bad position of saying one can keep the stolen horse and still be justified.

We are NOT saved by faith, we are saved by GRACE through faith. And even that faith to be saved is a GIFT from God. We are MADE the righteousness (the gift of righteousness) of God in Christ Jesus. Don't blame us for this, it's our loving Father that did it through His Son. Jesus' WORK at the cross was a finished work. Complete, nada, done, fulfilled.
We are free to be what we are called by God to be. Freed from comdemnation and guilt and fear that is straight from the pit of hell. We are at peace with God.
Self-righteousness is not just doing works that we think will earn us something, it's not just pride, it's thinking that we are so humble and self-sacrificing, or feeling so bad about ourselves that that is what we are focused on. Self is Self no matter what form it takes.

We need to just get over ourselves, except the fact that Jesus did it ALL and that we are suppose to rest in Him and His work in us. Then we find ourselves just trusting Him and being free to love our neighbor and therefore God.

If we could fulfill the law, if just one person could fulfill the law besides Jesus then He died in vain. If I broke one of the 613 Mosaic Laws I have broken them ALL. I wouldn't have time to return the horse I'd be on my knees for days and when I wasn't on my knees I'd be trying to learn the rest of the laws I'd broken. It's a never ending cycle. So no one will be saved by their repentenace and good behavior. Only by grace are we saved.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But reliance on God -- reliance has never had to be perfect. You can rely imperfectly and frightfully on a helicopter, and it'll still hold you aloft. It's because it's the nature of the helicopter that holds you, not your faith in it. So too with God: you can rely imperfectly and frightfully on God, and He will still sustain you.[/COLOR]

This is a good analogy because it illustrates how abandoning the helicopter altogether is when it can no longer hold you aloft in your imperfect reliance on it.

So it is with Christ. Our imperfect faith in Christ displayed in our failures is not what condemns us. It's the sin that signifies the abandonment of Christ altogether that condemns a person.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Only by grace are we saved.

"8...through faith...9 not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV1984)

I honestly don't know how someone could not see this plainly written truth...except that they simply do not understand that the very essence of salvation is having your sin forgiven.

And this hardly means works won't accompany salvation by grace through faith apart from works, as some erroneously think 'apart from works' means. It simply means a person is not saved on the basis of their works, but rather on their faith in the blood of Christ to remove unrighteousness. That's all. James adds an additional truth to this by saying we can know we have this salvation by grace through faith--the faith that saves--by what we do.

 

[dadof10]

So to sum up, as I've been involved in a couple of threads ...

No works may be harnessed to empower and pull us into God's salvation. Because once one work intrudes, all work must be perfect to meet God's standard.

But reliance on God -- reliance has never had to be perfect. You can rely imperfectly and frightfully on a helicopter, and it'll still hold you aloft. It's because it's the nature of the helicopter that holds you, not your faith in it. So too with God: you can rely imperfectly and frightfully on God, and He will still sustain you.

The Law was written to describe this perfect work, and it condemns us for not doing these perfect works. And so the Law is intertwined with works. But we're not limiting works to "following the law" -- that would not match the purpose of the Law, nor match the rejection of works that Paul explicitly states.

I have been busy for a few weeks. I notice you are covering the same subject matter with Drew on another thread. I'll head over there and try to catch up.