The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

[Drew]

Well, I appreciate you bringing up this argument.

Gal 3:11-12 -- 'Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.†12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.â€'

It's exactly what Paul means by it. Paul is clearly saying the law doesn't justify people before God, and that the law is an attempt at righteousness of works, while the only righteousness before God is of faith.

I suggest this is not Paul's argument and this text does not force one to such a conclusion.

I suggest, instead that Paul's argument is not one where justification by 'good works' is being denied, but rather where 'justification by the ethnic specificity of the Law of Moses" is being denied.

Huge, fundamental difference. And the Galatians texts, as an isolated item, is consistent with both. So you still have some work to do.

I have made my case - in the other thread where a contextual argument shows that Paul is indeed denying 'justification by the ethnic specificity of the Law of Moses.

I suggest that you tried to respond to that argument by pre-emptively denying the mere possiblity that 'works' in Eph 2:9 denoted the works of the Law of Moses. But I suggest you have no grounds for such a move.

 

[heymikey80]

Of course he did not lie. But you have not really addressed the problem - you have concluded (somehow) that this rebuke is directed to all humanity, and then leveraged that to argue that there are zero people in the category of those who get eternal life in accordance with good works.

I have addressed the problem.

Rom 3:9 -- "we've previously charged ..." You're trying to conclude Paul didn't previously say this! Sorry, doesn't wash. Paul said he had said it.

Rom 3:19-20 -- "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." Paul says it himself. Nobody qualifies. Everyone is a sinner and subject to the condemnation of Rom 2:5, Rom 2:12, Rom 3:9-20.

I've said this a number of different ways, before. It would probably be a good idea to understand what I'm saying before denying the fact that I said it; that Paul said it; that it's Scripture; and therefore, it's the truth and not your view of it.

And yet I suggest it is clear that the 2:2 and 2:5 remarks are not addressed to all, but rather to an hypothetical hypocrite.

As Paul said in Romans 3:9,19 he didn't miss anybody.

On precisely what basis you conclude that all human beings fall into this category?

As Paul said in Romans 3:9,19 he didn't miss anybody.

If you could make your case re :2:2 and 2:5, then you would have an argument.

As Paul said in Romans 3:9,19 he didn't miss anybody.

I doubt anyone else has missed this point.

 

[heymikey80]

That was not my point. Even if you can make the case that 2:5 is direceted at all humans, and I very much doubt you can, you still have the challenging task of explaining why Paul would say that people will get eternal life according to what they have done, while believing that zero people will pass this criterion.

It is the common theology of his day. In fact it's the common pagan theology of the day as well, which itself has become vacuous, superficial religious activity. Pagans had begun to realize the lack of truth in their pantheon though, and this led them to toss works quickly as vacuous.

But -- as I have cited before, I will do so again -- Here's the issue: "30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works." Rom 9:30-32

Paul's honest with us: pursuing righteousness "as if it were based on works" is the cause of Judaic error. Plain. Simple. Wrong.

And when you look back at the Judaism Paul was addressing, you don't see an absence of faith; you don't see an absence of grace; what you do see is a requirement, a presence of works.

So what is Paul objecting to?

As argued already, competent people do not make such statements - they are either misleading, deceptive, or simply odd and inappropriate.

As argued already, God did exactly this with the Mosaic Law. In fact He did so more than once, and Paul repeated it more than once.

 

[heymikey80]

Well, I appreciate you bringing up this argument.

Gal 3:11-12 -- 'Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.†12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.â€'

It's exactly what Paul means by it. Paul is clearly saying the law doesn't justify people before God, and that the law is an attempt at righteousness of works, while the only righteousness before God is of faith.

I suggest this is not Paul's argument and this text does not force one to such a conclusion.

I suggest, instead that Paul's argument is not one where justification by 'good works' is being denied, but rather where 'justification by the ethnic specificity of the Law of Moses" is being denied.

That's an interesting suggestion. But Paul is stating the group he's talking about -- "the one who does them". That's doing the law -- working.

Huge, fundamental difference. And the Galatians texts, as an isolated item, is consistent with both. So you still have some work to do.

As Paul defines the group he's talking about -- "the one who does them" -- my work is complete. It's "the one who does them", not "the one physically descended from Abraham".

I have made my case - in the other thread where a contextual argument shows that Paul is indeed denying 'justification by the ethnic specificity of the Law of Moses.

Of course Paul is also denying ethnic descent. But to miss that Paul is also denying works is to miss what Paul actually says -- "the one who does them", not "the one descended from Abraham".

I suggest that you tried to respond to that argument by pre-emptively denying the mere possiblity that 'works' in Eph 2:9 denoted the works of the Law of Moses. But I suggest you have no grounds for such a move.

I suggest you take a look. I've made multiple arguments why "works" isn't "works of the law of Moses", your arguments are simply a rhetorical sweep, preferring instead to drag a tenuous conclusion by wiring Eph 2:9 directly to Eph 2:15. It's a short circuit, and it is not born out by any form of exegesis. You can't even come up with one place where "works" with no qualifier unmistakenly means "law" to Paul.

I can come up with quite a few places where "works" with no qualifier doesn't mean "of law" to Paul. Rom 9:11. Rom 9:32. Rom 11:6. 2 Cor 12:12. Titus 1:16. And that's Paul's word use. So it's clear Paul knows the word doesn't imply "of law". It simply doesn't.

 

[Drew]

You can't even come up with one place where "works" with no qualifier unmistakenly means "law" to Paul.

I have come up with one: Ephesians 2:9: the context shows that the unqualified term 'works' indeed denotes the works of the Law of Moses. You, however, use the patently circular argument that I need to provide another case of the very same thing. If I did so, I am quite confident you would deploy the same strategy: not deal with the strength of the contextual argument and pre-emptively "disallow" me from making my cases by, among other things, insisting that I need to provide another example. Surely you see the problem with this.

Look: Any argument that an unqualified use of 'works' denotes the works of the Law of Moses will need to appeal to context. That's the nature of the case. If the term is unqualified, you have no choice but to refer to context. But if I do that, you will either pre-emptively dismiss the mere possibility of a 'works of the law of Moses" reading and / or insist on another example. You have created a scenario where all legitimate arguments against your view are ruled out of order before the case can be made.

But, in any event, I will give you another example: Romans 9:11

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls

In context, 'works' here means 'works of the Law of Moses', and I plan to make that case. But I can predict what will happen:

1. The force of my contextual argument will be ignored;

2. You will attempt various maneuvers to pre-empt the context argument by insisting that the thing I am trying to make a case for is simply not possible - this is what you did in relation to the Eph 2 argument;

3. You will insist that I provide another example of the use of an unqualified 'works' as denoting the works of the Law of Moses (as you did for the Eph 2 argument).

So I will make the case about Romans 9 later, and we will see how you respond. Perhaps my cynical expectations will turn out to be mistaken.

 

[heymikey80]

I have come up with one: Ephesians 2:9: the context shows that the unqualified term 'works' indeed denotes the works of the Law of Moses.

As demonstrated, it doesn't carry the day for you. Appealing to an allusion 6 verses later to demand that Paul must be talkin' law, is not the case. I've pointed out how exactly the same grammar conditions would make Jesus the Devil if I accepted your reasoning.

I wouldn't make it hard, if it weren't hard for you to establish the case. But that's essentially the problem, isn't it. When Paul means "works of law", he says "works of law". That's simply the way Paul uses language.

You, however, use the patently circular argument that I need to provide another case of the very same thing.

No. you need to have at least one of Paul's uses on which there is agreement.

I've found a number of cases on which there is agreement with me. But you don't have a single case where it's admitted Paul shortens "works of law" down to "works".

 

[heymikey80]

But, in any event, I will give you another example: Romans 9:11

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls

In context, 'works' here means 'works of the Law of Moses', and I plan to make that case. But I can predict what will happen:

1. The force of my contextual argument will be ignored;

2. You will attempt various maneuvers to pre-empt the context argument by insisting that the thing I am trying to make a case for is simply not possible - this is what you did in relation to the Eph 2 argument;

3. You will insist that I provide another example of the use of an unqualified 'works' as denoting the works of the Law of Moses (as you did for the Eph 2 argument).

So I will make the case about Romans 9 later, and we will see how you respond. Perhaps my cynical expectations will turn out to be mistaken.

Without a context of law it makes it rather hard to establish Rom 9:11 refers to the law of Moses. Once again the sole reference to law here is embedded in a list of covenant privileges of the Jewish people.

And Abraham never had a law to work.

Finally, further outside the immediate context, Paul reverses the reference. Rom 9:32 refers to "law of works", not "works of law". In other words, law is invalidated because it's based on works; not vice versa.

Look, it's not an impossible wall to climb. If there were such a connection as say between faith and grace, or the numerous contrasts of faith and law Paul expresses, I'd have no trouble with your argument -- though it'd be strengthened, but not vacating of my argument.

And I'm still waiting on someone to supply such a verse.

It's clear that Paul uses "works" to talk about actions that God evaluates, as being right or wrong. It's also clear that Paul considers Mosaic Law the highest form of evaluation. If we had agreed on those two tenets I might see another way of establishing what you're saying. When all works are morally evaluated, the same conclusions are reached. And to expect God to ignore works and not redeem them seems a poor argument.

So in the wider sense I wouldn't even have the objection, once the realization appears that the Law was given by God, and God does not distinguish good works from the works the Law intended to produce.

But none of that matters, once the Law is torn from its moorings in the Spirit of God. From that point onward, it's really clear what Paul is saying, because he's saying it to Gentiles in Eph 2. No need to specify Law, because it's only a part of the works that God judges. And it would be shallow to expect God only to judge some works and not others, for their moral value.

 

[Drew]

As demonstrated, it doesn't carry the day for you. Appealing to an allusion 6 verses later to demand that Paul must be talkin' law, is not the case. I've pointed out how exactly the same grammar conditions would make Jesus the Devil if I accepted your reasoning.

I do not know how to deal with this. We clearly do not agree on some very basic notions about what constitutes a strong contextual case. And that is not something we can make progress on without a ridiculous investment of time.

When people have such foundational differences in how they think, a forum like this is not the place to deal with that.

So I will continue to post, having faith that other posters, at least, consider my context argument to be compelling.

And I am likewise quite certain that the contextual case for the 'works' reference being an allusion to 'works of the Law of Moses" in Romans 9 is overwhelming. And I suspect you will simply deny this. Where can we go from there?

With respect to Ephesians 2, I have made the case that 'works' in verse 9 must be the works of the Law of Moses. OF course it is possible that it means something else, and that Paul has mistakenly given us overwhelmingly obvious contextual reasons to believe he is talking about the Law of Moses. I cannot "prove" my point beyond any doubt, only reasonable doubt I cannot "force" you to accept what I see as obvious, and you cannot force me to do likewise.

The key question we each have to ask ourselves: are we so wedded to our position that we have lost our ability to objectively consider counterarguments. Again, we both need to ask ourselves this question.

 

[heymikey80]

Of course the other issue is that asserting that your view is the only reasonable view, that your view is the only competent response ... tends to show a certain walling-off prejudice in favor of your view.

It's quite normal to be attached to your own view. It's quite another to be so attached that there's no examination of the other view, on the thought-ending assessments that it's reasonable and competent, and that those arguing otherwise are therefore not arguing such things.

 

[Drew]

Of course the other issue is that asserting that your view is the only reasonable view, that your view is the only competent response ... tends to show a certain walling-off prejudice in favor of your view.

It's quite normal to be attached to your own view. It's quite another to be so attached that there's no examination of the other view, on the thought-ending assessments that it's reasonable and competent, and that those arguing otherwise are therefore not arguing such things.

I am obviously aware that I cannot simply assert that my view is reasonable.

I have made my case, I believe it is reasonable, nay overwhelming. You do not agree.

This is, of course, not a scenario where I have simply asserted a view - I have argued the point in grisly detail.

True: I cannot "prove" my position is correct. But I believe I have done as much as I can do. Having said that, I will try other lines of argument. Not because I believe you will ultimately agree, but because I have faith in the collective wisdom of the church as whole to ultimately make the right choices when presented with sound arguments, even if people like you or me (or both of us) have lost the ability to examine matters objectively.

 

[smaller]

Of course the other issue is that asserting that your view is the only reasonable view, that your view is the only competent response ... tends to show a certain walling-off prejudice in favor of your view.

It's quite normal to be attached to your own view. It's quite another to be so attached that there's no examination of the other view, on the thought-ending assessments that it's reasonable and competent, and that those arguing otherwise are therefore not arguing such things.

It's a repeated engagement. The Law of Moses in some eyes is only as 'they' see and define same.

In essence it's an argument that that particular slant is the only slant on that matter and there are no other ways to see it.

And on that basis, a person is locked into their own dissection as thee only way to see it.

It's not thee only way to see it. Never is.

There is in fact A LOT to see and a LOT to handle in Gods Words. That is what keeps us fascinated for our lifetimes with His Word.

When any handler says they have the whole box, it is in fact an immediate sign of issues. They are only involved in their own subjective reflections, commanding that others must see only as they see. It's a very common problem in the world of theology.

The best will step out of their own theology boxes and enjoy themselves in the experience.

The fact will remain that we all see only in part. Therefore domination is eliminated in favor of The Greater and in the humbleness of our own limited reflections.

s

 

[heymikey80]

I am obviously aware that I cannot simply assert that my view is reasonable.

I have made my case, I believe it is reasonable, nay overwhelming. You do not agree.

And I've made my case, which I consider to be numerous unanswered points which challenges your understanding of "overwhelming", and points out yours is certainly not the only reasonable, competent handling of the data.

The paucity of information supporting primary assertion -- that "works" in Paul means "works of law" -- leads me to conclude Paul doesn't mean more by "works" than "works".

And actually when Paul says "works" he could well generally mean "works". Because that's what he said. Plain interpretation is easier to justify -- because it's plainly in the text.

 

[heymikey80]

It's not thee only way to see it. Never is.

There is in fact A LOT to see and a LOT to handle in Gods Words. That is what keeps us fascinated for our lifetimes with His Word.

When any handler says they have the whole box, it is in fact an immediate sign of issues. They are only involved in their own subjective reflections, commanding that others must see only as they see. It's a very common problem in the world of theology.

The best will step out of their own theology boxes and enjoy themselves in the experience.

The fact will remain that we all see only in part. Therefore domination is eliminated in favor of The Greater and in the humbleness of our own limited reflections.

Yes, that's been my experience. Learning more about what Scripture is actually saying has been an eye opener to me multiple times, not least on this issue.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Oh, I've provided plenty.

You're saying a judge is obeying a defendant just to listen to his case.

You're saying answering the door is obeying.

You're saying a word with a base meaning of "hear" is actually a base meaning of "do".

It's not true.

What it means is credulously hearing the speaker.

So what would that make your problem? Neglect of the argument?

God told Abraham to leave his land, kindred and house. If obeying is just hearing then what do you call Abraham's packing and leaving? His packing and leaving was as just as much obedience as his hearing what God told him to do. If Abraham had not left he would not have had neither an obedient hearing or obedient action. Many people can read the bible and hear what God has said to them through His word yet if they do not do what God said, have they obediently heard what God has said? No, they remain lost for without DOING what they heard/read they remain in disobedience.

Mt 7:24 "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:"

Mt 7:26 " And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:"


Hearing then requires doing for if Abraham had heard without doing he would be liken unto a disobedient foolish man.

Hearing without doing = disobedience.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Let me try this angle. If, repeat if, Paul had written this:

6God “will repay each person according to what they have believed.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

....then you could at least argue that the "persistence in doing good" is not the fundamental basis on which eternal life is granted. You could say that this "persistence in doing good" is a property manifested by those who are justified on other grounds, namely belief. That would be an odd and misleading way to make the point, but it is at least plausible.

But, of course, Paul did not say this. He said what he said!!! You are given eternal life according to what they have done.

But let's forget about Romans 2:6-7 for the moment. This text, from Romans 8 is, also, a clear, unambiguous statement that eternal life is determined by how you actually live:

For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

Now I will sit back with my popcorn and wait for the contrivances that turn this sentence into something other than its obvious meaning.

This statement from Paul is of the form:

If you do X, Y will result.

This is as clear a means as possible of asserting that the basis, the grounds, the means by which Y occurs is X. But, no doubt, people will deny this. They have to.

Go ahead and continue to look at your list of scriptures outside of the whole counsel of scripture. You're certainly entitled to do that.


18...I will show you my faith by what I do." (James 2:18 NIV1984)

Faith justifies all by itself apart from works. The faith that justifies is seen in what it does and is used as the evidence of that justifying faith.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If justification is by works (just not works of the law--whatever the reason is those are different than other works) I wonder why Paul contrasts the works that don't justify with faith, and not with the works that do justify.

 

[Davies]

If justification is by works (just not works of the law--whatever the reason is those are different than other works) I wonder why Paul contrasts the works that don't justify with faith, and not with the works that do justify.

HI Jethro Bodine,

After reading your post, this verse popped into my mind.

Romans 3:24-26

New King James Version (NKJV)

24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood(not propitiation by our good works), through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier(we don't justify ourselves by what we do)of the one who has faith(not works) in Jesus. (emphasis added), (my words)


What a wonderful verse. God is "the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." The verses are adding up.


- Davies

 

[Jethro Bodine]

HI Jethro Bodine,

After reading your post, this verse popped into my mind.

Romans 3:24-26

New King James Version (NKJV)

24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood(not our good works), through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (emphasis added)


What a wonderful verse. God is "the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." The verses are adding up.


- Davies

How much clearer can it be, right? We are freely justified through faith in the blood of Christ.

I don't see Paul explaining what 'work' does justify (besides faith itself). Do you? I see him clearly saying faith justifies, not some other kinds of works outside of the law (whatever those would be anyway).

 

[Drew]

I think that we need to be careful to honour what I call "points of method". Do you object to any of the following (and, in case it is not clear, the particular matter at issue is what the unqualified term 'works' means in Ephesians 2:9):

Points of Method

1. Do not beg the question – do not presume the very thing you need to make a case for, in this case that the unqualified term ‘works’ in verse 9 denotes ‘good works’.

2. Do not try to argue that all context-based arguments are equally good at resolving ambiguity (in this case, the ambiguity lies in the denotation of the unqualified term ‘works’ in 2:9). I will illustrate by example. Consider the following text: Fred has a bat. Therefore, while Fred’s house will now be free of insects, Fred needs to be careful to ensure that his guests are not frightened, or that the housecat will be spooked. Which is a better hypothesis re the nature of this bat? Is it a winged insect eating mammal? Or the thing you use to hit a baseball? I will not insult your intelligence by actually explaining why the first of these two options works better in context. While it is obviously possible that the author is really talking about a baseball bat –the text does not strictly rule this out - it is highly unlikely this is the case. And yet, some who deny that ‘works’in Eph 2:9 denotes ‘good works’ might try to argue that just because a ‘good works’reading of ‘works’ in verse 9 is plausible, this puts such a reading on par with the reading that ‘works’ denotes ‘works of the Law of Moses’. That is clearly not the case – a ‘works of the Law of Moses’ reading makes much better sense in context.

3. Do not make the mistake of asserting that the most often used denotation of the unqualified term ‘works’ must be the intended denotation for a particular use of the unqualified term ‘works. That is simply not how language works. The most common denotation of ‘cat’ is the furry little animal. Yet the word ‘cat’ clearly denotes the big item of ski-hill grooming equipment in the following sentence: The cat ran for four hours on the snowy slopes of the mountain. Just because ‘works’ (unqualified) most often is a way of referring to ‘works in general’ this is not a valid argument that this is how the term is being used in Eph 2:9

More concerns about points of method later....

 

[Drew]

If justification is by works (just not works of the law--whatever the reason is those are different than other works) I wonder why Paul contrasts the works that don't justify with faith, and not with the works that do justify.

The reason is simply this: There was, in Paul's day, a line of thinking within Judaism that God's family was limited to Jews. Remembering that only Jews can do the works of the Law of Moses, a central pillar of Paul's argument that justification is available to all on the basis of faith (all who have faith will generate good works which get you eternal life at the end - Romans 2:6-7), rather than ethnicity is the argument that works of the Law of Moses do not justify.

Do you see what I am saying?