The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

[Drew]

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.

Please address the text I cited:

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.

What is Paul saying in this text? And referring to broader counsel of scripture while not answering the question is not an acceptable response.

 

[Drew]

Go ahead and continue to look at your list of scriptures outside of the whole counsel of scripture.

I politely suggest that many people (perhaps not you) are playing a bit of a game with themselves. True, we need to look at the "whole counsel of scripture". But, and this is vital, this does not mean that we can ignore texts that do not line up with our conception of what the whole counsel of scripture is telling us.

In other words, you need to explain how Romans 2:6-7 (or for that matter the Romans 8 text I provided) fits into "the whole counsel". And you need to do so without rewording the text to make it mean something else. Yes, there may be "wiggle" room re a specific text. But there is no such room in 2:6-7 re the matter of the "basis" for getting eternal life - it is clearly "what you have done". The only legitimate options I can think of are (1) translation error; (2) Paul is using a known literary device where he asserts what he knows to be false, before going on to say the opposite. (2) seems like a real reach - who says what they know to be false without saying that this is what they are doing?

Some people almost seem to be saying: Well, that text does not fit into the broad picture, so we can effectively ignore it. Surely you would agree that this is not acceptable. I forget, have you told me what you think Paul is saying in Romans 2:6-7?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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?

No. Not how it applies to what actually justifies a person and what does not.

I honestly don't think you've thought your own argument all the way through. I really don't.

Somehow there are these works out there that are not works of the law. And somehow that is what faith is, and that it's exactly equivalent to some works unspecified by Paul...but are works that aren't of the law. We're supposed to accept this teaching even though Paul plainly says it is faith in the blood of Christ that justifies. Plainly and clearly with no need for interpretation or explanation, being exactly consistent with the rest of scripture.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Please address the text I cited:

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.

What is Paul saying in this text? And referring to broader counsel of scripture while not answering the question is not an acceptable response.

While it's true that to reject faith in Christ's blood for forgiveness and continue in your sins will damn you to hell, the 'death' that Paul talks about in Romans 8 is not the sentence of the unjust at the resurrection. Note vs. 11 in that chapter. You will dwell in the life of the Spirit IF you obey the Spirit. To not obey the Spirit is to dwell in death--a lack of the manifest power of the Spirit in a person's life.

Somewhere in your doctrine you're going to have to start understanding 'life' and 'eternal life' as much more than just being saved. It's a quality of life. A quality of life that starts now in this life, and a quality that is contingent on your obedience, just as the quality of life in the Promised Land for the Israelites was conditional on their obedience, though they remained very much the people of God if they did not obey.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...you need to explain how Romans 2:6-7 (or for that matter the Romans 8 text I provided) fits into "the whole counsel". And you need to do so without rewording the text to make it mean something else. Yes, there may be "wiggle" room re a specific text. But there is no such room in 2:6-7 re the matter of the "basis" for getting eternal life - it is clearly "what you have done". The only legitimate options I can think of are (1) translation error; (2) Paul is using a known literary device where he asserts what he knows to be false, before going on to say the opposite. (2) seems like a real reach - who says what they know to be false without saying that this is what they are doing?

Why are you ignoring the legitimate option I set forth? Righteous work is how God validates justifying faith--the faith that saves. Even James points this out in the account of Abraham. Abraham was KNOWN as a man who feared God by his obedience, not MADE a man who fears God by his obedience. And so I will share what James says once again:

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

The faith that saves, the faith that justifies can be validated by what it does. The evidence of justifying faith is the work that faith does. This hardly HAS to mean the work faith does is the actual agent of justification (especially when Paul says specifically that it is faith that justifies). Nor does this HAVE to mean that works do not have to accompany justifying faith (as some misrepresent the 'faith apart from works' argument to mean).

 

[heymikey80]

God told Abraham to leave his land, kindred and house. If obeying is just hearing ...

It isn't "just hearing".

It isn't obeying, but it isn't solely hearing.

I've never said it was solely hearing. It's hearing with the submission that goes along with a disciple.

Why is it so important to you that doing be required?

Let's say you're in a coma. God condemns you because you don't obey, but all you can do is internally, in the heart, earnestly agree with God (e.g. "confess") and submit from the heart (repent). So tell me why it's so all-fire important that the dying physical world be impacted by you in order to be saved for the next world.

 

[rrowell]

The faith that saves, the faith that justifies can be validated by what it does.

So then if one "does not" his faith is not validate, not justified, therefore faith without works is dead faith...

 

[Davies]

Early Morning,

Here are more clear passages of Scripture that talk about faith justifying a person.
Romans 4:1-4

New King James Version (NKJV)

Abraham Justified by Faith

4 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?[a] 2For 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 accounted to him for righteousness.â€[b] 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

Romans 4:16

New King James Version (NKJV)

16Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all



Romans 4:23-25

New King James Version (NKJV)

23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.


emphasis added



These passages are clear. There is no ambiguity to them.



- Davies

 

[Drew]

No.

No? I suggest the Biblical and non-Biblical evidence is exceedingly strong to the effect that there was indeed a strain of belief in Judaism that justification was limited to Jews. And that is precisely why it makes sense for Paul to say "one is not saved by doing the works of the Law of Moses, since only Jews can do those works.

I honestly don't think you've thought your own argument all the way through. I really don't.

Right back at you. I have read scholars who, even apart for the Biblical arguments for this, have argued from historical grounds that the Jews of Jesus' day saw the Law of Moses not as a "ladder of good works", but rather as a mark of ethnic privilege.

Beware anachronistic historical retrojections. The fact that the reformers were concerned about a belief in "justification by good works" does not mean that's what Paul was concerned about.

I guess I will need to make the case (which is easy to do): Paul was critiquing a belief in Jewish privilege unto final justification, not the belief that you can be saved by good works.

After all, and I will not tire of reminding readers of this, Paul affirms justification by good works, not least in Romans 2:6-7 and Romans 8:13-14.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So then if one "does not" his faith is not validate, not justified, therefore faith without works is dead faith...

Correct. The person who has a 'faith' that doesn't change them has a 'faith' that can not save.

Actions do not make a 'faith' that can not justify now able to justify. The works show the presence of the faith the person was already justified by--as was the case of Abraham. So the person who has no works is showing they don't have the faith that justifies and makes righteous all by itself apart from works.

So, what is this 'faith' that a person has that can't justify? It's any 'belief' about God minus trust in the blood of Christ as the only way to be forgiven and made righteous. Many, many people believe lots of things about God, and believe correctly, but it isn't until they trust God that their sins are forgiven through the blood of Christ that they have the faith that justifies. Demons know better than us the facts about God, and even that Jesus is the Christ, but they are not justified by that faith and saved because they're not trusting and believing in the blood of Christ to remove their unrighteousness, the faith that does save.

So it is with us. We can know and believe all the correct things about God, and we can do all the obedient things we want, but only the belief and obedience of trusting in the blood of Christ as the only way to be made righteous will justify a person and qualify them for salvation. Other obedience is how we know we have done that.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No? I suggest the Biblical and non-Biblical evidence is exceedingly strong to the effect that there was indeed a strain of belief in Judaism that justification was limited to Jews.

I'm very familiar with this. I'm not saying Paul is not using this argument in Romans. But this is not the thrust of his argument. He's using it to make his ultimate point--justification is by faith in God's forgiveness. For all alike are under sin and have fallen short of the glory of God whether they know about the law or not.

I guess I will need to make the case (which is easy to do): Paul was critiquing a belief in Jewish privilege unto final justification, not the belief that you can be saved by good works.

After all, and I will not tire of reminding readers of this, Paul affirms justification by good works, not least in Romans 2:6-7 and Romans 8:13-14.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You acknowledge that Paul is saying you can't be saved by good works, but then turn right around and say justification is by good works.


The reason works of the law can't justify is because no one keeps the law. If they could they would most certainly be justified by their obedience (or was God lying?). That is why justification for mere mortals, Jew or gentile, can ONLY come through faith in God's forgiveness, which then upholds the law (Romans 3:31) and is used as the benchmark of your faith in God's forgiveness, not the procurer of it. And an obedience which also determines the quality of your entrance into the kingdom.

 

[heymikey80]

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?

Yes. But there's a problem with embracing this issue while neglecting the legal and national implications. There's more than one theology in Judaism of this time. Ethnicity is certainly not the only way Judaic theology is constructed. Judaism is actively proselytizing at this point. They're converting non-ethnics.

NT Wright expresses Judaic theology as a convergence of three pillars:

• Temple ritual requirements
• Nation ... ie, ethnicity
• Law

Judaism is essentially any mixture of these three pillars. Paul, following Jesus, objects to all three (actually Paul and Jesus subvert all three, in Wright's terminology).

Now, I think that's a thoughtful way to put it, and I know Paul does object to any of these three pillars taking up a foundation in Christianity. How do I know this? Pretty easily: Paul says any reversion to Judaic theology and adoption of Judaic praxis is anti-Christian (Gal 1:7). That would mean Paul is claiming, all forms of Judaic theology must be reformed. Any mix of these pillars neglects what the Gospel has done.

This is actually a loud theological echo of Jesus' stance. Jesus expressed dismay at every form of Judaism.

So yes, Paul is objecting to ethnicity. Paul is also objecting to law-keeping. And Paul is inherently objecting to Temple -- that is, worship rituals centered on Temple acceptance and identity, to include circumcision (required for Temple worship).

Circumcision is a common thread through all three of the Judaic pillars. It's required for Temple ritual. It's required for adhering to the letter of Moses' Law. It's required for identification and citizenship in the nation of Israel. It would've only taken one good reason to maintain the practice of circumcision. But Paul rejects it.

So by rejecting circumcision for all three reasons, Paul is toppling multiple Judaic theologies about salvation.

 

[Drew]

You acknowledge that Paul is saying you can't be saved by good works, but then turn right around and say justification is by good works.

Let me try to deal with one thing at a time. First, I would like to explain what I think Paul means when he says one cannot be justified by "works":

I assert that whenever Paul denies “justification by works”, this is a shorthand way to say the following: The Jew cannot be justified in virtue of his membership in an ethnically defined collective whose members do the works of the Law of Moses as way of declaring to themselves, and to the world, that they are indeed member of a people who are by birthright the only members of God’s covenant family, and therefore the only ones who will, among other things, participate in the ‘life to come’.

On this view, the Jew was not motivated to do the works of the Law of Moses to “earn” salvation,but rather to celebrate / show gratitude for salvation conferred on other grounds, namely being part of a special ethnic group. So, and this is really important conceptually, even though the works of the Law of Moses are indeed good works, Paul’s critique of justification by the works of the Law of Moses cannot be seen as any kind of denial of what he otherwise affirms: that good works do indeed justify. It is instead a denial of ethnic privilege.

Now whether or not this is what Paul actually believes, Paul certainly could hold the position I describe above. In other words, the position described above is conceptually sensible, and possible.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Let me try to deal with one thing at a time. First, I would like to explain what I think Paul means when he says one cannot be justified by "works":

I assert that whenever Paul denies “justification by works”, this is a shorthand way to say the following: The Jew cannot be justified in virtue of his membership in an ethnically defined collective whose members do the works of the Law of Moses as way of declaring to themselves, and to the world, that they are indeed member of a people who are by birthright the only members of God’s covenant family, and therefore the only ones who will, among other things, participate in the ‘life to come’.

On this view, the Jew was not motivated to do the works of the Law of Moses to “earn” salvation,but rather to celebrate / show gratitude for salvation conferred on other grounds, namely being part of a special ethnic group. So, and this is really important conceptually, even though the works of the Law of Moses are indeed good works, Paul’s critique of justification by the works of the Law of Moses cannot be seen as any kind of denial of what he otherwise affirms: that good works do indeed justify. It is instead a denial of ethnic privilege.

Now whether or not this is what Paul actually believes, Paul certainly could hold the position I describe above. In other words, the position described above is conceptually sensible, and possible.

The thrust of Paul's argument is that they do not keep the law. Therefore it's impossible to be justified by the law. Then he makes the case for a righteousness that 'comes from God'--a righteousness that is by faith in Christ's blood for the forgiveness of sin, apart from the performance of righteous works.

The thrust is NOT this matter of ethnic privilege, though he brings it up in his illustration of their hypocrisy. It's about a different way to be justified...because the old way of works they embraced can't justify a person, because no one lives up to it's demands. Not even the Jews themselves who champion the law.

 

[Drew]

The thrust of Paul's argument is that they do not keep the law. Therefore it's impossible to be justified by the law. Then he makes the case for a righteousness that 'comes from God'--a righteousness that is by faith in Christ's blood for the forgiveness of sin, apart from the performance of righteous works.

Well, we have a fundamental disagreement, although a "part" of what you assert here is also bound up in my position. I am confident that your stated position is as much a coherent and plausible scenario as mine. I assume you agree that neither of us can simply assert the view we hold, we have to make a case. I believe I have gone a long way to doing that, you probably believe likewise.

I am not at all sure that people on this forum, including me, are even open to the possibility that their position is mistaken. I have very little confidence (not zero confidence, but little) that those already committed to a position will change their minds, even if the Biblical evidence warrants it. I post largely for the benefit of "lurkers" and / or that small segment of readers who are willing to entertain the possibility that they should change their position.

 

[Drew]

The reason works of the law can't justify is because no one keeps the law.

I trust you understand that this begs the question. I get the impression that perhaps, repeat perhaps, you are not aware of the fact that only Jews were under the Law of Moses. Many Christians mistakenly believe otherwise.

Now: Since only Jews were under the Law of Moses, Paul could, repeat could be saying this (as opposed to what you think he is saying): Works of the Law can't justify because that would limit salvation to Jews. And, I suggest the following bit from Romans 3 powerfully shows that this is precisely Paul's argument:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

Now here I am making a case (not merely stating a position and thereby begging the question). Let's be clear about something. To say "you cannot be justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses" is not, repeat not the same thing as saying "you cannot be justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses because no one can keep the law", which seems to be what you are saying. An objective reader will know there is another possibility: you cannot be justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses because that would limit salvation to Jews.

I have just provided evidence that the 2nd concept is at the core of Paul's thinking.

And an obedience which also determines the quality of your entrance into the kingdom.

In Romans 2:6-7, Paul does not say you get rewards or "quality" according to what you have done, he says you get eternal life according to what you have done. If, repeat if, you are one of those who say that 2:6-7 is about getting rewards over and above eternal life, then you have already left the playing field in the sense that you have let it be known that you are willing to change what a text actually says in order to force into a position you hold.

Have you left the playing field? Are you one of those who is willing to re-write 2:6-7?

 

[Drew]

.....which then upholds the law (Romans 3:31)

I think the one aspect of my position that has been least explained is this whole "two laws" argument that I know I have mentioned at least once.

I believe that Paul has two concepts of "law":

1. The Law of Moses which only Jews can obey since only Jews are under its jurisdiction - this is the "easy" one (although many Christians are not aware of what is really quite obvious from scripture - the Law of Moses was only for the Jews (as well as a small smattering of Gentiles who were integrated into their community.

2. A mysterious 2nd "law" which is not the Law of Moses, but is a "law" that can followed by both Jew and Gentile.

That's all I will say for now, because this is a complicated issue. Clearly, what I have just hypothesized is possible, and if it is Biblically supported I trust you understand it changes the exegesis. I will conclude by asserting that "law" in Romans 3:31 is this 2nd form of law.

 

[Drew]

A very general remark: From my perspective, things have got a little scattered. I know that I have not responded to at least some posts. I am inclined to try to prepare a carefully structured restatement of my position, hopefully expressed in a top-down form. For those who have not figured this out, my position is largely the position of NT Wright, at least as I understand him.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

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 type of works Paul speaks of that the 'worker' does in the context of Rom 4:4,5 are works of merit in trying to earn salvation where by the 'workers' reward is of debt and not of grace. So Paul is excluding works of merit but not obedient works in the context. For from verse 5 Abraham was an example of one who worketh not (did not do works of merit) but believed (obedient work) in God who justiifes the ungodly.

To have Paul exclude obedient works in Rom 4:4,5 creats a host of contradictions for just from the book of Roman Paul says one must have obedient works to be saved, Rom 2:5-11 Rom 6:16-18 Rom 10:3,9,10,13,16,21

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

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

The problem here is that faith itself is a work for if it is not then it is a dead faith and a dead faith cannot save.