Is faith a condition to obtaining salvation?

Does the covenant include the Gentiles? From Romans 9

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i] 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.'

Paul is asserting that God's covenant people always included Gentiles. Paul is quoting an old testament text which should have tipped us off -the true family of Abraham, the true covenant people, is not limited to Jews - Gentiles are included in the embrace of the covenant.

 

I think that Romans 1 to 3 has a clear chronology. What is the chronology about? It is about the covenant and how God has remained faithful to it. In chapter 1 we have explicit reference to Jesus as the Davidic Messiah - covenantal language:

2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,...

Paul arguably then goes on to make allusion to the fall:

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

In Romans 2, Paul jumps to a treatment of a future works-based judgement for all. I am more than happy to continue to address how Paul means what he says in Romans 2, but not in this particular post.

In Romans 3, Paul makes reference to the fact that the Jews have not been faithful to the covnenant and yet how God will fulfill the covenant even though the covenant partner has dropped the ball:

What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?

And of course the answer is "no". How has God fulfilled the covenant, given the faith-lessness of the Jew? Has he abandoned the covenant. No he has not. He has found a faithful Israelite - one who truly represents his people and will fulfill what was to have been their destiny.

Here I give my own version of what I claim is a perfectly legitimate rendering of Romans 3:21-22:

But now, in the present time, God's covenant faithfulness has been revealed, apart from law, but witnessed by the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness behaviour on the part of God is manifested through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, and this accrues to the benefit of all who believe.

 

I suggest that Romans 4:5 is widely misunderstood - it is not a denial of what Paul says in Romans 2. That is, here in 4:5, Paul is not denying that, at the coming judgement, people will be given eternal life in accordance with the works their lives manifest.

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

I do not think Paul uses the metaphor of verse 4 to then say that men are not justified by doing good works.

Let there be no doubt - verse 4 is a metaphor. Paul is making a comparison from the subject he is dealing with to a man who gets paid to work. Paul is not in the middle of a discussion about workers and their compensation. So the workman is clearly metaphorical.

And be assured, the fact that it is a methaphor does not in and of itself prove that Paul is not redressing "good works" justification.

When a workman works, what he receives is "due" to him - the boss is "obliged" to pay. Not so with the Christian Paul says in verse 5 - the structure of the justification 'transaction' is one where the believer places his faith in a God who offers him a gift, as contrasted with the structure of the workman's relation to his employer.

Just because the metaphorical workman "works" - this is not a licence to jump to the conclusion that Paul is dealing with the issue of justification by 'good works'. Remember, the workman who digs a hole in the ground and then gets paid may not be doing something morally good anyway - perhaps the hole is used in support of some immoral activity. However, that is not the main point here.

The main point is that the fact that verse 4, which deals with a transaction between a worker and his boss, is so obviously metaphorical that it leaves open the question about what the transaction being alluded to in the metaphor is all about.

When one reads an extended metaphor like the book "Animal Farm", we know the subject at issue is not the relation of farm animals to one another - the book is (so I am told) an allegorical treatment of Russian communism. Please do not take what is obviously a metaphor as literal.

To repeat: It is the 'structure' or 'nature' of the transaction that is the point of the metaphor in verse 4 - the overlord is obliged to give the worker his payment. By contrast, God is not under obligation to justify the believer - the justification offered is a gift. Paul is talking about the "gift through faith" nature of what God has done for us. And, believe it or not, the fact that justification is a gift does not, repeat not, logically compel us to think to that works are not required for justification.

This objection would have some force if it were not so clear that it is the freely given Spirit that is the power behind the works that will justify us. In no reasonable sense are we "earning our own justification". Do not be misled by those who would stretch a humble free will act of acceptance of grace into a picture where we stand proudly before God and claim to have "earned" our justification.

An additional implication of Romans 4:4-5: Paul is saying, among other things, that God does not "owe" the ethnic Jew justification simply because he is born into the genetic familty of Abraham. That kind expectation parallels the obligation the overlord has to the worker.

It is not like this with those in Christ - justification is a gift from God, not something he owes us.

 

God does not owe anyone anything. We all deserve His just wrath, eternal condemnation in the Lake of Fire. He would be perfectly just in carrying out such a sentence right now if he so desired. Were it not for His great love and longsuffering I don't understand why he doesn't unleash His wrath against us all.

Yes it is a gift in that it is freely given.
Correct, He doesn't owe us anything.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Romans 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
--It is God that freely gives us all things, including salvation. There are no works involved.

 

Again, you simply deny the clear and manifest statements of Paul - we are indeed justified by the good works that are manifest in our lives:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Paul was not having a "senior's moment" when he wrote these words. He means exactly what he says. And he means what he says elsewhere about being justified by faith.

What most of you fail to realize is that Paul intends us to believe both. Why you think Paul was "just kidding" in Romans 2 is beyond me. For Paul' justification is covenantal - it is all about who is a true covenant member.

In the present, the members of the covenant (the "justified" people) are those who have faith in Jesus.

In the future, the members of covenant (the "justified" people) will be those who demonstrate "good works".

These two groups are exactly the same. How? Because when a person puts faith in Jesus in the present, the Spirit is then given to ensure that the person will manifest the good works that will justify them on the last day.

If you wish to think of the "good works" as the evidence of faith, I am with you 100%. But Romans 2 says what it says - the grounds or basis of justification at the coming judgement is exactly what Paul says it is - good works.

 

HP: No one in this present world is in finality eternally justified. We have the earnest of our eternal justification, and in a sense it can 'by faith' be said we have been justified, but all is not over until we stand before God in that final day of judgment. Until then we walk by faith, judging whether or not we are or have been deceived by the works produced in our lives. “Examine yourselves to see if ye be of the faith.”

 

HP: Says who?? I am not in support of any idea that thinks that any work of man, once a sinner, has any merit or ability to cleanse the heart from a solitary sin. Still yet, you are making an assumption that is not set forth by Scripture in the least. “Faith without works is DEAD being alone” is the Scriptural admonition. It does not specify nor imply anything being “subsequent to salvation” as you suggest. It simply makes a definitive statement about what faith consists of and when ones faith is to be considered as dead or worthless.

The problem lies in the absolute refusal by many on this list to recognize the two clear, precise, and distinctive senses in which works are thought of. Let me repeat. Works can be thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake or and can be thought of in the sense of ‘not without which.’ James is not saying that our works in any way merit salvation, but he is saying that no one can be said to have faith apart from or in the sense of ‘without which.’ James is emphasizing the role of the will of man in the formation of intents in line with obedience and benevolence, without which no man can be said to have faith.

Paul on the other hand in saying that we are saved by faith apart from works, is trying to emphasize that our formed intents are not, neither can they be, meritorious in nature or the means by which salvations opportunity is made possible to us. Salvation is by grace through faith, yet neither will any be said to have faith that do not form intents in accordance to God’s commands of repentance and continued obedience. Again, our obedience in repentance and continued obedience is never thought of in the sense of 'that for or by which salvation is made possible,' but neither will any be saved 'apart from' their formation of intents in line with the conditions of salvation God has set forth.

One needs to come to a clear understanding as to the clear and precise distinction that exists between the ‘grounds of’ and the conditions of’ salvation as made exceedingly clear in Scripture and supported by reason.

 

Do you have any scripture that teaches we are to interpret scripture as "in the sense of". I have found none. I believe this is why you are so very wrong in your understandings of scripture. Either one is justified by works or one is not. The bible does not teach "in senses" that I ever found. Do you have scripture for this approach to interpretation?

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

HP: Everything in Scripture is not handed to us on a silver platter with no room for differing opinions concerning the intereptation therof. There are passages that at first glance seem to be in stark contradiction yet we know that all Scripture is given at the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in Whom is no variableness or shadow of turning.

Let me ask you Steaver, what Scripture tells us to accept the interpretation of Scripture that DHK applies to the words of James when James declared that “faith without works is dead?” What Scripture tells us that this must be interpreted as DHK does, which limits the words of James to refer only to works “subsequent to salvation?” Where is the Scripture that tells one to interpret James from that approach?

We should try and harmonize differing passages, not just pick one over the other or one at direct contradiction to the other as the approach you, DHK, and others seem to take at will? I have set forth examples we all recognize in reality are in accordance to truth such as the prison illustration I have given on many occasions. Why should we deny Scriptures to utilize distinctions that we in common parlance use every properly and in accordance to truth everyday? I believe it is totally in keeping with wisdom to realize that words often can be used in differing senses. It does not take Scripture to teach men this plain truth. No one should approach Scripture without the utilization of common truth known and recognized by all men of reason in common parlance.

 

Rather it seems to me that you prefer to throw hermeneutics out the door.

 

I agree with you here HP.

The problem, I think, is essentially this: We commit too early (that is, without looking at all relevant texts) to a certain view about what scriptures must be saying.

So when we then encounter texts that seem to conflict with our previous commitments, we come up with wildly implausible explanations - such as is done in respect to Romans 2 where people deny the plain words of Paul that eternal life will be granted based on the quality of the deeds of the believer.

Same, I suspect, with the "subsequent to salvation" qualifier that people insert in respect to the James text. It appears to be an addition - an otherwise unjustified qualifier meant to (awkwadly) reconcile the text to a position that has been committed to too soon.

 

HP: Hermeneutics are subject to a very subjective manner of conclusive evidence, are they not?

 

Not at all. It contains very objective principles. For more help in this area I suggest you read a message on it here:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-158.HTM

 

HP: List the first principle or rule of sound hermeneutics that you can think of that you feel is not going to end with a subjective result in the interpretation of a specific text.

PS: John MacAuthur is not part of this discussion as far as I know. Having written him personally on another issue with no results, I have little desire to discuss that which he has written. If he would be so inclined to debate on this debate forum, by all means invite him, otherwise, simply put what you see as truth into your own words and then we can deabte and discuss. Fair enough?

 

I wasn't making MacArthur a part of this discussion. I gave a link to one of his sermons on interpreting the Bible that might be helpful. I have no intention of bringing him into this discussion. What makes you think I did? I have recently quoted from the ATSD, ISBE, Barnes, and in the past some others. George Easton wrote the ATSD in 1897. I think it would be difficult to bring him into the discussion, don't you?

Here are the five main points to consider, according to MacArthur, when studying any passage. I believe they are very valid.

1. The Literal Principle
2. A Historical Principle
3. Grammatical Principle
4. The Synthesis Principle
5. The Practical Principle

 

HP: Excellent principles by the way. :thumbs: The problem now lies in their application. How one views the historical, grammatical, synthesis or practical principles does the subjective come into play.

Take the grammatical principle for instance. Language is the communication of ideas and does not always follow strict rigid principles such as are followed in mathematics etc. in common parlance. Do I need to mention ‘text messaging’ to illustrate it? Figures of speech are yet another. Some times one uses language in such a way as to render a specific meaning to one group or individual due to knowledge that exists between them that to others or apart from such silently referenced inferences no such specific meaning could be comprehended in the light the speaker intended it.

In the process of the application of these principles you mention comes into play the resulting interpretation. That as a whole is, more often than not, a subjective conclusion as to how the principles were applied to the text and if in fact other presuppositions are not the real guiding force of the interpretation. The latter is all too often the case. We see it in play every day on this list.


Yet another problem is the complete rejection of the principles such as the principle of historical evidence when it is clearly esablished. Take the case of your citing of Psalms 58:3 or Psalms 51:5 to be consistent with the dogma of original sin when it lies at direct antipods with the historical fact that the Jews in the OT had absolutely no place in their theology for any such principle of original sin. Would to God that some would take the historical principle you lay out here and apply it to the true well established historical facts in this case.

 

Actually it does. Language is very much like mathematics and has very strict rules.
This was called the grammatical principle for good reason. Grammar is important. It is the basis upon which a foreign language is learned. There are two basic parts to it. There is the study of the words themselves, and then there is the study of how the words fit together with each other. The latter is syntax.
In grammar it is important to learn about parts of speech: verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, etc. One must also learn about case: substantive or genitive, etc. Parsing nouns, Conjugating verbs, and everything else that fits in with grammar.
When I studied Greek, I think I learned more English grammar than I learned Greek.
Grammar is essential in the interpretation of God's Word. One needs to look at the relationship of words to each other. Is it an adjective or an adverb, and what word is it defining? Is the word the object of the sentence or is it the object of a prepositional phrase which is a defining clause? Grammar is important.

 

DHK:
"Grammar is important."

GE:
Post deleted being totally importune and unmannerd Sorry

 

Probably the biggest reason we have to "interpret" much of these scriptures in the first place is because we are reading a translation rather than knowing fluent first century Greek and reading the original Greek. There is soo much missed or misconstrued when one does not thoroughly investigate the original Greek before coming to any conclusions for application.

I for one know no Greek. I must rely upon concordances and teachers who have an honest report for rightly dividing the word of truth.

I found this from James D. Stevens, S.T.M., D.Min. printed in my King James Bible Commentary;

:wavey:
.