The Apostate Gospel of works

So do you also take the same stance on the testimony of Jesus. No one but Jesus has perfectly loved his neighbor. So do you then say, well "no flesh" can perfectly love their neighbor as Jesus did, therefore i need not love my neighbor.

 

1 John 1:8
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.


Like i said...Your only decieving yourself

 

Your argument is circular in a manner that you may not even be able to understand, given the tradition which you (apparently) have been heir to.

The problem is this - you seem to simply exclude up front the possibility that this is an ethnic argument and, having done so, see only one possible reading - that this is a "good works" argument, not an "ethnic one".

Yet, for reasons you have been shown in many other posts in other threads, the "ethnic" explanation is indeed the better one, given the context of the various relevant passages.

Yes Paul is berating the Jew who boasts in the Law. The problem is that you seem to simply dismiss without supporting argument the possibility that this is a boast in the Law as an "ethnic marker".

Yes, Paul talks about "moral activities" - such as stealing. But that does not require us to see this as fundamentally a "good works" argument. You seem to think that just because Paul suggests that his Jewish "target" might be hypocritical in respect to things like stealing, adultery, or idol worship, this means that Paul is speaking out against justification by good works.

Not so - he is simply asking tough questions about hypocrisy - the fact that a person who speaks out against stealing turns out to be a thief himself is hardly an argument that moral behaviour is not vital to ultimate justification.

As per a range of arguments that have already been presented to you, Paul's real concern is indeed an "ethnic" one - that the Jew might think he is justified simply by being a member of the ethnic groups that does the works of the Law of Moses.

That this is indeed an ethnic argument is amply borne out by this:

There 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

This text, and others like it (e.g. at the end of Romans 3) shows that Paul is indeed making an ethnic argument.

The problem with your view is that it simply cannot explain Paul's obvious concern with specifically ethnic values. After all, if Paul is berating the Jew for trying to be saved by good works, the "favoritism" statement is entirely irrelevant and seems like a tangent. However, if Paul is berating the Jew for believing in ethnic privilege (doing the works of the Law of Moses), then this "favoritism" remark snaps perfectly into such an argument.

The problem with the traditional reformed reading of chapters 2 and 3 is that it has Paul going off on a "Jew-Gentile" tangent, when his real argument is about "good works".

And this should, and does, raise red flags of suspicion that a "good works" argument is on the table here.

 

Romans 8:1-4
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [2] For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. [3] For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


Is this what your talking about?

 

Not once have i said i was justified by the deeds of the law. Ill say it again. Its only by grace you are saved. A free gift. The difference between you and me is to whom will be given this free gift. I believe its those who walk after righteousness. You do not

 

There is no text that says this explicitly, but it is clear from texts the one I listed, and from Romans 3:29, and Romans 4, that this is precisely what Paul means.

And of course, for your part, you will not be able to produce any text that shows that explicitly shows Paul is critiquing the Jew for thinking that "good works" justify him.

To use your words: "You have no text! NONE! Zilch! Nada! You are INTERPRETING the phrases "DEEDS of the law" and "WORKS of the law" to mean "good works!"

Show us one text where it is clear that Paul is critiquing a belief in ultimate justification by good works.

You bear false witness - you know full well that I do not believe that "my own" works save me.

Please do not misrepresent me.

 

Isn't that the same as a works salvation.
The gift of God (salvation) is elsewhere defined as a "free gift."
Where in the Bible is a "free gift" conditioned by those that will walk after righteousness?
If that is true then it is not a free gift. Neither is it grace.

 

Again, you apparently do not see your "hidden" presumption.

And it is this: You presume that the Jew rests in the Law in terms of a moral code, and you discount the possibility that the Jew rests in the Law as an ethnic delimiter.

I make no such presumption - I argue for the ethnic reading from context. And to the extent that the law is for Jews only, to say that one "rests in the law" could, repeat could, indeed be read as a statement about "resting in being a Jew".

 

David Koresh (a believer) who did not follow after righteousness will not recive this free gift. Jim Jones (a believer) who did not follow after righteousness will not recieve this free gift.

You guys keep saying because i observe to keep the 10 commandments, i am doing my works to be saved

Psalm 78:7-11
That they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments: [8] And might not be as their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God. [9] The children of Ephraim, being armed, and carrying bows, turned back in the day of battle. [10] They kept not the covenant of God, and refused to walk in his law; [11] And forgat his works, and his wonders that he had shewed them.

They aint my works

 

Do you believe David Koresh was a believer? Google him, and find out what he really believed.
Do you believe that Jim Jones was a believer? Google him, and find out what he really believed.

If those are your brothers in Christ, then I feel sorry for you.

That seems to be the philosophy that you are putting forth.

 

PROPHECY FULFILLED!

ISAIAH 30 [8] Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: [9] That this is A REBELLIOUS PEOPLE, lying children, children THAT WILL NOT HEAR THE LAW OF THE LORD:

 

As I have already posted, telling the Jew that he might be a hypocrite is not equivalent to telling him that he does not need to do good works to be saved.

You are inventing material - Paul never says that the Jew boasts in obeying the 10 commandments.

Contentless and argumentative.