The Apostate Gospel of works

Please read properly.

This is simply not a statement that one can take the phrase "deeds of the law" and replace it with "Jewish ethnicity". That would, of course, be nonsense - you can "do" deeds of the Law, you cannot do "Jewish ethnicity".

I have no idea what motivates you to falsely ascribe to me a ridiculous position that no sane person would hold.

 

I will agree that my english here is not the best - it is not clear what sense one can ascribe to the notion of "a law about ethnic exlusivity".

So to the charge of sometimes using bad phraseology, I plead "guilty". But, at worst, this statement of mine is unclear.

And what is relevant here is that it is not a statement that one can take the phrase "deeds of the Law" and replace it with the phrase Jewish ethnicity".

I will no longer waste time on this particular side-track - there is so much other incorrect exegesis that needs to be set straight.

For the record: "I, Andre, do not, repeat do not, suggest that one properly exegete Paul by taking the phrase "deeds of the Law" and replacing it directly with "Jewish ethnicity".

 

The terms "justification by the deeds of the law" mean OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW as the grounds for justification. It cannot mean DISOBEDIENCE to the law for justification as the law will not justify DISOBEDIENCE. Disobedience to the law is called SIN. Thus OBEDIENCE is called "righteousness." Obedience is called "good" works and DISOBEDIENCE is called "bad" works. Justification has to do with MORAL status before God. Therefore to deny that the phrase "justification by the deeds of the law" has no reference to what the Law regards as "GOOD" works is to deny the very concept of justification altogether as you have denied any moral basis for justification to occur by the law.



If you deny that the words "deeds of the law" refer to OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW in the sense of what the law justifies as "good" works as opposed to what the Law will not justify "good" works then you simply invalidate the whole phrase into nothingness.

On the other hand, if you demand that the phrase "justification by the deeds of the law" is restricted to ethnic Jews alone then you have defined the those terms to by snyonomous with JEWISH ETHNICITY rather you like it or not or admit it or not.

Finally, the fact that the very same words are used just seven verses earlier in Romans 3:19-20 in the exact same context of justification proves your interpretation is wrong.

1. Romans 3:19-20 is the conclusion of the evidence provided in Romans 3:10-18 as proof one cannot be justified by the law as Romans 3:10-19 defines "deeds" that the law cannot justify but rather defines as sin.

2. Romans 3:10-18 INCLUDES GENTILES as Romans 3:10-18 simply further proves what Romans 3:9 concludes:

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

3. Romans 3:19-20 uses UNIVERSAL TERMS in keeping with "Jews and gentiles" in verse 9 which is further proven in 3:10-18 which in turn is concluded in verses 19-20 in UNIVERSAL TERMS:

a. "NO FLESH" not merely Jewish flesh
b. "ALL THE WORLD" not merely the Jewish world
c. "EVERY MOUTH" not merely the Jewish mouth

4. Romans 3:21-26 provides the true basis for justification for both Jews and Gentiles not merely Jews.

5. Therefore, Romans 3:27-28 is the conclusion in regard to both Jews and Gentiles (v. 9) as their works are both characterized in verses 10-18 and thus equally and universally condemned by the law in verses 19-20 with no other way to be justified by by faith in the provision of Christ (vv. 21-26) and that, and that alone is the ONLY BASIS why any man (Jew or Gentile) be justified by the deeds of the law or any law of works (v. 27) but only by faith (vv. 28-31).

 

True. But this does not damage the case that Paul is making an argument that justification is not for Jews only (and not contradicting what he says in Romans 2 by making an argument against justification by "good works").

Who does the works of the Law?

Jews and Jews only.

Why? The Law was only ever given to Jews (as shown in numerous places, not least Leviticus 20:25). It was never given to Gentiles.

So when Paul says "you are not justified by works", and given other things he says, he is effectively saying "you cannot be justified by following the dictates of the Law of Moses, since that would mean that only Jews could be justified if it were even possible to be justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses."

So to summarize:

1. Paul does not believe it is possible for any Jew to be justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses.

2. Paul argues that a "fair" or impartial God would not limit justification to those who do the works of the Law of Moses anyway, since that would mean that Gentiles have no chance.

3. Final justification, for Jew and Gentile alike, is based on "good works".

 

You ignored my last post completely where I provided contextual evidence that completely destroys your position.

Note, you take a position that is not supported by the immediate context but is in direct contradiction to the immediate context as shown in my last post.

You are trying to interpret this context by presuppositions and YOUR RATIONALE not by the contextual words of Paul. Paul has established that both Jew and Gentile have a form of "law" or else he could never say

"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law:

You cannot sin where there is no standard of right and wrong (law) to violate. In Romans 1:19 Paul clearly states that what can be known of God, His power and His godhead is clearly shown unto them and "IN" them so they are without excuse. Anthropologists have yet to find a civilization ancient or modern where there are no temples and no MORAL LAW to regulate their society. God's moral law is written upon their CONSCIENCE and in every generation and in very culture ancient and modern there is proof. For example, the code of Hammurabi attests to a MORAL CODE derived from some other source than a written revelation from God.

In essence, the moral code written on the conscience is the same as written upon the two tablets of stone as it is derived from the same MORAL CREATOR whose moral image is stamped upon both Jew and Gentile. The written revelation to the Jew simply expounds it in greater detail.

Hence, Romans 3:9 explicitly incudes Gentiles and Romans 3:10-18 is applied to the moral description of Gentiles and therefore the conclusion of Romans 3:10-18 which is nothing but an expansion of Romans 3:9 is inclusive of Gentiles.

The consicence reveals a standard of "GOOD" versus "BAD" works just as the written law reveals a standard of "GOOD" versus "BAD" works. The gentile has violated that standard as much as the Jew as to violate in one point of the moral law is to violate all points as it takes violation of only ONE POINT to define the violater as a sinner.

Your theory is wrong. Your interpetation of Romans 2:6-24 is wrong because it is based upon a wrong interpretation of Romans 3:9-28. Romans 3:27-28 denies ALL LAWS OF WORKS as means to justify and therefore the only way to justify Jew or Gentile is by faith alone (Rom. 3:29-31).

 

>The Law was only ever given to Jews (as shown in numerous places, not least Leviticus 20:25). It was never given to Gentiles.

The Mosaic Law only applies to Jews. The Noahic Law applies to all humans.

Citing Paul to demonstrate that the Mosaic Law applies to gentiles makes as much sense as quoting the US Constitution to demonstrate that Russian law applies to Americans.

 

GE:
I am currently working almost full-time of my time available, on this subject on an Afrikaans forum, and therefore have become sensitive to certain tenets and trends of a discussion of the subject.

Allow me to point out something in that line, Dr Walter, from your quoted statement, your words,
"This perversion is founded upon two basic errors. The first error is their adoption of the contemporary Jewish perversion of Mosaic legislation/covenant as a cultural and ethnic identity (Jewishness) that separates them as the children of God from gentiles."

1. The 'Galatians' issue, was no "contemporary Jewish perversion" of "Mosaic legislation/covenant";
2. it was no issue about "Mosaic legislation/covenant";
3. it was an issue of "cultural and ethnic identity (Jewishness) that separates them (the Jewish Christians) as the children of God from gentiles", as Christians.
4. In essence, the Galatians heresy was a matter of the transgression of the Great Christian Law of Love, to love your neighbour as yourself.

 

The Galatian error was the very same error Paul repudiated in Romans 3:19-5:2 - justification by "good works". You can paint it the Judiastic version or you can paint it the Gentile version but it is the error that you can do something good to obtain the approval of God for heaven.

 

:thumbs: Excellent post Thinkingstuff!

 

:thumbs: Excellent!!

 

If anything is clearly in error it is the false notion that one can inherit eternal life apart from fulfilling the conditions mandated in Scripture as set forth by God Himself. Works do not save anyone in and of themselves, but without works one is fooled as to their standing before God. We are not saved by our works, for we are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ and the grace of God. Still, no one will be saved apart from works, for faith without works is dead being alone, and dead faith will save no one.

 

And what kind of works does the unregenerate sinner have to offer God in order to secure his salvation?

 

HP: The first work God calls on an unregenerate sinner to do is to make of themselves a new heart by the act of sincere repentance. Repentance takes an act of the will and as such is a work God calls on man to do in order to receive forgiveness. Men do not repent because they are forgiven. They are called on to repent in order to be forgiven. Repentance is a condition of salvation.

 

In light of your post, how do you explain Paul's statement?

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

 

:thumbs: Excellent point HP. The book of James brings home the point that the relationship between faith and works is a mathematical "or" relationship. That "or" being a "set union". To be true, there are some (perhaps many) who actually believe that works must be performed in order to obtain the favor of God, but most, including those in this current discussion acknowledge that "the favor" of God comes through His grace and our faith in that grace which is then married with our repentance and sincere desire to be obedient to His word and law. I do agree with you that this relationship does in fact require the action of our will to acknowledge Him and accept the grace he offers to mankind. However, I do not possess the rhetorical skills to quibble over the semantic argument as to whether this act of the will can be defined as "works", as Paul has been using in his letters.

 

:thumbs: Excellent!!!!

 

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

HP: Paul was not addressing the conditions of salvation so often spoke of, but was rather speaking as to the grounds of salvation. Certainly speaking directly to the grounds of salvation (thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’)we are saved by nothing but the blood of Christ and the mercy and grace of God alone. Our works do not and cannot atone for the least sin period. Conditions set forth by God to be done by man have absolutely no merit involved, but rather are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which.’ Can you recall the illustration I have used many times concerning a pardon involving a convicted criminal? It clearly illustrates the points I am making. Here it is again for those that might not have read it before or forget its clear illustration of the distinction between grounds and conditions.

A man goes to prison for life, being justly condemned and sentenced by a judge for a specific crime. Can such an individual ‘merit’ a pardon by the performance of good works while in prison? Can such a criminal perform good works to such a degree that the governor is forced to grant this man a pardon based merely on the ‘merit’ of the performance of such good works? Absolutely not. You cannot then consider any intents or actions formed by the prisoner as the grounds of his pardon, nor could you say that he in any way could ‘merit’ a pardon. IF he is granted a pardon it cannot be said that in any sense his pardon was ‘for the sake of’ anything the prisoner had done or could do.

Just the same can the governor, if he so pleases, pardon such a criminal? Of course he can. Still, there is something the criminal MUST do, there is an attitude that MUST be reflected by the criminal to receive a pardon IF the governor is indeed fair and just. If the prisoner is to receive a pardon it still can be said that there must be attitudes that are tied inseparably to intents of the heart, this very initial intent being none other than a ‘work’ in one sense of the word being something the prisoner must do. The governor MUST witness from the criminal a repentant attitude and a change of heart towards his former criminal behavior if the governor is even to consider such a pardon for the criminal. Here we see that the intents and actions of the prisoner indeed do play a part in a pardon, though again, not in the sense of 'that for the sake of.' The sense that the intents and works of the prisoner are involved in a pardon can only be seen in the sense of 'not without which,' not 'that for the sake of.' Nothing the prisoner can or will do can merit a pardon, but just the same neither will he receive a pardon without repentance and an assurance of future behavior is garnered.

What kind of governor would pardon a criminal from prison who had not exhibited true remorse for his crimes? Would not the governor have to be satisfied in his or her mind that IF they pardoned such a criminal that they would not return to commit the same crime or one of like heinous behavior upon society again and that such a criminal possessed and exhibited a true change of heart and attitude towards their former behavior? There are indeed certain conditions that the criminal must meet, works that such a one must of necessity do in order to have the opportunity for a pardon if such an opportunity is offered. These works on the part of the prisoner are again, in no way meritorious in nature, and in no way force the governor to grant such a one a pardon on the account of any or all of their works. Just the same, there are definite conditions or works one must do in order for the governor to consider the pardon. These works are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’

It can properly be stated that one is not pardoned due to any works (in one sense of the word ‘works’) in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ of the prisoner, but just the same it can be said ‘without works’ (in another sense of the word, that being in the sense of ‘not without which’) one will never see the opportunity to receive a pardon.

Can you see how that works can be thought of as necessary for a pardon, or in the sense of “not without which,” yet at the same time no amount of works can be thought of as “that for the sake of” or forcing the governor to pardon the criminal on the account of works performed by the criminal?

Such I believe is the case in our salvation. We indeed will be judged by our works, but our works are not the grounds of our salvation. There is no amount of works that can coerce God into granting us a pardon, but just the same no man will be found in Him without works consistent with their faith. Nothing we do is meritorious, nor can anything we do be seen of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ our salvation. Nothing but the blood of Christ can atone for a single sin. Just the same, God does command us to repent and be obedient to the end, bearing fruits of righteousness and holiness, ‘without which’ no man shall see the Lord.

 

Amy, these men honestly believe they can change their own hearts. They believe that God is not omniscient but igorant concerning the future in regard to his own elect and could be wrong about who He chose and who He did not choose. They deny that both God and fallen man are servants to their own nature and will not choose contrary to their natures. Thus they believe God has the power of contrary choice and can lie, sin and change his mind. They believe all the passages that deny justification is by the deeds of the law only apply to Jewish people but all man are justified by works and the list goes on.

Hence, according to them "another gospel" does not exist today as it ceased with Judaism. Since all aspects of Christendom believes in Christ plus works for justification except Baptistic types, then, the only false gospel today according to them is the one that says we are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works.

 

Amy, do not be deceived by the rhetoric of a man that refuses to even examine the possibility of Gods foreknowledge being greater than that of his own. If he cannot foreknow something that is other than that of necessity, he assumes in error that God must be limited in the same fashion.

God is not limited as we are concerning foreknowledge. He can and does foreknow matters of perfect choice, thereby does not necessitate the outcome of moral choices God has endowed men with ability to be the first cause of their intentions and as such be justly responsible for them.

Blaming, and especially punishing men, for choices they make is absolutely absurd if the product of their intents is nothing more than the necessitated fate of God foreknowing them. The system of thought DW is locked into is nothing more than a deterministic necessitated system, whose end is of necessity nothing other than double predestination and the notion that God must be the author of all evil. I cannot think of a more absurd notion that paints a more horrible blight on the character of a Just and Loving God than the system of thought DW promotes.

 

You simply do not believe in the God of the Bible. Prophecy is determinism by God - pure and simple. Prophesy is necessitated by the determined counsel of God among other things (Acts 2:22; Eph. 1:11). Creation of secondary causes or responsible creatures is not the same thing as demanding God is the author of sin - but on the contrary - it is opposed to defining God as the author of sin. However, I am sure you are completely ignorant of secondary causes in regard to sin.

External coersion is not the same thing as internal coersion by nature. Claiming that God does not possess the power of contary choice in regard to his nature is not saying something outside of God forces him to choose or not to choose any more than claiming fallen man does not possess the power of contary choice is saying that something otuside of man forces him to choose or not to choose.

Neither do you beleive the Biblical doctrine of man. Fallen man by his very nature is in opposition to God that he will not repent, believe or submit to God's authority outside of the new birth faciliating that change.