Sola Scriptura

The scriptures

I don't think it makes the distinctions you have. You created distinctions not in scripture.

 

You're dealing with someone who believes in living by the scriptures which I quoted directly. You seem to hold to a creed

which is not baptistic. Hmmm. Interesting turn of events.

 

No. Paul is clear that ultimate salvation is accorded based on the works that a person manifests in their life:

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

This is not a denial of justification by faith - it one aspect of the Pauline view of justification which is essentially this: Through faith and faith alone, a person is given the Spirit. The Spirit then acts to transform that person into one who does the good works needed to "pass" the above judgement.

So when Paul talks about "justification by faith" he is to be understood as saying "those who place faith in Jesus in the present will indeed be justified by their works at the end, precisely because of the transforming action of the Holy Spirit"

 

What kind of churches would Thomas have started in India?
They would have looked like those that are Baptist today, not Orthodox, not RCC, not denominational.
What happened when Carey went to India? The churches he started were independent--no denomination.
What about John Hyde (Praying Hyde) who worked in the area now considered to be Pakistan. The resulting churches were independent though Hyde himself was a Presbyterian.

It was only when the RCC and the Church of England came over did they begin denominations and ecumenism which in turn resulted in successionism. The Church of England, apostate as it was, combined with other churches that had become liberal in their theology: Methodist, Scottish Presbyterian, and Lutheran which then became the apostate Church of Pakistan, one of the larger churches in Pakistan.

But the evangelical churches remained separate from these liberal monstrosities and preached the true gospel of Christ. They were not successionist. They were independent of each other. They rose up wherever the gospel preached, whether by native preachers or by foreign missionaries.

 

You are saying the same thing in two fashions. Whats the difference practically speaking? And James is very clear as I've quoted you are adding to both Paul and to James.

 

No. My argument is solid. We can see from the very content of the context that surrounds Paul's repudiation of "justification by works" that his critique is squarely aimed at the Jew who might think that only Jews are candidates for justification. This is the only reasonable explanation why Paul follows this statement:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. ...

....with this statement:

Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

Let's be clear. If we actually take Paul seriously in the fine-grained details of what he actually wrote, and not what our traditions tell us, we cannot help but conclude that Paul is telling the Jew this:

"Look, justification is achieved apart from the Law of Moses, which is for we Jews only. And the reason this is so is precisely because God is God of the Gentiles too. If justification was by doing the works of the Law of Moses, then, of course, the Gentile, who is not under the Law of Moses, could obviously not be justified by it. But God cares about Gentiles too, and so it is for this reason that you Jews need to understand that you cannot be justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses."

When we actually look at the "justified apart from works of the law" in actual context, we see that Paul must be making an argument about how the Jew erred in seeing the Law of Moses as an ethnic delimiter which kept the Gentiles out.

Even if some Jews did believe that they were justified by doing what the law asked of them, such a belief is clearly not at the heart of what Paul is critiquing. As is clear from the Romans 3 text, and others, is that Paul is critiquing the belief that only those who the works of the Law of Moses have any hope of being justified, that is, the Jews.

 

I have never ever said anything like this. In particular, I have never written anything that can be reasonably understood as suggesting that I think that any standard peculiar to the Jew manifests the righteousness of God.

But Paul does indeed clearly asserted that the fundamental act of God's righteousness - the cross - does not involve the Law of Moses:

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify

Clearly untrue - I am not a Jew. Romans 10:3 is another example of Paul's critique of the Jew for thinking that God's graces are limited to them:

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

This is not a universal human principle that can be applied to, for example, me. It is a specific critique levelled by Paul at the nation of Israel for their belief that justification was limited to the Jew.

This is what happens when context is ignored. Romans 9-11 is largely about the plight of Israel and their story. You universalize 10:3 to apply it to a non-Jew living 2000+ years later.

Romans 10:3 does not universalize - it is a pointed critique of the Jewish belief that God's graces were limited to them and them alone.

 

GE:
No, Thinkingstuff. You must go think about this; Dr Walter is here ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
The phrase "unto good works" necessarily follows having been created in Christ Jesus rather than inclusive of being created in Christ Jesus.

....'evangelically', absolutely correct.

 

You're going to have to explain the distinction.

 

OK my mistake. I misunderstood your post. But I am entirely scriptural in asserting that the written code of the Law of Moses was given to Jews only. As Leviticus 20 says - the Law of Moses was given to the Jews to set them apart from the nations. I suggest that it is clear from numerous places that the Law of Moses was given to the Jews and the Jews only. I am surprised that you appear to be arguing otherwise. Yes, the rest of humanity is indeed given an "inner sense of morality from God", that is what Romans 1 says. But the Law of Moses was given to the nation of Israel only. They were the ones at Sinai, not Gentiles. And it is clear, as I have already shown, that Paul thinks the Law of Moses applied to Jews only.

My wording was not good. I entirely believe that the cross and the Law of Moses are intimately connected. But this does not challenge my argument.

I have argued in detail, using Paul's own words that Paul's critique of the Jew in relation to the Law of Moses was not that they thought that "good works" were necessary for justification, but rather that they thought that justification was limited to Jews alone. I do not see that you have successfully engaged those arguments.

Besides, the Romans 3 text you are alluding to is, by overall context, clearly a description of the state of affairs of humanity apart from the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.

People do odd things with Romans 3. Many, as you are doing, invoke it to demonstrate the impossibility of ultimate salvation by deeds. And yet, in so doing, they have to ignore Romans 8 which makes it clear that the situation described in the first two thirds of Romans 3 is that of the human being who is not in Christ. With the Spirit, however, we can indeed go "good works" and thereby pass the Romans 2 judgement.

 

I happen to disagree with this and believe that the Law of Moses was given to make the Jew more sinful, not less, although this a whole issue that has not come up in our discussions yet. And yes, I am quite serious. But, again, I am only following Paul:

The Law came in so that the transgression would increase;

Who gave the Law? God. Why did He give it? To make Israel more sinful.

Here is the big picture:

1. God's covenant with Abraham promised that Israel would be "blessing for the nations";

2. In Romans, Paul is deeply concerned with arguing that God has indeed been faithful to this promise - that God has indeed used Israel to bless the nations;

3. However, as per Romans 3, Paul recognizes that the way Israel will bless the nations cannot be through "showing them how wonderful the Law of Moses is". In Romans 3, he is pretty clear – the Law of Moses cannot be a blessing to the world in this way.

4. To put a finer point on this, Paul sees that the Jew, like the Gentile, is in Adam. So while the Law of Moses is good, it is operating on a Jew who is as fallen as the Gentile.

5. How then can God use the Jew to bless the world and be faithful to his promise?

6. Answer: God uses Law of Moses to make Israel draw the sin of the world onto itself. As per a line of reasoning you get in Romans 5, 7, ,9, and 11, Paul argues, cryptically perhaps, that God is using the Law of Moses as a kind of "sponge" to soak of the sins of the world into the nation of Israel.

7. Why would God do this? Answer: to collect sin together into "one place" (national Israel) so that this sin can then be focussed down into one person - Jesus. And then, sin is condemned on the cross (Romans 8:3)

8. By using Israel as this "sponge for sin", God has indeed been faithful to the Abrahamic promise. Law of Moses has, strangely, been used in this "dark" manner - making Israel more sinful, not less - for the ultimate benefit of us all.

9. Since the purpose of Law of Moses was to "lure sin into Israel" and then into Jesus, the condemnation of sin on the cross brings the task of Law of Moses to a close.

10. Since its task has been completed, the Law of Moses is then retired with honour.

But let's say that I agree with you about the Law of Moses. That does not change the fact that the nature of Paul's argument against justification by "works of the Law", in places like Romans 3 and Romans 4, is really an argument against ethnic exclusivity in respect to justification - it is not a denial that "good works" are required for justification.

If how we lived were not an issue in respect to justification, why would Paul write this?:

for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live

 

My position does not demand this. I may have been unclear about this up to a point, but in a recent post (in either this thread or the other one), I have explained that my position does not regard every Jew as being guaranteed justification.

 

For the sake of the argument, let's say that I agree with you on the above (even though I actually do not). But even if what you are saying is true, this does not exclude the possibility that the Jew would mistakenly come to believe that the Law of Moses set them apart as the only people who get justified.

I think it is clear that this is precisely the thinking that Paul is reacting to. So even if the Law was given for the reasons you cite, this does not mean that the Jew has not misunderstood the purpose of the Law and instead latched on to it as a charter of national privilege.

 

The Jews could not be justified by works; they had to be totally dependent on God's grace. Works failed them every time. Works and grace are totally exclusive of each other. Paul puts it this way:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

If it is by grace, it is not by works.
If it is by works, it is not by grace.
You cannot have both.