The Time of Abram's justification before God

[Thinkingstuff]

Quote:
Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. And Haran became the father of Lot. 28 While his father Terah was still alive, Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, in the land of his birth. 29 Abram and Nahor both married. The name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife was Milcah; she was the daughter of Haran, the father of both Milcah and Iscah. 30 Now Sarai was barren; she had no children.

31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Haran, they settled there.

At this point there is no indication of a faith in God for Abram but that he married and moved with his family to Haran (south eastern turkey most likely)


Both Paul and The writer of Hebews disagrees with your interpretation but attributes his departure from Ur as a by product of faith Paul pinpoints Abraham's gospel faith with the promise in Genesis 12:3 which Genesis 12:1 using the perfect tense "HAD said" places it back in Genesis 11:31 with the departure from Ur of the chaldees. The Writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 11:8 attributes the move in Genesis 11:31 also as a by product of "faith". Additionally, the writer of Hebrews says that faith took place at the point when Abraham did not know WHERE HE WAS GOING but in his departure from Haran he did know where he was going.

Genesis 11:31 is the ONLY text prior to Genesis 12:1 that can fit the perfect tense "HAD said"! You are wrong and supremely wrong.

Furthermore, there is no CONDITIONAL CLAUSES in Genesis 12:1-3. Genesis 12:1 is simply a command while Genesis 12:2-3 are UNCONDITIONAL promises. Nowhere does God say "IF you do this, I will do this" - that is your own heretical imagination at work.




Quote:
1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
2 "I will make you into a great nation

It is at this point God made a request of Abram to move. And in this request came the condition "if you do this, I will do this. Ie
Quote:
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."

contrarily as I've shown both Paul and the writer of Hebrews support my position. What you ignore is Paul speak of the law after the establishment of faith and that faith was prieminant over the Law. It doesn't mean Abram had some wishy washy belief and didn't do anything with it. Abram believed God exemplified by "going". Those blessings are a consequence of Abram going else God would have given it before hand. but he says I "will" future tense.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,


James 2:14 ¶ What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Romans 4:2 does not forbid that justification by works gives room for boasting before men, but it does forbid boasting before God. The justification James speaks of gives room for boasting before men (James 2:18).

Romans 4:5-6 places works in contrast to faith and demands justification by faith is WITHOUT WORKS whereas James 2:17 denies that justification by faith is without works.

Paul allows for boasting about works before men but not before God whereas James is about boasting before men - James 2:15-16,18.

Paul says justification by faith is WITHOUT WORKS whereas James denies justification by faith is without works.

The solution is very simple. Paul is talking about justification before God and James is talking about justification before men. Before God only the works of Christ justify the sinner and therefore there can be no boasting as it is Christ's works not the sinners whereas before men only justification by works provides any PROFIT for his profession to be justified by faith.

James 2:14 ¶ What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your interpretations incorporate "works" into the meaning of faith while Romans 4:5 places them in CONTRAST to each other "He that worketh not BUT believeth on him that justifieth the UNGODLY, his (ungodly) faith is counted for righteousnes."

Romans 4:2 denies Abraham was justified "by works" while Romans 4:6 explcitly states justification by faith is "WITHOUT works" while you demand it is WITH works. The kind of works he is talking about is those "PERTAINING TO THE FLESH" - Romans 4:1 and the general rule of Romans 4:4 is applicable to!

You are not a Baptist and if this represents your faith you are not a Christian.

Thus when it says in Romans 4

Quote:
3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a]

It is clearly shown that abram's belief was such that he acted on it. Otherwise it would be unbelief. And thus this passage in Romans 4

Quote:
We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before?

is clarifying that Abrams belief in God which was acted upon was before the sign of the covenant ending in the Law. I think you take these things backward so when did Abram receive the promise? Well the first part of it here upon his arrival to the land and lot finally left him

Quote:
The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring [a] forever.

First of all you are not the sole proprietor of all baptist faiths. In fact there are probably 337 types of baptist running around. You just happen to be of the dispensationalist group. My church is a baptist church and its pastors are covenant theologians associated with the SBC. And because my church doesn't hold to your view you can't say its not baptist. In fact you have no authority over any baptist church save your own. Because we are independent. So If some are free will baptist so be it others are reformed so be it. So before you get all high and mighty your not baptist if you don't have a beat up pickup truck on blocks in your front yard, consider you're just a part of a greater body of christians. I've shown you by scripture how the events worked. You apparantly unable to assert your view by scriptures immediately resort to "your not baptist" get real.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,


James 2:14 ¶ What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Romans 4:2 does not forbid that justification by works gives room for boasting before men, but it does forbid boasting before God. The justification James speaks of gives room for boasting before men (James 2:18).

Romans 4:5-6 places works in contrast to faith and demands justification by faith is WITHOUT WORKS whereas James 2:17 denies that justification by faith is without works.

Paul allows for boasting about works before men but not before God whereas James is about boasting before men - James 2:15-16,18.

Paul says justification by faith is WITHOUT WORKS whereas James denies justification by faith is without works.

The solution is very simple. Paul is talking about justification before God and James is talking about justification before men. Before God only the works of Christ justify the sinner and therefore there can be no boasting as it is Christ's works not the sinners whereas before men only justification by works provides any PROFIT for his profession to be justified by faith.

James 2:14 ¶ What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

See there you go again misquoting or misapplying what is being said. No one said works did anything for abram. I said he believed God and acted upon it which is faith. Works are like doing stuff to appease God. Obvioiusly, this is not what occured. God said and abram did. Simple. Two different things entirely which is why your faith leads to easy believism. I suggest you read Blackaby Experiencing God.

 

[Dr. Walter]

contrarily as I've shown both Paul and the writer of Hebrews support my position. What you ignore is Paul speak of the law after the establishment of faith and that faith was prieminant over the Law. It doesn't mean Abram had some wishy washy belief and didn't do anything with it. Abram believed God exemplified by "going". Those blessings are a consequence of Abram going else God would have given it before hand. but he says I "will" future tense.

You have not shown anything correct. You make the asburd and rediculous claim that a promise can be acted upon BEFORE it can be received. :laugh:

You pervert Paul's words in Romans 4:1-6 to refer to the Law when he never uses the word "law" but specifically refers to those "THINGS THAT PERTAIN TO THE FLESH" of Abraham in Romans 4:1 that he defines as the kind of "works" that promotes GLORYING! I have yet to hear of anyone coming "before God" and GLORYING in "bad" works.

The nature of these works fit the general rule in Romans 4:4 or works that indebt a boss to his laborer to be paid "according to his works" thus a denial of being justified by "grace."

Such works are EXCLUDED from justification by faith in Romans 4:5-6 and placed in direct contrast to faith in regard to justification before God.

The only thing you have proved is that you do not understand or interpret the scriptures correctly.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have not shown anything correct. You make the asburd and rediculous claim that a promise can be acted upon BEFORE it can be received. :laugh:

You pervert Paul's words in Romans 4:1-6 to refer to the Law when he never uses the word "law" but specifically refers to those "THINGS THAT PERTAIN TO THE FLESH" of Abraham in Romans 4:1 that he defines as the kind of "works" that promotes GLORYING! I have yet to hear of anyone coming "before God" and GLORYING in "bad" works.

The nature of these works fit the general rule in Romans 4:4 or works that indebt a boss to his laborer to be paid "according to his works" thus a denial of being justified by "grace."

Such works are EXCLUDED from justification by faith in Romans 4:5-6 and placed in direct contrast to faith in regard to justification before God.

The only thing you have proved is that you do not understand or interpret the scriptures correctly.

Again you twist. God gave a condition its clear in the reading "go to a land I will show you and I will" If abram never left he never would have received. Clear enough for your Mr. Twisty? And I showed you how to properly take paul in context the fact is you leave out Hebrews all together because it goes against your teaching. Paul is comparing faith contrasted to Law. You don't even have the proper context.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I said he believed God and acted upon it which is faith. Works are like doing stuff to appease God. Obvioiusly, this is not what occured. God said and abram did. Simple. Two different things entirely which is why your faith leads to easy believism. I suggest you read Blackaby Experiencing God.

I have read and taught through Blackaby's Experiencing God twice in our church. Justificaiton by faith is not believing and acting! That is a lie of Satan! Romans 4:1-5 EXLUDES acting (works) altogether!! You cannot act upon what you have not ALREADY BELIEVED "IN". Actions are the CONSEQUENCES of justification by faith but not the CAUSE as the cause is found in Christ's ACTIONS. Again, your silly statement that I cannot prove that Abraham first received the promise before he acted tells it all.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have read and taught through Blackaby's Experiencing God twice in our church. Justificaiton by faith is not believing and acting! That is a lie of Satan! Romans 4:1-5 EXLUDES acting (works) altogether!! You cannot act upon what you have not ALREADY BELIEVED "IN". Actions are the CONSEQUENCES of justification by faith but not the CAUSE as the cause is found in Christ's ACTIONS. Again, your silly statement that I cannot prove that Abraham first received the promise before he acted tells it all.

Good! Maybe you'll get the point. Lets further look at your post.

Romans 4:1-5 EXLUDES acting (works) altogether!!

Then you admit Paul is at odds with James!

You cannot act upon what you have not ALREADY BELIEVED "IN". Actions are the CONSEQUENCES of justification by faith

Yes and when there are no actions faith is dead.

not the CAUSE

Nobody ever said works was the cause. We've said faith is inseprable by the things you do. Look at the teachings of Jesus. Nowhere does anyone believe something and leave it at that. Look at the tallents the good servants put them to work the faithless servant on his way to hell buried them and did nothing. Its not he didn't believe the master would come back. He believed it but did nothing. Thus he had no faith.

Again, your silly statement that I cannot prove that Abraham first received the promise before he acted tells it all

Its not silly at all. How old was abram when given the promise? 75. How old was he when he received the promise? 100-125? Did Sarai give birth in Haran? No. Who's being silly.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Again you twist. God gave a condition its clear in the reading "go to a land I will show you and I will" If abram never left he never would have received. Clear enough for your Mr. Twisty? And I showed you how to properly take paul in context the fact is you leave out Hebrews all together because it goes against your teaching. Paul is comparing faith contrasted to Law. You don't even have the proper context.

Apparently you cannot read or you cannot understand what you read. Paul refers to the "law" in Romans 4:14-15 but he does not refer to the "law" in Romans 4:1-5 but to "works" which Romans 4:1-2 demands pertain "to the flesh" not to Moses! Romans 4:4 gives a general rule that applies to works of EVERY KIND whether they are due to obeying laws written upon paper or written upon conscience. You simply are blatering ignorance and don't care what the text says.

The conjunction "and" does not demand conditions follow. Just look at a English grammar book. The conjunction "and" can be found dividing a series of promises. Even in the command there is a promise "the land I will shew thee."

It is true that Abram did not fully act upon the command until he left Haran and that is why the promise was repeated in Genesis 15:1-6.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Good! Maybe you'll get the point. Lets further look at your post. Then you admit Paul is at odds with James! Yes and when there are no actions faith is dead. Nobody ever said works was the cause. We've said faith is inseprable by the things you do. Look at the teachings of Jesus. Nowhere does anyone believe something and leave it at that. Look at the tallents the good servants put them to work the faithless servant on his way to hell buried them and did nothing. Its not he didn't believe the master would come back. He believed it but did nothing. Thus he had no faith. Its not silly at all. How old was abram when given the promise? 75. How old was he when he received the promise? 100-125? Did Sarai give birth in Haran? No. Who's being silly.

Justifying Faith separated by works is only dead in the arena of human observation. Justifying Faith lives in you when you are alseep and absolutely no activity is evident. Justifying Faith lives in you even when you are in disobedience as a Christian as you have not denied what you believe in. Faith lives in you when you are not active or when not seen by men. However, in the areana of human observation where there is no works there is NO PROFIT before men of your professed justifying faith.

He received the promise "in faith" when he was 75 and NEVER received it actually at all but died still looking for its fulfillment in the Messiah, in the promised city for the saints as he understood the promise was not in the physical land or in the birth of Isaac but "in Christ"

Gal. 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Heb. 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God....These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

So your statement that Abraham could act before he received the promise "in faith" is silly. One must receive the promise "in faith" before they can act upon it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

First of all you are not the sole proprietor of all baptist faiths. In fact there are probably 337 types of baptist running around. You just happen to be of the dispensationalist group. My church is a baptist church and its pastors are covenant theologians associated with the SBC. And because my church doesn't hold to your view you can't say its not baptist. In fact you have no authority over any baptist church save your own. Because we are independent. So If some are free will baptist so be it others are reformed so be it. So before you get all high and mighty your not baptist if you don't have a beat up pickup truck on blocks in your front yard, consider you're just a part of a greater body of christians. I've shown you by scripture how the events worked. You apparantly unable to assert your view by scriptures immediately resort to "your not baptist" get real.

Find me any statement of faith by any SBC church that believes the ordinances are sacramental? Find me any statement of faith by any SBC church that believes in justification by works before God??? I was called to the ministry in a SBC church and went to a SBC Seminary and I know what they beleive and what they do not believe in regard to justification by faith and the ordinances.

The SBC has split some years ago from liberal heretic churches that were once in it. It sounds as if they need to separate themselves a little bit more if your church represents what you beleive. Does your church have a statement of faith??? If so, would you be so brave to post what it believes in regard to justification by faith???? Does your church subscribe to the SBC "Baptist faith and Message"????

 

[billwald]

>What's a Calim?

This is a joke, right? Anyone who can't recognize and doesn't have the sense to ignore a typo in this format . . . .

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Find me any statement of faith by any SBC church that believes the ordinances are sacramental? Find me any statement of faith by any SBC church that believes in justification by works before God??? I was called to the ministry in a SBC church and went to a SBC Seminary and I know what they beleive and what they do not believe in regard to justification by faith and the ordinances.

The SBC has split some years ago from liberal heretic churches that were once in it. It sounds as if they need to separate themselves a little bit more if your church represents what you beleive. Does your church have a statement of faith??? If so, would you be so brave to post what it believes in regard to justification by faith???? Does your church subscribe to the SBC "Baptist faith and Message"????

You're talking sacramental. Who ever said sacramental? Wow! You're going off the deep end if you suggest I was saying sacramental. I think you confuse me with Lori. I already gave you my churches website all you have to do is read the statement of faith. And my church believes you are justified by faith. But a real living faith not one of easy believism.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I'll post our belief statement here. Bolding and highlighting mine. So you don't accuse of Sacramentalism.

The ultimate source of authority is Jesus Christ the Lord, and every area of life is to be subject to His Lordship.
The Bible as the inspired revelation of God's will and way, made full and complete in the life and teachings of Christ, is our authoritative rule of faith and practice.
Every individual is created in the image of God and therefore merits respect and consideration as a person of infinite dignity and worth.
Each person is competent under God to make his own moral and religious decisions and is responsible to God in all matters of moral and religious duty.
Every person is free under God in all matters of conscience and has the right to embrace or reject religion and to witness to his religious beliefs, always with proper regard for the rights of other persons.
Salvation from sin is the free gift of God through Jesus Christ, conditioned only upon trust in and commitment to Christ the Lord.
Each Christian, having direct access to God through Christ, is his own priest and is also under obligation to become a priest for Christ on behalf of other persons.
The church, in its inclusive sense, is the fellowship of persons redeemed by Christ and made one in the family of God. The church, in its local sense, is a fellowship of baptized believers, voluntarily banded together for worship, nurture, and service.
Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the two ordinances of the church, are symbolic of redemption, but their observance involves spiritual realities in personal Christian experience.
A church is an autonomous body, subject only to Christ, its Head. Its democratic government properly reflects the equality and responsibility of believers under the lordship of Christ.
Church and state are both ordained of God and are answerable to him. They should remain separate, but they are under the obligation of mutual recognition and reinforcement as each seeks to fulfill its divine function.
The church is to be responsible in the world; its mission is to the world; but its character and ministry are not to be of the world.
Missions seek the extension of God's redemptive purpose in all the world through evangelism, education, and Christian service, and calls for the utmost dedication on the part of Christians to this task.
Christian education grows out of the relation of faith and reason and calls for academic excellence and freedom that are both real and responsible.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You're talking sacramental. Who ever said sacramental? Wow! You're going off the deep end if you suggest I was saying sacramental. I think you confuse me with Lori. I already gave you my churches website all you have to do is read the statement of faith. And my church believes you are justified by faith. But a real living faith not one of easy believism.

When you deny that the ordinances are symbolic in design then what other alternative is there? I never noticed any website that you gave for your church. If you don't mind please give it to me again because I would like to read it.

I do not believe in "easy believism" and I know what it means! Just because I make a distinction between justification by faith without works does not mean that I disassociate justification from regeneration and progressive sanctification. Distinguishing them is not a denial of them. Where there is justification by faith there is regeneration and progressive sanctification as well. However, what you are doing is failing to distinguish between things that differ. Justification by faith has to do with the OBJECT of faith not with any ACTIONS produced by faith. As long as you do not make that distinction you do not believe in the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith and you are a legalist.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Salvation from sin is the free gift of God through Jesus Christ, conditioned only upon trust in and commitment to Christ the Lord.....Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the two ordinances of the church, are symbolic of redemption, but their observance involves spiritual realities in personal Christian experience.

Then why do reject them as symbolic when your statement of faith admits they are symbolic? Why do claim a symbol is worthless and meaningless and without any practical worth to you????

Do you interpret "commitment to Christ as Lord" to mean "obedience to Christ as Lord"????? If so, then your church has departed from the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith "WITHOUT WORKS." On the other hand, if the phrase "commitment to Christ as Lord" simply means that faith in the sufficiency of Christ is surrender to Christ as Lord" then that is another matter altogether as that is the basis for obedience without including your obedience within the doctrine of justification.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Then why do reject them as symbolic when your statement of faith admits they are symbolic? Why do claim a symbol is worthless and meaningless and without any practical worth to you????

I don't. I'm saying that you end with symbolic leaving out the latter. Note the last part of that ordinance section that there is this passage

but their observance involves spiritual realities in personal Christian experience.

Do you interpret "commitment to Christ as Lord" to mean "obedience to Christ as Lord"????? If so, then your church has departed from the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith "WITHOUT WORKS." On the other hand, if the phrase "commitment to Christ as Lord" simply means that faith in the sufficiency of Christ is surrender to Christ as Lord" then that is another matter altogether as that is the basis for obedience without including your obedience within the doctrine of justification.

I interpret it as

commitment to Christ as Lord" simply means that faith in the sufficiency of Christ is surrender to Christ as Lord

but in surrendering does not neglect

obedience to Christ as Lord

Surrender to christ suffiency involves empowerment to live rightly. You can't be obedient unless you are regenrate but once regenerate you are empowered to live rightly were as you couldn't do it before. Christ does it all! And my church has not departed from justification by faith. I just don't conveintly ignore James in that faith without deeds are dead. I couldn't to deeds unless God saved me. However, He saved me and empowered me to do his will. Whats wrong with that?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I do not believe in "easy believism" and I know what it means! Just because I make a distinction between justification by faith without works does not mean that I disassociate justification from regeneration and progressive sanctification.

But you do!!

Distinguishing them is not a denial of them.

I don't see it any other way.

Where there is justification by faith there is regeneration and progressive sanctification as well. However, what you are doing is failing to distinguish between things that differ. Justification by faith has to do with the OBJECT of faith not with any ACTIONS produced by faith. As long as you do not make that distinction you do not believe in the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith and you are a legalist.

You may consider me a legalist but I drink beer. And I've danced and I've mixed bathed (swim that is). And I believe in mixed congregations (racially that is unlike several here). However, why are we regenerated? To sit on our haunches with our fingers in our noses or to be empowered by the Holy Spirit to the the will of God. In the Lords prayer we are to pray for the Lords will to be done on earth as it is in heaven ( no delay, no changes). Thats all I'm saying. God saved us not just to believe something but to believe it so much that it impacts our lives that everything we do brings glory to God.

 

[Andre]

You pervert Paul's words in Romans 4:1-6 to refer to the Law when he never uses the word "law"....

Interesting that you critique others when we make the inference that Paul is talking about works of the Law of Moses, yet you apparently give yourself a pass on this kind of thing when you read Romans 4:2 as having any connection to "good works" - Paul never uses the phrase "good works".

I have yet to hear of anyone coming "before God" and GLORYING in "bad" works.

As per the discussion in other thread, you are making a circular argument, presuming that the issue here is "good works" vs "bad works" and then finding errors in the views of others based on your unsubstantiated presumption.

The nature of these works fit the general rule in Romans 4:4 or works that indebt a boss to his laborer to be paid "according to his works" thus a denial of being justified by "grace."

I want to address Romans 4:4-5, a text often used to argue that Paul cannot have meant what he wrote in Romans 2 (and Romans 8 for that matter) about how eternal life is granted according to “how we live”. Here is the relevant material, and I include stuff from the end of Romans 3 for context – remember, it is not Paul who inserts “chapter breaks”:

27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith (is one. 31Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we (establish the Law. 1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, ….

A vital point is to note that context clearly shows that the “works” in 4:2 are the works of the Law of Moses. In 3:28, Paul talks about how men are not justified by the works of the Law. It should be clear that this is a reference to the Law of Moses, not to “good works” generally. But even if this were not clear from 3:28, 3:29 seals the deal – Paul is talking about the works of the Law of Moses since the Jew who believes that the works of the Law of Moses justifies could claim that the Gentile, who is not under the Law of Moses, would be excluded from justification. And Paul clearly wants to argue that the Gentile is also a candidate for justification.

So there is really no doubt – Paul is making an argument about the Law of Moses, not good works in general. So why anybody thinks 4:2 is about “good works” is a mystery to me – Paul does not arbitrarily change topics without notice. No - in 4:2 Paul says Abraham was not justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses.

So now we come to the workman. I trust we all understand that this is a metaphor. As such, it cannot be taken literally in all its details – it is a comparison, like all metaphors. Paul has just finished arguing that Abraham, like any other Jew, cannot claim that God “owes” justification to the Jew, and only the Jew, in virtue of the cultural marker of the Law of Moses. The issue to this point is not “does someone who does good works have a claim on God”, it is “does the Jew – the one who is under the Law of Moses – have a claim on God”.

The workman expects to be paid because he has done something. Fine. What is the parallel to Abraham? The parallel is that Abraham might think he has claim on justification because of ethnic membership in the nation of Israel, marked out by the Law of Moses, not because he has done “good works”. Paul is no doubt spinning in his grave, wondering how people have ignored the flow of the argument and instead impose their own “Paul must be denying justification by good works” scheme onto his text.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I don't. I'm saying that you end with symbolic leaving out the latter. Note the last part of that ordinance section that there is this passage

I interpret it as but in surrendering does not neglect Surrender to christ suffiency involves empowerment to live rightly. You can't be obedient unless you are regenrate but once regenerate you are empowered to live rightly were as you couldn't do it before. Christ does it all! And my church has not departed from justification by faith. I just don't conveintly ignore James in that faith without deeds are dead. I couldn't to deeds unless God saved me. However, He saved me and empowered me to do his will. Whats wrong with that?

No one has denied any spiritual value in observing the ordinances. Just mere obedience has spiritual value. Examining yourself and remembering what the symbols represent has spiritual value. Communing with the Lord in the act of the ordinances has spiritual value. But a sacrament is the idea that the ordinances CONVEY grace or saving grace. They convey NOTHING to the observer. The Spiritual value experienced has nothing to do with what the ordinances CONVEY as they convey nothing but it has to do with the spiritual state of the observer as to what he already has indwelling Him - fellowship with the indwelling Spirit in remembrance of what these are signs of.

Regeneration does not convey any power to live Godly! Regeneration merely conveys the WILLINGNESS to live God for it is the indwelling Spirit alone that conveys POWER to live godly and this is the lesson of Romans 7:18-8:13. Lot is an example of a justified and regenerate person who did not live godly as defined by any pious definition as the last words that God's word have of him in the Old Testament is drunk and in incest and miserable as any child of God will be in that condition.

God is not your helper in salvation but He is first your Savior and then your helper in life.