The Apostate Gospel of works

[Andre]

Jesus Christ came to "fulfill" the law by His own life and death. His life fulfilled its righteous demands to be "perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect" and his death satisified its just demands against sin.

I disagree and suggest that when Paul writes about Jesus' obedience, he is actually referring to Jesus being obedient to the vocation of Israel. More about this in later posts.

JHeaven and earth will not pass away until all the law be fulfilled. However, he fulfilled all the moral law. The prophetic aspects of the law will be fulfilled with the passing away of the heaven and earth with a new heaven and earth.

Do you not agree that, as per the argument I have provided, there is Old Testament precedent of apocalyptic "end of the world" kind of language being used to denote events that actually have nothing to do with the end of the world.

Many have been misled because they do not recognize a particular style of Jewish metaphor. I suggest that there is every reason to believe that Jesus is never intending us to take his statement about "heaven and earth passing away" literally.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Andre,

What you are attempting to make the PRIMARY issue - Jewishness is really the SECONDARY issue. The basis for Jewishness is that the Law of God has been given to the Jews to observe and teach (Rom. 3:2). Apart from such a deposit by God to the Jews there is no reason to boast in Jewishness.

Paul attacks the PRIMARY issue which is the false idea that any ethnic group can be justified by the deeds of the law. By attacking the PRIMARY issue he eliminates the SECONDARY consequential boast of being a Jew.

I don't think you are really interesting in the truth. What you are interesting in is defending your error and making a SECONDARY issue the PRIMARY issue accomplishes your goal. However, Paul utterly destroys your abuse of emphasis in Romans 2:16-24.

 

[Andre]

Romans 1:18-20 was joined with Rom. 2:14-15 and "the law" written upon conscience.

I don't think so. The "law" written on the heart in Romans 2 involves a reference to the believer, not to people in general. Only a believer has the law written on the heart. The person in Romans 1:18-20 is not a believer.

In Romans 2, there is a statement about the “law” being written on the heart of the Gentile:

13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Although this text is widely seen as suggesting that God’s “law” is written on the hearts of human beings in general, Paul here is instead describing the writing of the “law” on the hearts of believers (and in this context, specifically Gentile believers).

The entire discussion turns on the Greek word that has been translated here in the NASB as “instinctively” in verse 14. I am going to argue that this rendering does not properly express Paul’s intent. I will argue that Paul basis assertion is not this:

“when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively do the things of the Law…”

…but instead this:

“when Gentiles who do not have the Law by birth, do the things of the Law….

The reader should note that while the first rendering indeed suggests that pagan Gentiles have a form of law written on their hearts, the second rendering in no sense preferentially supports such a reading over a reading where it is only believing Gentiles that have the law written on their heart (the position that I hold).

The greek root word at issue is “fusei”, which is often translated as “by nature” (although not in the NASB rendering of 2:14 where it is rendered as “instinctively”). The western reader should be careful to understand this properly. Paul uses this very same word, in other contexts, to denote what is true of someone by virtue of the circumstances of their birth. One example is Ephesian 2:3:

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles

Clearly, Paul means "by birth" here. He is not asserting that Jews are born with fundamentally different inner constitutions than Gentiles.

Perhaps more tellingly, we have this same root “fusei” used just a few verses further on in Romans 2:

27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?

The same Greek root “fusei” is rendered here as “physically” and as “instinctively” in verse 14. Note how the word is rendered in the YLT translation of 2:27:

and the uncircumcision, by nature, fulfilling the law, shall judge thee who, through letter and circumcision, [art] a transgressor of law.

Clearly the term “fusei” should be understood as having a “by birth” meaning here in verse 27 – being uncircumcised is a circumstance of birth for the Gentile. It seems only reasonable that Paul uses this same greek root in the same “by birth” sense only a few verses back in 2:14.

Thus, it is highly plausible that what Paul is saying in about the law in verse 14 is that the Gentiles do not possess it by the circumstances of their birth, and not that the unregenerate Gentile has an innate, or instinctive sense of the law.

In fact, note how Jeremiah, uses very same “law written on the heart” concept:

But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people

Note how the prophet uses “law written on the heart” language to describe something that will happen in the future and will which will be effective only for believers. Paul is deeply knowledgeable of Old Testament concepts and would more likely than not use “law written on the heart” language in the same way it was used in the Old Testament.

 

[Andre]

Don't play word games, we have been over this many times and you have admitted that "the law" written upon their conscience is what they will be judged by just as the law written upon stone and paper is the law by which the Jew will be judged by.

I am not playing games - I agree with your interpretation, but that does not challenge my position.

 

[Andre]

Andre,

What you are attempting to make the PRIMARY issue - Jewishness is really the SECONDARY issue. The basis for Jewishness is that the Law of God has been given to the Jews to observe and teach (Rom. 3:2). Apart from such a deposit by God to the Jews there is no reason to boast in Jewishness.

Paul attacks the PRIMARY issue which is the false idea that any ethnic group can be justified by the deeds of the law. By attacking the PRIMARY issue he eliminates the SECONDARY consequential boast of being a Jew.

This is a statement of your position. Fair enough, but it is not an argument. I could equally simply "state" that the primary issue is indeed ethnicity. But that is simply not an argument, it is merely the assertion of a position.

And I have defended that position extensively in other posts. Obviously, you are not convinced.

I don't think you are really interesting in the truth. What you are interesting in is defending your error and making a SECONDARY issue the PRIMARY issue accomplishes your goal.

You are speculating and have no evidence to support your statement here.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I find the title of this thread funny. If you hold to most reformed theology you cannot apostate. However, the theology of Works Based Gospel is here being called apostate. But in order for it to be apostate at some point the Gospel of works had to have been acceptable. Which it can't be according to reformed theology. Its either antithetical to the gospel or not it cannot be apostate gospel of works.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I disagree and suggest that when Paul writes about Jesus' obedience, he is actually referring to Jesus being obedient to the vocation of Israel. More about this in later posts.

If that was the case then the obedience and death of Christ has no wider application than Israel. The sacrificial lamb had to be "spotless" which is a well acknowledged type of SINLESSNESS. Sinlessness refers to his obedience, his life, as one "born under the law." Sinlessness has to do with the standard of righteousness or the law which reveals the knowledge of sin by revealing the standard of righteousness. The law is the ONLY revealed standard of righteousness prior to the LIFE of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21-22). You are simply wrong and seriously wrong as your denying the very basis of the cross and the propitiation for sin (2 Cor. 5:21). One serious error leads to another serious error and that is the road you are traveling on.

Do you not agree that, as per the argument I have provided, there is Old Testament precedent of apocalyptic "end of the world" kind of language being used to denote events that actually have nothing to do with the end of the world.

Common sense will tell you that what God teaches and predicts in His word will be fulfilled and the metaphor "heaven and earth will pass away" before one jot or one tittle of the Law fails is a very accurate metaphor as anything less makes God a liar.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I find the title of this thread funny. If you hold to most reformed theology you cannot apostate. However, the theology of Works Based Gospel is here being called apostate. But in order for it to be apostate at some point the Gospel of works had to have been acceptable. Which it can't be according to reformed theology. Its either antithetical to the gospel or not it cannot be apostate gospel of works.

The Greek term translated "apostasy" (apostasia) has two possible meanings. It can mean "stand away" in the sense of taking a stand against or it can mean "departure out of."

Those who take the former view "stand away" or "stand against" note that the preposition "apo" (away from) is the suffix rather than "ek" (out of).

There are those who by PROFESSION alone are WITHIN Christendom and when they depart OUT OF many take a STAND AGAINST the gospel by adopting "another gospel" or gospel of works. In that sense it is an Apostate Gospel or a gospel that STANDS AGAINST the true gospel by apostates or those who take a STAND AGAINST the truth.

In regard to saved people, they do not depart "out of" faith/salvation but they can be deceived and depart "away FROM" the faith or the body of apostolic doctrine. I Timothy 4:1 and "the faith" is in direct contrast with "doctrines of demons" and therefore is referring to a departure from sound doctrine.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I don't think so. The "law" written on the heart in Romans 2 involves a reference to the believer, not to people in general. Only a believer has the law written on the heart. The person in Romans 1:18-20 is not a believer.

In Romans 2, there is a statement about the “law” being written on the heart of the Gentile:

Your second paragraph contradicts your first paragraph. You admit in the second paragraph that Romans 2:15 is "the law" written upon the heart of the gentile and yet that is the very thing Romans 1:19 and the preposition "in" has reference to. The "heart" here has reference to the "conscience" which all human beings are naturally born with.

Furthermore, the contrast is not between believers with unbelievers but between Jews and Gentiles and what law they will answer to on the day of judgement. Your interpetation would force the context to be a contrast between unbelievers and believers and that is not the case. Your interpretation is therefore wrong. Paul is dealing with the basis for judging those on the day of Judgement who unlike the Jews were not given a written revelation on stone, paper, skin, etc. God will judge them on the basis of violation of their own conscience and this is exactly what Romans 1:19 refers to in part. Hence, your whole expanded defense is worthless as it requires a contrast between saved and lost not between Jew and gentile and it is a contrast between Jew and gentile that Paul is clearly and explicitly speaking about:


11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

One serious error leads only to more serious errors. Your interpretation is in error.

 

[Dr. Walter]

This is a statement of your position. Fair enough, but it is not an argument. I could equally simply "state" that the primary issue is indeed ethnicity. But that is simply not an argument, it is merely the assertion of a position.

And I have defended that position extensively in other posts. Obviously, you are not convinced.


You are speculating and have no evidence to support your statement here.

Your response is absurd! I have provided black and white evidence in my recent two posts on Romans 2:16-24. I have spelled it out in no uncertain terms and proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Paul is explicitly and clearly stating that the Jewish BOAST as well as what they REST in on the day of judgement IS NOT JEWISHNESS but their OWN understanding and compliance to the law of God which is defective. If Jewishness were their BOAST and what they REST in on the day of Judgement Paul would have said so - read the posts and deal with the evidence.

To say this is my argument or speculation is to do exactly what I accused you - ignore the evidence presented.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Romans 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
17 ¶ Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

However, Andre would read it this way:

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
17 ¶ Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in JEWISHNESS, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of JEWISHNESS;

However, this version by Andre does not fit the following context as three of the Ten commandments are what provides the instruction for approving what is right and from which the Jew is "instructed OUT OF the law."

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. - Rom. 3:19-20

However, Andre is forced to read Romans 3:19 and especially the phrases "the deeds of the law" as follows:

0 Therefore by JEWISHNESS there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by JEWISHNESS is the knowledge of sin.
Now we know that what things soever the JEW saith, it saith to them who are under JEWISHNESS: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

This is the absurd interpretation that Andre is forced to adopt as the very words "the deeds of the Law" are synonomous with the repeated phrases "the law" in verses 19-20 and that is precisely the same words in Romans 3:27-28:

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

And Andre demands it should be interpreted as:

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of JEWISHNESS? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without JEWISHNESS.

Andre is forced to interpret the words "deeds of the law" in Romans 3:20 the same way in Romans 3:17 which ends in perfect NONSENSE! Paul said what he meant and meant what he said, it is the "WORKS" and "DEEDS" that the Jew taught "out of the law" (Rom. 2:18) - the MORAL LAW that reveal God's will as what is approved - good works. Paul is saying in the most explicit and clear possible way that no flesh is justified by good works or what the law approves to be good.

I challenge Andre or any other Gospel of good works advocate to supply Paul with any better, clearer, more explicit language than what he used "the deeds" and "the works" of the law to describe those works that the law approves or says are "good" versus what the law disapproves and says are "bad."

Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

 

[Andre]

If that was the case then the obedience and death of Christ has no wider application than Israel.

What I am proposing does not have the implication you suggest. Let me explain.

1. God chose Israel to be the means by which the Adamic sin problem is dealt with for all mankind;

2. Israel did not fulfill its covenantal role in respect to item (1);

3. Jesus comes and acts on Israel's behalf, and the problem of sin is dealt with for all mankind.

So Jesus can indeed be obedient to Israel's vocation with implications for the entire world.

 

[Andre]

Romans 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
17 ¶ Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

However, Andre would read it this way:

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
17 ¶ Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in JEWISHNESS, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of JEWISHNESS;

You argument is circular - you have no actual case that the Jew rests in his obedience to the Law as a ladder of good works that leads to ultimate justification. You discount, without actual justification, the possibility that the Jew is resting in the law in the sense of the law being an "ethnic marker" - only Jews "do the works" of the Law.

Now matter how much you "yell" the phrase "being instructed out of the Law" does not change the fact that Paul can be legitimately read as scolding the Jew for his hypocrisy in thinking that he (the Jew) will be justified by being part of the ethnic group that is marked out by the Law of Moses when it turns out that this Jew cannot even keep the Law of Moses.

Bottom line: There is really no argument here that Paul is speaking out against a Jewish belief that "good works save". And in fact, the emphasis on the impartiality of God in respect to the Jew / Gentile split shows that Paul is indeed scolding the Jew for a belief that ethnic privilege saves.

 

[Andre]

I challenge Andre or any other Gospel of good works advocate to supply Paul with any better, clearer, more explicit language than what he used "the deeds" and "the works" of the law to describe those works that the law approves or says are "good" versus what the law disapproves and says are "bad."

The simple fact is that the statement that the Jew is being "instructed out of the law" is entirely consistent with a Pauline critique of a Jewish belief in ethnic privilege.

As per an earlier post, Paul can be legitimately read as saying basically this: Listen Mr. Jew – you think that salvation is limited to those who do the works of the Law of Moses. Well, do you even keep the Law of Moses yourself – do you scrupulously neither steal, nor commit adultery, nor worship idols ? As I have just said in verses 6 and following, there will indeed be coming works judgement with eternal life at stake, so do not be complacent – if you do not keep the Law, you may well not pass that judgement, even though you think that, as a Jew, you automatically have salvation”.

 

[Andre]

So far, you have not and what you have said simply ignores the evidence I have placed in your lap. Be honest with my last two posts on Romans 2:16-24 and deal with the evidence I provided that your JEWISHNESS interpretation of "the law" and "the deeds of the law" is a complete distortion of Paul's words and meaning.

I will not respond to a post where it is suggested that I am being dishonest.

You have, of course, no evidence to support this assertion. There is a lot of material flying around and I have not the time to deal with it all.

 

[Andre]

Common sense will tell you that what God teaches and predicts in His word will be fulfilled and the metaphor "heaven and earth will pass away" before one jot or one tittle of the Law fails is a very accurate metaphor as anything less makes God a liar.

This "you are making God a liar" is a common tactic people in these forums use to avoid the force of an argument.

When presented with a stoutly defended case that there is Biblical precedent for the use of metaphor in respect to such "end of the world language" what do you do? Engage my argument and show that I am wrong?

No - you suggest that I am calling God a liar.

I trust the readers will realize that I have indeed made the case that there is Old Testament precedent for the use of metaphorical "end of the world" language.

 

[Jedi Knight]

This "you are making God a liar" is a common tactic people in these forums use to avoid the force of an argument.

When presented with a stoutly defended case that there is Biblical precedent for the use of metaphor in respect to such "end of the world language" what do you do? Engage my argument and show that I am wrong?

No - you suggest that I am calling God a liar.

I trust the readers will realize that I have indeed made the case that there is Old Testament precedent for the use of metaphorical "end of the world" language.

Andre.....what do you do to get into to Heaven?

 

[The Word]

Those who believe IN good works for justification do not believe IN Jesus Christ for justification.

They do believe IN Jesus Christ but no more than the demons believe IN Jesus Christ. They reject Jesus Christ as much as the demons reject Jesus Christ.

They do not believe IN Jesus Christ for the right purpose or right reason. They do not believe IN Jesus Christ as "THE END" of the Law for righteousness but only as "THE BEGINNING" of the law to be fulfilled by their own life of good works.

They do not believe IN Jesus Christ as the complete satisfaction for sin and provision for righteousness. They utterly reject the righteousness of Jesus Christ and spit upon it trampling Him under their self-righteous "good" works.

Paul says it this way:

Gal. 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Justification by good "works" is the ultimate pious and egotistical rejection of Jesus Christ and the cross.

The law cannot be obeyed by sinners and all people were born sinners so all the prophets who came before Jesus, the Messiah, died as sinners. But because God revealed himself to them and gave them faith, God was able to get them obedient to his spoken Word and have them speak for him. Without becoming sinless, the prophets didn't receive the knowledge to learn they were created as the Word of God.

Jesus came to fulfull the law. This means the law will still be in effect for sinners until the end of this age. The penalty of sin is death so when a sinner dies, he has paid his penalty in full. There is no other penalties for him to go through so that rules out hell. His soul, which are thoughts in God, will remain in God until he gets a new body in paradise.

The disciples of Jesus and the chosen ones who came after them were now able to be made sinless saints through the process of justification. This means a chosen one has to listen to the gospel, who is the voice of God, or Word, until God reveals himself to him. This is when God gives him faith and he becomes a new believer but still a sinner. His faith, like the faith of the prophets and Jesus was needed for him to be created together with the all the saints, prophets and Jesus. This Word will take this new believer and give him commands to confess and repent of his sins so God can forgive them. Once this new believer has been made sinless, he will receive the knowledge he was created with and learn he's a new sinless saint.

God works with him until he's fully integrated from being a sinner to the Word of God. The sinful flesh of this new saint died to the world and is now in total obedience to the Word of God and not under the law anymore. Now you can see the difference between a saint being born of God through justification and a sinner being saved by the grace of God.

I experienced becoming a sinless saint so I know this process very well.

God bless you,
Brad

 

[Dr. Walter]

Sorry, my deceived friend but physical death is not the full payment for sin.

Rev. 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The law cannot be obeyed by sinners and all people were born sinners so all the prophets who came before Jesus, the Messiah, died as sinners. But because God revealed himself to them and gave them faith, God was able to get them obedient to his spoken Word and have them speak for him. Without becoming sinless, the prophets didn't receive the knowledge to learn they were created as the Word of God.

Jesus came to fulfull the law. This means the law will still be in effect for sinners until the end of this age. The penalty of sin is death so when a sinner dies, he has paid his penalty in full. There is no other penalties for him to go through so that rules out hell. His soul, which are thoughts in God, will remain in God until he gets a new body in paradise.

The disciples of Jesus and the chosen ones who came after them were now able to be made sinless saints through the process of justification. This means a chosen one has to listen to the gospel, who is the voice of God, or Word, until God reveals himself to him. This is when God gives him faith and he becomes a new believer but still a sinner. His faith, like the faith of the prophets and Jesus was needed for him to be created together with the all the saints, prophets and Jesus. This Word will take this new believer and give him commands to confess and repent of his sins so God can forgive them. Once this new believer has been made sinless, he will receive the knowledge he was created with and learn he's a new sinless saint.

God works with him until he's fully integrated from being a sinner to the Word of God. The sinful flesh of this new saint died to the world and is now in total obedience to the Word of God and not under the law anymore. Now you can see the difference between a saint being born of God through justification and a sinner being saved by the grace of God.

I experienced becoming a sinless saint so I know this process very well.

God bless you,
Brad

 

[Dr. Walter]

Andre,

I have repeatedly told you that one error only leads to another error and now you top them all.

Israel was not chosen to be our redeemer. That is what it takes to deal with the Adamic sin - to be our redeemer. You place Christ as plan C as Adam was plan A -failure; and Israel plan B - failure; and now Christ plan C.

What you are developing is another CULT and your the CULTIC leader with this bizzare and completely stupid theory.

What I am proposing does not have the implication you suggest. Let me explain.

1. God chose Israel to be the means by which the Adamic sin problem is dealt with for all mankind;

2. Israel did not fulfill its covenantal role in respect to item (1);

3. Jesus comes and acts on Israel's behalf, and the problem of sin is dealt with for all mankind.

So Jesus can indeed be obedient to Israel's vocation with implications for the entire world.