Jesus & Salvation By Faith ALONE

[Andre]

So, simply defining the EXTERNAL law written upon stone to be what Paul denies can justify anyone is making a distinction that Paul refuses to make as he also denies the obedience, performance, works, deeds, doing of that law through the life of Abraham as inclusive of justification.

Romans 4 is a methodically repudiation of your entire interpretation.

I suggest that Romans 4 actually affirms the position for which I am advocating.

Romans 4 does not subvert ultimate justification by good works. Here is the first bit of Romans 4:​

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."​

Romans 4:2 is clearly a reference to the Law of Moses and doing its works. True, the Law of Moses was not around in Abraham's time. But that is beside the point as I will demonstrate in a follow-on post. I have been arguing that Paul denies justification by doing the works of the Law of Moses and not justification by good works. Those who argue otherwise have severe problems with Romans 2:6-7.​

Paul's argument is basically directed at the Jew, telling him that salvation is not limited to Jews and Jews only:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

Note that Paul has written these words just a couple of sentences back from Romans 4:2.

The problem with seeing Romans 4:2 as anything other than a reference to the Law of Moses makes Paul into a scattered incoherent thinker. In Romans 3, he has just told us how justification is not based on doing the Law of Moses. Then throughout the first 17 or so verse of chapter 4, Paul is still making the same argument – salvation is not limited to Jews.

The argument is about how Abraham was not justified in virtue of being Jewish and, by extension therefore, justification is not for Jews only:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? 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? It was not after, but before!

The case makes itself – Paul is bending over backwards to make it clear that his topic here is the availability of justification to both Jew and Gentile alike. And this is precisely why it makes sense to assert, in 4:2, that the Jew (of whom Abraham is genetic father) is not justified by the works of the Law of Moses. Yes, the law of Moses was not around in Abraham’s time. But Paul is really making a broader argument about justification not being limited to the Jew.

And what is the ethnic delimiter of the Jew? The law of Moses, of course.

In the next post, I will shore up the case that the fact that the fact that the Law of Moses was not around in Abraham's time is actually beside the point.

 

[Andre]

Circumcision, while perhaps technically not part of Torah (its initiation preceded Sinai by > 400 years, I think), is the hallmark of membership in the nation of Israel. And Abraham was indeed circumcized. As one see if one reads on in Romans 4, the issue is not "good works" righteousness, but righteousness being limited to Jews and Jews only.

14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. 16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham

This, of course, is yet another of the many problems with thinking that Romans 4:2 is about "good works" - the rest of the chapter shows that the issue on Paul's mind is whether God's grace is limited to Jews. This is yet another reason why Romans 4:2 is clearly an allusion to the Torah - the national charter of Israel.

So when Paul talks about Abraham not being justified by works, the context of Romans 4, not to mention that of Romans 3, forces us to understand that Paul is denying that being Jewish is enough to be saved. The fact that the Law of Moses comes 400 years is beside the point. The Law – and circumcision which preceded it by 400 years (or whatever) are the ethnic markers of the Jew. And Paul’s argument here is that salvation is not limited to Jews.

The only reason this idea that 4:2 is about “good works” is that the context is ignored – the context is clear: the issue here is not good works, but the relation between national identity and justification.

 

[Andre]

This context beginning with Romans 7:14 to Romans 8:27 is a detailed explanation why the believer needs to depend on the Holy Spirit for progressive sanctification not justification.

Again, you cannot invoke "context" to make words means something other than what they mean. Paul says that by walking in the Spirit, you will live - your otherwise mortal bodies will be en-livened.

If Paul meant to say something else, he would have done so. But this text is a clear assertion:

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live

Given that Paul has just spoken about the Spirit giving life to your mortal bodies, there is only one way to read this statement:

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live (eternally)

Again, the context line only gets you so far. Words can only be bent out of shape so far. When someone says "If you do X, then Y will be the result" it means what it means.

Even if Paul had hitherto been talking about something else, a simple statement of the form "if you, through the spirit, put to death the misdeeds of the body you will live" means what it means. One cannot legitimately anyway, use a context to argument to substitute "you will become sanctified' for "you will live".

Live means live. It does not mean something else.

Again, if someone has been writing about how hard workers get raises, and then says:

"If you work hard, you will get a vacation", one cannot "argue from context" that "vacation" means "a raise".

Words mean what they mean.

 

[Dr. Walter]

If that were true then why the additional argument in verses 13-15? Romans 4:1-4 is not referring to Mosaic law but as "pertaining to the flesh" or just plain old fleshly works as a GENTILE. Abraham was a GENTILE!

Second, Romans 4:16-22 completely refutes your whole position as he argues that NO KIND OF WORKS performed by Abraham was included in justification "by faith" but everything in his life was excluded from justification "by faith" as he totally restricts justifying "faith" to the power and performance of God alone to obtain the promise and totally exclusive of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING he possibly could do.

I suggest that Romans 4 actually affirms the position for which I am advocating.

Romans 4 does not subvert ultimate justification by good works. Here is the first bit of Romans 4:​

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."​

Romans 4:2 is clearly a reference to the Law of Moses and doing its works. True, the Law of Moses was not around in Abraham's time. But that is beside the point as I will demonstrate in a follow-on post. I have been arguing that Paul denies justification by doing the works of the Law of Moses and not justification by good works. Those who argue otherwise have severe problems with Romans 2:6-7.​

Paul's argument is basically directed at the Jew, telling him that salvation is not limited to Jews and Jews only:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

Note that Paul has written these words just a couple of sentences back from Romans 4:2.

The problem with seeing Romans 4:2 as anything other than a reference to the Law of Moses makes Paul into a scattered incoherent thinker. In Romans 3, he has just told us how justification is not based on doing the Law of Moses. Then throughout the first 17 or so verse of chapter 4, Paul is still making the same argument – salvation is not limited to Jews.

The argument is about how Abraham was not justified in virtue of being Jewish and, by extension therefore, justification is not for Jews only:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? 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? It was not after, but before!

The case makes itself – Paul is bending over backwards to make it clear that his topic here is the availability of justification to both Jew and Gentile alike. And this is precisely why it makes sense to assert, in 4:2, that the Jew (of whom Abraham is genetic father) is not justified by the works of the Law of Moses. Yes, the law of Moses was not around in Abraham’s time. But Paul is really making a broader argument about justification not being limited to the Jew.

And what is the ethnic delimiter of the Jew? The law of Moses, of course.

In the next post, I will shore up the case that the fact that the fact that the Law of Moses was not around in Abraham's time is actually beside the point.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Abraham is a GENTILE and the Jews knows this. Hence this is a PRE-Jewish example which Paul says is THE EXAMPLE for "all who believe." Abraham was justified BEFORE circumcision as a GENTILE.

Your trying to do mental gynastics with the words "works of the law." First, you want it to be understood as something EXTERNAL in Romans 3:19-21 in regard to LOST MEN. However, such an interpretation cannot apply to "every mouth" and "no flesh" and "the whole world" because "every mouth" and "no flesh" and "the whole world" encompass more people than those who had it as an EXTERNAL law.

Then in Romans 4 where a regenerated man is the context and justification of this man is pinpointed as a past completed action at the point he believed God's promise (Rom. 4:2) you want it to be understood as as obedience to JEWISH LAW for justification and say that Paul is simply using Abraham to prove that you do not have to become JEWISH to be justified.

However, Paul is proving that Abraham is the example of "all that believe" and he uses Abraham to prove that justification by faith is a PAST COMPLETE ACTION at the point of faith in God's promise (v. 2) in regard to an "ungodly" man (v. 5). He denies that justification is a progressive action but a completed action 14 years previous to circumcision (vv. 9-12). He denies that submission to divine ordinances in regard to an already regenerated justified man is inclusive in justification by faith (vv. 9-12). In addition, he denies that a regenerated justified man by faith is inclusive of progressive obedience to the law of God (vv. 13-15). Finally, he denies that justification by faith is the kind of faith that includes ANYTHING a regenerated justified man does (vv. 16-22). He concludes using Aorist and Perfect tense verbs to completely destroy any concept of progressive or future justification.

Then in Romans 8 in a context of SANCTIFICATION not justification, you want to prove the law is the means used by the Spirit of God for progressie and future justification by works. Since you have challenged my interpretation of this passage I will deal with it separately.

All of these texts present direct contradictions to your inconsistent application of the term "works of the law."

Circumcision, while perhaps technically not part of Torah (its initiation preceded Sinai by > 400 years, I think), is the hallmark of membership in the nation of Israel. And Abraham was indeed circumcized. As one see if one reads on in Romans 4, the issue is not "good works" righteousness, but righteousness being limited to Jews and Jews only.

14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. 16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham

This, of course, is yet another of the many problems with thinking that Romans 4:2 is about "good works" - the rest of the chapter shows that the issue on Paul's mind is whether God's grace is limited to Jews. This is yet another reason why Romans 4:2 is clearly an allusion to the Torah - the national charter of Israel.

So when Paul talks about Abraham not being justified by works, the context of Romans 4, not to mention that of Romans 3, forces us to understand that Paul is denying that being Jewish is enough to be saved. The fact that the Law of Moses comes 400 years is beside the point. The Law – and circumcision which preceded it by 400 years (or whatever) are the ethnic markers of the Jew. And Paul’s argument here is that salvation is not limited to Jews.

The only reason this idea that 4:2 is about “good works” is that the context is ignored – the context is clear: the issue here is not good works, but the relation between national identity and justification.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I believe you are forcing a doctrine of future justification into a context dealing with present sanctification. You complain that my interpretation of "live" and "die" does not suit the context. However, previous to this text Paul says:

For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Note the PRESENT TENSE rather than a FUTURE tense. Presently, the wrong mindset will produce death "is death" or will produce life "is life and peace." This is not speaking of sometime in the future but presently.

Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

Notice he is not speaking of the lost but of "brethren" and that there are two PRESENT options for "brethren." Again, "to live" refers to the present life being lived not to the future eternal life.

Can "brethren" PRESENTLY live "after the flesh"? How do you David was living when he committed fornication with Bathsheba? How do you think you are living when you sin or continue in sin for an hour, a day, a week?

Hence, the dispute verse using the terms "live" and "die" refer to this option that "brethren" are not indebted "to live" after the flesh but often do.

How do "brethren" keep from PRESENTLY live "after the flesh" as David did? The latter part of verse 13 gives the answer:

"but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live"

How did David do this? Psalm 32 answer that question. How do you do it PRESENTLY? You consciously resist sin and submit to the power and promise of the Holy Spirit indwelling you. If you do not, then what "shall" be produced is the sins of David. If you do, then what "shall" be produced as consequential is THE LIFE OF CHRIST.

This is what the Spirit will lead every child of God to do PRESENTLY when it comes to sin:

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Take this interpretation into consideration with Romans 4 where Paul denies progressive or future justification of a born again child of God but demands it is a completed action at the point of faith in the promise of God and Romans 8 cannot be interpreted the way you do. In addition, consider that in Romans 4 Paul denies that justification by faith in regard to a regenerated child of God is inclusive of obedience to divine ordinances (vv. 9-12) and law keeping (vv. 13-15) and that justifying "faith" excludes EVERY KIND of action, performance, personal assistance by a born again child of God and that destroys such an interpretation of Romans 8.

Again, you cannot invoke "context" to make words means something other than what they mean. Paul says that by walking in the Spirit, you will live - your otherwise mortal bodies will be en-livened.

If Paul meant to say something else, he would have done so. But this text is a clear assertion:

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live

Given that Paul has just spoken about the Spirit giving life to your mortal bodies, there is only one way to read this statement:

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live (eternally)

Again, the context line only gets you so far. Words can only be bent out of shape so far. When someone says "If you do X, then Y will be the result" it means what it means.

Even if Paul had hitherto been talking about something else, a simple statement of the form "if you, through the spirit, put to death the misdeeds of the body you will live" means what it means. One cannot legitimately anyway, use a context to argument to substitute "you will become sanctified' for "you will live".

Live means live. It does not mean something else.

Again, if someone has been writing about how hard workers get raises, and then says:

"If you work hard, you will get a vacation", one cannot "argue from context" that "vacation" means "a raise".

Words mean what they mean.

 

[steaver]

I just somehow lost a long response to your post here. And I simply am not willing to reproduce it all again - I do not know if you guys have this same trouble where, somehow, you lose your post. And I am not willing to take the time to copy and save as I complete each sentence.

You do not have to copy and save each sentence or paste what you copied at all. But be sure to copy it.

After losing several expositions I have made it a "must do" habbit of copying every post I prepare.

When you are ready to submit your post, first highlight your entire post and press Ctrl c (or use your right click mouse). If you lose it and need to redo, just bring up a fresh page and paste it by pressing Ctrl v.

I have already been lazy in the past and neglected to copy a post even knowing how I have lost post in the past. Not any more, everything gets copied, even this short post here has been copied. :thumbsup:

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

Gentlemen:

Thank you for the great discussion! I am convinced that Jesus taught salvation by faith AND salvation by gracious good works. He did not teach salvation by meritorious good works.

Final salvation is all that really matters in the end, and Jesus taught that it is by gracious good works. In short, He taught that salvation is by a kind of faith that works through love.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Gentlemen:

Thank you for the great discussion! I am convinced that Jesus taught salvation by faith AND salvation by gracious good works. He did not teach salvation by meritorious good works.

Final salvation is all that really matters in the end, and Jesus taught that it is by gracious good works. In short, He taught that salvation is by a kind of faith that works through love.

Your conclusion is categorically denied by Paul in Romans 4. Paul denies it in Ephesians 2:10 that shows "good works" are consequences of salvation "in Christ" but not causes. Paul denies it in Tit. 3:5. In short, you have just embraced "another gospel" and those who do so are called "accursed" by Paul (Gal. 1:6-9).

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

We need to study exactly what Jesus taught about salvation before we start prooftexting from Paul's writings. Paul's teachings must be interpreted in the light provided by Jesus' teachings, not the other way around.

 

[Andre]

Your conclusion is categorically denied by Paul in Romans 4. Paul denies it in Ephesians 2:10 that shows "good works" are consequences of salvation "in Christ" but not causes. Paul denies it in Tit. 3:5. In short, you have just embraced "another gospel" and those who do so are called "accursed" by Paul (Gal. 1:6-9).

Paul never denies that "good works" are the "cause" of salvation in Ephesians 2. There, when Paul denies justification by "works", he is speaking of the Jew who believes that justification can be attained by performing the works of the Law of Moses.

Here is Ephesians 2:8-9 from the NASB:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that (Y)no one may boast.

In verse 9, Paul is denying the salvific power of doing the works of the Law of Moses, and not the more general category of “good works”.

A point of method: It simply will not do to declare up front that Paul is talking about good works here – that begs the question. No, the fair-minded reader needs to ask which of the following views makes more sense given both the local context and the broader context of the whole letter:

1. The salvific power of doing good works is being denied;

2. The salvific power of doing the works of the Law of Moses (the Torah) is being denied.

Explanation 2 is the one that makes sense in light of what Paul goes on to say in verse 11 and following as well as what he says in Romans 3, where he makes it clear that, in respect to good works, the Jew and the Gentile are in the same boat.

Proceeding to an examination of Ephesians 2:11 and following, Paul uses the "therefore" to show us that he is now going to fill out the implications of his denial of salvation by “works”

Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

Paul is clearly now talking about the Jew-Gentile divide, and how the actions of Jesus have brought Jew and Gentile together. Doing the works of Torah, of course, is what demarcates Jew from Gentile in terms of covenant membership and shuts the Gentile out of citizenship in Israel. Paul continues:

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations

How much more clear could Paul be? What has divided the Jew from the Gentile and been the barrier? Good works? Obviously not, both Jew and Gentile are on “the same side” of any good works barrier (first 20 or so verses of Romans 3). It is doing the works of Torah, of course, that is the very thing that the Jew might otherwise boast in and which is now being declared to not be salvific.

I will deal with Romans 4 in a subsequent post.

 

[Andre]

Your conclusion is categorically denied by Paul in Romans 4. Paul denies it in Ephesians 2:10 that shows "good works" are consequences of salvation "in Christ" but not causes. Paul denies it in Tit. 3:5. In short, you have just embraced "another gospel" and those who do so are called "accursed" by Paul (Gal. 1:6-9).

Now on the matter of Romans 4. Here is an argument about that text in relation to the matter at issue:

Romans 4 does not subvert ultimate justification by good works. Here is the first bit of Romans 4:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
Romans 4:2 is clearly a reference to the Law of Moses and doing its works. True, the Law of Moses was not around in Abraham's time. But that is beside the point as I will demonstrate in a follow-on post. I have been arguing that Paul denies justification by doing the works of the Law of Moses and not justification by good works. Those who argue otherwise have severe problems with Romans 2:6-7.
Paul's argument is basically directed at the Jew, telling him that salvation is not limited to Jews and Jews only:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

Note that Paul has written these words just a couple of sentences back from Romans 4:2.

The problem with seeing Romans 4:2 as anything other than a reference to the Law of Moses makes Paul into a scattered incoherent thinker. In Romans 3, he has just told us how justification is not based on doing the Law of Moses. Then throughout the first 17 or so verse of chapter 4, Paul is still making the same argument – salvation is not limited to Jews.

The argument is about how Abraham was not justified in virtue of being Jewish and, by extension therefore, justification is not for Jews only:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? 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? It was not after, but before!

The case makes itself – Paul is bending over backwards to make it clear that his topic here is the availability of justification to both Jew and Gentile alike. And this is precisely why it makes sense to assert, in 4:2, that the Jew (of whom Abraham is genetic father) is not justified by the works of the Law of Moses. Yes, the law of Moses was not around in Abraham’s time. But Paul is really making a broader argument about justification not being limited to the Jew.

And what is the ethnic delimiter of the Jew? The law of Moses, of course.

Now you (Dr. Walter) responded with this:

If that were true then why the additional argument in verses 13-15? Romans 4:1-4 is not referring to Mosaic law but as "pertaining to the flesh" or just plain old fleshly works as a GENTILE. Abraham was a GENTILE!

Second, Romans 4:16-22 completely refutes your whole position as he argues that NO KIND OF WORKS performed by Abraham was included in justification "by faith" but everything in his life was excluded from justification "by faith" as he totally restricts justifying "faith" to the power and performance of God alone to obtain the promise and totally exclusive of ANYTHING and EVERYTHING he possibly could do.

On the matter of verses 13-15:

It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression

This does not challenge my argument. Abraham was not a Gentile as you assert, he was a Jew. Or at least it is manifestly clear that, in this argument, Paul agrees that Abraham functions as the father of the Jews (even if he is also father of the true family of God, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles):

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham.

Paul clearly sees Abraham as the faither of the Jews, as well as being a father to others as well. That is why my argument above still works.

And Romans 4:16-22 does not refute ultimate justification by good works - something Paul clearly affirms in Romans 2 and Romans 8. In 4:16-22, Paul is speaking of how belief secures Abraham's justification. We have been down this road before. If we are take all that Paul writes seriously, we need to understand this as a statement that faith justifies in the sense that it results in the gift of the Holy Spirit who will transform the believer into the kind of person who will indeed pass the Romans 2 good works judgement.

Paul can say that Abraham was justified at the point of belief and this is in no way means we can sweep Romans 2:6-7 under the rug. Paul means what he says in both places.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

What did Jesus teach about salvation? Did He teach that it is by faith ALONE? Or did He teach that it is by other things in addition to faith? The answers to these questions are easy if we take the words of Christ as our final authority.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Romans 4:2 is not a reference to Mosaic Law as the Jews did not even exist. It is the works of "the flesh" (v. 1 - PERTAINING TO THE FLESH"). Abraham was not a Jew but a gentile as he was UNCIRCUMCISED when justified.

What you are failing to see, in fact, tripping over it blindly, is that Romans 4:1-25 is the Pauline exposition of what justification by faith is and is not. This chapter is designed to be a systematic treatment of the doctrine of justification by faith and what it is versus what it is not. Rom. 4:16-22 elminates ALL WORKS of ANY KIND completely from the definition of justifying faith and the doctrine of justification by imputation.

Romans 2:6-11 is not swept under the rug but has been interpreted in keeping with its immediate and overall context and has nothing to say about ANYONE actually having been justified by works but is in a context that denies that anyone will ever be justified by works.

Now on the matter of Romans 4. Here is an argument about that text in relation to the matter at issue:


Now you (Dr. Walter) responded with this:


On the matter of verses 13-15:

It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression

This does not challenge my argument. Abraham was not a Gentile as you assert, he was a Jew. Or at least it is manifestly clear that, in this argument, Paul agrees that Abraham functions as the father of the Jews (even if he is also father of the true family of God, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles):

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham.

Paul clearly sees Abraham as the faither of the Jews, as well as being a father to others as well. That is why my argument above still works.

And Romans 4:16-22 does not refute ultimate justification by good works - something Paul clearly affirms in Romans 2 and Romans 8. In 4:16-22, Paul is speaking of how belief secures Abraham's justification. We have been down this road before. If we are take all that Paul writes seriously, we need to understand this as a statement that faith justifies in the sense that it results in the gift of the Holy Spirit who will transform the believer into the kind of person who will indeed pass the Romans 2 good works judgement.

Paul can say that Abraham was justified at the point of belief and this is in no way means we can sweep Romans 2:6-7 under the rug. Paul means what he says in both places.

 

[Dr. Walter]

What did Jesus teach about salvation? Did He teach that it is by faith ALONE? Or did He teach that it is by other things in addition to faith? The answers to these questions are easy if we take the words of Christ as our final authority.

It sure is, (Jn. 5:24; 6:29-67; 10:26-30; Mt. 5:20,48; 7:21-23).

 

[Andre]

Romans 4:2 is not a reference to Mosaic Law as the Jews did not even exist.

The fact that the nation of Isreal did not exist does no damage to my argument.

Paul is obviously arguing here that salvation is not limited to Jews - and he is certainly not denying what he said in Romans 2, and will say again in Romans 8 (and elsewhere) - that ultimate salvation is based on good works.

If Paul is really interested in making a claim that good works do not justify, why is he so concerned about the Jew - Gentile distinction, the very distinction which ismarked out by the Law of Moses, which set the Jew apart from the Gentile?:

How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised

This is precisely the question and answer that someone would set forth if to make the case that righteousness was credited to Abraham prior to Abraham's being made the father of the Jews. And why is it important to be so focused on the matter of the timing?

Simple. If Abraham were credited with righteousness after he had been circumcized, and thereby set apart as a Jew, one could then argue that the righteousness was credited to Abraham in virtue of his Jewishness.

Note that, just a few verses back in Romans 3, Paul has attacked this very same belief:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,....

This is really quite clear - Paul is centrally concerned with undermining the belief that salvation is limited to Jews.

And the fact that the "works" in 4:2 are actually the works of the Law of Moses is made more apparent by this statement from Romans 4:

It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

This is clearly an argument that Abraham and his offspring did not get a certain promise through being under the Law of Moses, but rather in virtue of their faith. Again, it is puzzling why people to do not understand this - Paul is again making the point that the promises that really count - including justification - have nothing to do with being a Jew. And this is why verse 2 is a denial of the power of the Law of Moses to justify. It is not a denial of justification by doing good works.

Now people will try to undermine this argument by pointing out that the Law of Moses was not around at the time of Abraham. Well no kidding. But the argument that Paul is clearly mounting is that being Jewish is not the basis of receiving the promise of justification. And what is the best way to make this point?

To deny that the Law of Moses is the basis of justification, precisely because if the Law of Moses did justify, then justification would indeed be limited to Jews.

 

[Andre]

Romans 4:2 is not a reference to Mosaic Law as the Jews did not even exist. It is the works of "the flesh" (v. 1 - PERTAINING TO THE FLESH").

Verse 1 never qualifies the "works" as being "of the flesh". Instead, verse 1 is a statement that Abraham is the genetic father of the Jews - that is, that he is the forefather of the Jews "according to the flesh":

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

Andre, you have an excellent understanding of the New Testament and of the book of Romans.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

According to Jesus, the practice of forgiveness is essential to salvation.

Matthew 6
[14] For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
[15] But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

This proves that salvation is not by faith ALONE.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

According to Jesus, our practical righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees in order for us to be finally saved. (The verses before and after Matthew 5:20 are about practical righteousness, not positional righteousness.)

Matthew 5
[20] For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This proves that salvation is not by faith ALONE.