Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No. Paul is not setting grace against good works, He is setting grace against the Jewish belief that the Jew had an ethnically exclusive claim on God in respect to justification.The Jews could not be justified by works; they had to be totally dependent on God's grace. Works failed them every time. Works and grace are totally exclusive of each other. Paul puts it this way:
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
If it is by grace, it is not by works.
If it is by works, it is not by grace.
You cannot have both.
Paul's epistle is no doubt the greatest treatise on the subject of soteriology ever written. That is his subject.No. Paul is not setting grace against good works, He is setting grace against the Jewish belief that the Jew had an ethnically exclusive claim on God in respect to justification.
Paul is not critiquing the Jew for trying to "earn" salvation through works (although he would indeed suggest that this cannot be achieved apart from the Spirit). Instead he is critiquing the Jew for thinking that only those who can do the works of the Law of Moses can be saved.
No on several counts.Paul's epistle is no doubt the greatest treatise on the subject of soteriology ever written. That is his subject.
He is not writing about "ethnic exclusivity." That is just your opinion and imagination, something you cannot demonstrate. He plainly says in Romans 11:6 that grace and works are not compatible with each other.
No on several counts.
First, I have, of course, never denied that soteriology is central to Romans.
Second, the texts speak for themselves - Paul is indeed heavily concerned with matters of ethnic exclusivity. These texts were not "imagined" by me, they were written by Paul:
And 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?
A clear critique of the Jew who thinks he is better than the Gentile:
For (AT)we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or (AU)is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also
A clear rebuke to the person who might believe that grace is for Jews only
For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with (U)grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to (V)all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to (W)those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is (X)the father of us all,
Another clear rebuke to those who might think God's grace is for Jews only.
Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2For I testify about them that they have (A)a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3For not knowing about (B)God's righteousness and (C)seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God
By context, the "them" are Paul's fellow Jews. What is Paul saying about them? They thought that they had a status of righteousness for Jews only.
So the scriptural evidence is clear - Paul is centrally concerned with undermining the belief that salvation is only available to Jews.
As for Romans 11:6, he is not saying that grace and good works are incompatible, he is saying that grace and ethnic exclusivity are incompatible
And while we're at it, this entire chunk from later in Romans 11 shows issues of ethnic exclusivity are indeed on Paul's mind. Here he warns Gentiles to not make the same mistake that some Jews made, namely believing that God gives grace along ethnic lines:
I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
We agree on this point.The half-truth that you have is that Jews did believe they were better than Gentiles for two distinct reasons. They were the promised seed of Abraham which is the half-truth you possess. Second because they were given God's law which they boasted in all over the world as GOD's SERVANTS - law keepers. keeping.
This is not a "crack" in my position and I have already dealt with this in of the two threads.The little crack in your position is that all the Jews believed the first half but not all the Jews believed the second half in regard to ALL Jews. Jews believed that Jews who did not obey Moses were damned even though they were Jews.
As per this post, and least one other, I have not been suggesting that the Jews believed this. This should hopefully be clear now.THEY DID NOT BELIEVE JUST BECAUSE YOU WERE A JEW YOU WERE JUSTIFIED.
We agree on this point.
This is not a "crack" in my position and I have already dealt with this in of the two threads.
I have fully acknowledged what you say. But the fact that the Jews believed that some Jews would be damned is not saying the same thing as saying that the Jews believed that a non-Jew could be saved.
And is the belief that non-Jews cannot be saved is what Paul is critiquing in statements like this one:
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?
As per this post, and least one other, I have not been suggesting that the Jews believed this. This should hopefully be clear now.
But verse 29 makes it clear, based on an argument I have posted at least once, that these "works" are the works of the Law of Moses. You cannot simply assume that he is talking about "good works" here even though that is what most people in the reformed tradition do. For my part, I made an actual case, based on verse 29 (and Romans 4) that Paul is here referring to the works of the Law of Moses.Rom. 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
You conveniently leave out the defining verse that sets the stage for what is really being contrasted (v. 27). The contrast here is not between two kinds of people but two kinds of principles. Paul does not contrast Jews to Gentiles but contrasts "works" to "faith."
But is indeed Jews versus Gentiles:However, you are changing the subject to be a contrast of people. The truth is seen in the contrast. It is not a contrast between two different kinds of people but two different kinds of principle "WORKS" versus "FAITH." Your argument would have to be "JEWS" versus "GENTILES."
It is not Jews verses any person, race or creed.But is indeed Jews versus Gentiles:
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,
The point is, of course, that if justification were based on the works of the Law of Moses, then only Jews could make it.
The foundational problem with your exegesis is that it does not explain why Paul writes verse 29. If this is simply an issue of a "principle of salvation by deeds" vs "salvation by faith", why does Paul conclude with the very thing that he would say if, as I am claiming, he is denying justification by the works of the Law of Moses.
But verse 29 makes it clear, based on an argument I have posted at least once, that these "works" are the works of the Law of Moses. You cannot simply assume that he is talking about "good works" here even though that is what most people in the reformed tradition do. For my part, I made an actual case, based on verse 29 (and Romans 4) that Paul is here referring to the works of the Law of Moses.
But is indeed Jews versus Gentiles:
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,
The point is, of course, that if justification were based on the works of the Law of Moses, then only Jews could make it.
The foundational problem with your exegesis is that it does not explain why Paul writes verse 29. If this is simply an issue of a "principle of salvation by deeds" vs "salvation by faith", why does Paul conclude with the very thing that he would say if, as I am claiming, he is denying justification by the works of the Law of Moses.
The problem is that is clear from context that Paul is indeed talking about the Law of Moses, which is decidedly a Jewish law. And the notion of "boasting" is perfectly consistent with what is essentially an ethnic argument, precisely becuase Paul can be read as addressing the boast of the Jew, who thinks he is ethnically privileged. In fact, what Paul has written in Romans 2 suggests that he is indeed dealing with such a boast, not with the boast of the morally self-righteous with no reference to matters of ethnicity:My exposition is sound. Verses 29-30 is the consequential application of Paul's argument but not the basis of his argument. His argument is not a contrast between people but between principles. Paul eliminates the principle of "works" not because it is Jewish but because it promotes boasting.
I kind of doubt it. But I am glad to see that someone else is reading along....Is it not possible that you two - or three - could all, be right?
And so they did (boast that they were Jews), and that was the problem--but only part of the problem. That isn't really what Paul is setting out to prove or demonstrate. That is not the purpose of his epistle. His epistle revolves around the various aspects of soteriology.The problem is that is clear from context that Paul is indeed talking about the Law of Moses, which is decidedly a Jewish law. And the notion of "boasting" is perfectly consistent with what is essentially an ethnic argument, precisely becuase Paul can be read as addressing the boast of the Jew, who thinks he is ethnically privileged. In fact, what Paul has written in Romans 2 suggests that he is indeed dealing with such a boast, not with the boast of the morally self-righteous with no reference to matters of ethnicity:
But if you bear the name "Jew" and rely upon the Law and boast in God,..
Well I certainly do not agree with you about the purpose of the epistle. In practical terms, Paul wrote this epistle to encourage the Jews and Gentiles in the church at Rome to get along. Jewish Christians were streaming back into Rome following their expulsion and Paul had every reason be concerned that the Gentile believers would not accept them. And Paul also has reasons to be concerned that Jewish Christians will think that they are superior to the Gentiles. This concern with issues of racial harmony are underscored by this, from Romans 1:And so they did (boast that they were Jews), and that was the problem--but only part of the problem. That isn't really what Paul is setting out to prove or demonstrate. That is not the purpose of his epistle. His epistle revolves around the various aspects of soteriology.
So, keep that fact in mind. It is very important to the understanding of this chapter.
I agree, of course, but this actually strengthens my case. Paul is concerned with ethnic divisions in the Jew + Gentile church. So this is why he denies that justification does not fall along ethnic lines.Secondly, keep in mind that this book, even chapter two is written to believers. It doesn't matter whether or not they have a Jewish or Gentile background. They are Christians, believers, all one in Christ. All of Paul's epistles are written to the saved, not to the unsaved, not to Israel.
Not historically correct. Paul is writing to both Jewish and Gentile believers in the church at Rome. So there are indeed Jews (believing ones) in the Roman church.With that in mind Paul writes about the Jews hypothetically addressing how they act. There are no Jews in church at Rome.
This does not strengthen your case; it weakens it. This is one of the stronger statements of the gospel (salvation) that Paul makes. Read also the Book of Acts. It was Paul's habit to go to the Jew first and then to the Greek as he states here. That is how historically the gospel went forth. He went into the synagogues first and then after that into the houses of the Gentiles. That was his method of evangelization for he did have a great burden for his own kinsmen--the Jews. Read the first few verses of both chapters 9 and 10 of this book.Well I certainly do not agree with you about the purpose of the epistle. In practical terms, Paul wrote this epistle to encourage the Jews and Gentiles in the church at Rome to get along. Jewish Christians were streaming back into Rome following their expulsion and Paul had every reason be concerned that the Gentile believers would not accept them. And Paul also has reasons to be concerned that Jewish Christians will think that they are superior to the Gentiles. This concern with issues of racial harmony are underscored by this, from Romans 1:
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then (equally) for the Gentile
Paul addresses some of the events which will happen to the Jews in the end times. He is still writing to believers in Christ, not the Jews.Another major theme of Romans is that Jesus Christ fulfills the Abrahamic covenant. Another is that God has used the nation of Israel to play a vital role in this (chapters 9 to 11).
That has been my point all along. And therefore he has no need to write to the Jews in particular, neither the Gentiles in particular.Another is that God's "true family" is not limited by ethnicity.
There are many subjects discussed in this book. They all somehow relate to the major theme of the book--salvation. Here is an outline given by B.W. Johnson who wrote it in 1891Yes, soteriology is an important aspect of Romans, but it is certainly not the only theme, or even the major theme.
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/bjohnson/hg1/PNT06.HTM
- Introduction to Romans
- Chapter I: Introduction. The Morals of Paganism.
- Chapter II: The Sinfulness of the Jews; Their Need of the Gospel.
- Chapter III: The Condemnation of Israel.
- Chapter IV: Abraham Justified While Still a Gentile.
- Chapter V: Reconciliation Through Christ.
- Chapter VI: Dying and Living with Christ.
- Chapter VII: Deliverance from Bondage.
- Chapter VIII: The Privileges of the Children of God.
- Chapter IX: The Rejection of the Jews.
- Chapter X: The Jews Excluded from Unbelief.
- Chapter XI: The Two Olive Trees.
- Chapter XII: Christian Life.
- Chapter XIII: The Christians and Civil Government.
- Chapter XIV: Differences of Opinion.
- Chapter XV: Mutual Love and Forbearance Enjoined.
- Chapter XVI: Personal Salutations.
No it doesn't. One of the earlier epistles that was written was First Corinthias (as well as 2Corinthians). Here is what Paul said:I agree, of course, but this actually strengthens my case. Paul is concerned with ethnic divisions in the Jew + Gentile church. So this is why he denies that justification does not fall along ethnic lines.
The works of the law cannot be performed successfully by anyone. The life of Abraham demonstrated that. The life of David demonstrated that. He uses both examples in Romans chapter 4. They could not keep the law; both were justified by faith. That is plainly stated in Rom.5:1. How could you deny such a clear statement of truth.Paul's critique of "justification by works" is not a critique of justification by good deeds, it is a critique of the idea that the Jew enjoys a privileged status over the Gentile in respect to justification. Remember - the "works of the Law" can only be performed by Jews.
No, the textual evidence of the book itself, as well as the historical situation of the time supports my thesis that Paul was centrally concerned with establishing Jew - Gentile unity in the church at Rome. The fact that Paul used the approach to evangelization that you describe above neither changes the historical facts - that the church at Rome contained both Jews and Gentiles - nor does it change the fact that, at many places in the epistle, Paul is clearly concerned with Jew - Gentile unity.This does not strengthen your case; it weakens it. This is one of the stronger statements of the gospel (salvation) that Paul makes. Read also the Book of Acts. It was Paul's habit to go to the Jew first and then to the Greek as he states here. That is how historically the gospel went forth. He went into the synagogues first and then after that into the houses of the Gentiles. That was his method of evangelization for he did have a great burden for his own kinsmen--the Jews. Read the first few verses of both chapters 9 and 10 of this book.