The Apostate Gospel of works

[Dr. Walter]

HEBREWS 9 [1] Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. [9] Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;[10] Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.[12] Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

HEBREWS 10 [1] For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.[2] For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.[3] But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.[4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Ofcourse not. But is that what you believe? If there is no law, there is no sin. Sin is the transgression of the law. If you say you have no sin you decieve yourself.

Is this a serious response????? Three of the Ten commandments are listed in Romans 2:21-23 along with the ceremonial law in Romans 2:24-3:1. If Christ satisfied the law and its PENALTY OF SIN in my behalf then I have NO SIN before God POSITIONALLY and LEGALLY "in Christ." In my own person I will always have sin- always in this life. However, justification under law requires NO SIN as to fail in ONE POINT is to fail in ALL POINTS. Can you keep the law in ALL POINTS in your own person????? No! That is why "NO FLESH" is justified by LAW KEEPING!

The issue is not whether we still have sin in our own person the issue is do we have sin "IN CHRIST"? The answer is NO! That is where my hope for heaven lies! Not in my own person or my own obedience to the law of God but IN the obedience of Christ to the law of God and His payment of sin FOR ME!

You don't believe that! You are trying to justify yourself by YOUR OWN OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW IN YOUR OWN PERSON! Are you SINLESS? That is what YOU are claiming when you claim you can be justified by good works of the law.

 

[Chowmah]

Can you keep the law in ALL POINTS in your own person????? No! That is why "NO FLESH" is justified by LAW KEEPING!

So do you also take the same stance on the testimony of Jesus. No one but Jesus has perfectly loved his neighbor. So do you then say, well "no flesh" can perfectly love their neighbor as Jesus did, therefore i need not love my neighbor.

 

[Chowmah]

Is this a serious response????? If Christ satisfied the law and its PENALTY OF SIN in my behalf then I have NO SIN before God POSITIONALLY and LEGALLY "in Christ."

1 John 1:8
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.


Like i said...Your only decieving yourself

 

[Andre]

In Romans 2:17-3:8 Paul is dealing with the Jew whose boast was in keeping the moral, ceremonial and civil laws of God for justification before God.

Rom. 2: 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;

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;

Rom. 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?


Romans 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

Rom. 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.


The argument that Paul is refuting justication by being a certain ETHNIC people is false! The argument that Paul is refuting justification by circumcision is false!

Your argument is circular in a manner that you may not even be able to understand, given the tradition which you (apparently) have been heir to.

The problem is this - you seem to simply exclude up front the possibility that this is an ethnic argument and, having done so, see only one possible reading - that this is a "good works" argument, not an "ethnic one".

Yet, for reasons you have been shown in many other posts in other threads, the "ethnic" explanation is indeed the better one, given the context of the various relevant passages.

Yes Paul is berating the Jew who boasts in the Law. The problem is that you seem to simply dismiss without supporting argument the possibility that this is a boast in the Law as an "ethnic marker".

Yes, Paul talks about "moral activities" - such as stealing. But that does not require us to see this as fundamentally a "good works" argument. You seem to think that just because Paul suggests that his Jewish "target" might be hypocritical in respect to things like stealing, adultery, or idol worship, this means that Paul is speaking out against justification by good works.

Not so - he is simply asking tough questions about hypocrisy - the fact that a person who speaks out against stealing turns out to be a thief himself is hardly an argument that moral behaviour is not vital to ultimate justification.

As per a range of arguments that have already been presented to you, Paul's real concern is indeed an "ethnic" one - that the Jew might think he is justified simply by being a member of the ethnic groups that does the works of the Law of Moses.

That this is indeed an ethnic argument is amply borne out by this:

There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism

This text, and others like it (e.g. at the end of Romans 3) shows that Paul is indeed making an ethnic argument.

The problem with your view is that it simply cannot explain Paul's obvious concern with specifically ethnic values. After all, if Paul is berating the Jew for trying to be saved by good works, the "favoritism" statement is entirely irrelevant and seems like a tangent. However, if Paul is berating the Jew for believing in ethnic privilege (doing the works of the Law of Moses), then this "favoritism" remark snaps perfectly into such an argument.

The problem with the traditional reformed reading of chapters 2 and 3 is that it has Paul going off on a "Jew-Gentile" tangent, when his real argument is about "good works".

And this should, and does, raise red flags of suspicion that a "good works" argument is on the table here.

 

[Dr. Walter]

1 John 1:8
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.


Like i said...Your only decieving yourself

Either you don't understand what I said OR you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I give you the benefit of the doubt and explain what I said thoroughly.

I have NO SIN "in Christ" but I am not without sin IN my own person and experience.

I have NO SIN "in Christ" positionally and legally in regard to JUSTIFICATION before God becuase Christ has NO SIN and he represents me before God by faith.

I HAVE SIN in my own person.

You are the one claiming to be without sin. Justification by the deeds of the law requires SINLESSNESS and you are claiming to be justified by the deeds of the law - THOSE DEEDS defined in the TEN COMMANDMENTS in Romans 2:21-24.

 

[Chowmah]

Romans 8:1-4
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [2] For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. [3] For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.


Is this what your talking about?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Where does Paul say in Romans 2-5 that the Jews beleived they were justified by being a JEW??? One text please???

You have no text! NONE! Zilch! Nada! You are INTERPRETING the phrases "DEEDS of the law" and "WORKS of the law" to mean JEWISHNESS! That is a FALSE interpretation as Romans 2:17-21, 24, 3:27 prove that the "boast" of the Jew was not in JEWISHINESS for justificaiton but in the "DEEDS" of the law for justification:

Rom. 2: 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;

Paul does NOT say the Jew "restest in being a Jew" but "restest in the law".

Paul does NOT say the Jew "boast" in being a Jew but knowing and approving things more excellent OUT OF THE LAW" = GOOD WORKS!

Your theory is false and I have just proved it is false.


Rom. 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

Romans 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

It is DOING these WORKS and DEEDS that are the boast of the Jew when in fact they come short.


Rom. 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.


Paul asks where is boasting then? He does NOT reply "in being a Jew rather than a Gentile"!!!!!

Your theory is false! You don't believe IN Christ for justification, you believe in yourself and your good works. You don't believe in the gospel of Christ but in the accursed gospel.

Your argument is circular in a manner that you may not even be able to understand, given the tradition which you (apparently) have been heir to.

The problem is this - you seem to simply exclude up front the possibility that this is an ethnic argument and, having done so, see only one possible reading - that this is a "good works" argument, not an "ethnic one".

Yet, for reasons you have been shown in many other posts in other threads, the "ethnic" explanation is indeed the better one, given the context of the various relevant passages.

Yes Paul is berating the Jew who boasts in the Law. The problem is that you seem to simply dismiss without supporting argument the possibility that this is a boast in the Law as an "ethnic marker".

Yes, Paul talks about "moral activities" - such as stealing. But that does not require us to see this as fundamentally a "good works" argument. You seem to think that just because Paul suggests that his Jewish "target" might be hypocritical in respect to things like stealing, adultery, or idol worship, this means that Paul is speaking out against justification by good works.

Not so - he is simply asking tough questions about hypocrisy - the fact that a person who speaks out against stealing turns out to be a thief himself is hardly an argument that moral behaviour is not vital to ultimate justification.

As per a range of arguments that have already been presented to you, Paul's real concern is indeed an "ethnic" one - that the Jew might think he is justified simply by being a member of the ethnic groups that does the works of the Law of Moses.

That this is indeed an ethnic argument is amply borne out by this:

There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism

This text, and others like it (e.g. at the end of Romans 3) shows that Paul is indeed making an ethnic argument.

The problem with your view is that it simply cannot explain Paul's obvious concern with specifically ethnic values. After all, if Paul is berating the Jew for trying to be saved by good works, the "favoritism" statement is entirely irrelevant and seems like a tangent. However, if Paul is berating the Jew for believing in ethnic privilege (doing the works of the Law of Moses), then this "favoritism" remark snaps perfectly into such an argument.

The problem with the traditional reformed reading of chapters 2 and 3 is that it has Paul going off on a "Jew-Gentile" tangent, when his real argument is about "good works".

And this should, and does, raise red flags of suspicion that a "good works" argument is on the table here.

 

[Chowmah]

You are the one claiming to be without sin. Justification by the deeds of the law requires SINLESSNESS and you are claiming to be justified by the deeds of the law - THOSE DEEDS defined in the TEN COMMANDMENTS in Romans 2:21-24.

Not once have i said i was justified by the deeds of the law. Ill say it again. Its only by grace you are saved. A free gift. The difference between you and me is to whom will be given this free gift. I believe its those who walk after righteousness. You do not

 

[Andre]

Where does Paul say in Romans 2-5 that the Jews beleived they were justified by being a JEW??? One text please???

There is no text that says this explicitly, but it is clear from texts the one I listed, and from Romans 3:29, and Romans 4, that this is precisely what Paul means.

And of course, for your part, you will not be able to produce any text that shows that explicitly shows Paul is critiquing the Jew for thinking that "good works" justify him.

To use your words: "You have no text! NONE! Zilch! Nada! You are INTERPRETING the phrases "DEEDS of the law" and "WORKS of the law" to mean "good works!"

Show us one text where it is clear that Paul is critiquing a belief in ultimate justification by good works.

Your theory is false! You don't believe IN Christ for justification, you believe in yourself and your good works. You don't believe in the gospel of Christ but in the accursed gospel.

You bear false witness - you know full well that I do not believe that "my own" works save me.

Please do not misrepresent me.

 

[DHK]

Not once have i said i was justified by the deeds of the law. Ill say it again. Its only by grace you are saved. A free gift. The difference between you and me is to whom will be given this free gift. I believe its those who walk after righteousness. You do not

Isn't that the same as a works salvation.
The gift of God (salvation) is elsewhere defined as a "free gift."
Where in the Bible is a "free gift" conditioned by those that will walk after righteousness?
If that is true then it is not a free gift. Neither is it grace.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Not once have i said i was justified by the deeds of the law. Ill say it again. Its only by grace you are saved. A free gift. The difference between you and me is to whom will be given this free gift. I believe its those who walk after righteousness. You do not

You speak out of both sides of your mouth. You most certainly do believe in justification by works and your past post on circumcision proves it.

You are right! I do not believe God gives the gift of salvation to those who walk after righteousness. In fact, I do not believe ANY MAN walks after righteousness UNLESS and EXCEPT they have ALREADY been given the free gift of salvation and ALREADY fully and completely justified before God with the promise that they shall not come into judgement and THESE are the only people who can walk after righteousness.

Their walk after righteousness is IMPERFECT and NEVER can be the basis to be justified by God's Law - NEVER! They do not live IMPERFECT righteousness to be justified but because they have been PERFECTLY justified in Christ alone by faith alone.

 

[Andre]

Paul does NOT say the Jew "restest in being a Jew" but "restest in the law"..

Again, you apparently do not see your "hidden" presumption.

And it is this: You presume that the Jew rests in the Law in terms of a moral code, and you discount the possibility that the Jew rests in the Law as an ethnic delimiter.

I make no such presumption - I argue for the ethnic reading from context. And to the extent that the law is for Jews only, to say that one "rests in the law" could, repeat could, indeed be read as a statement about "resting in being a Jew".

 

[Dr. Walter]

So do you also take the same stance on the testimony of Jesus. No one but Jesus has perfectly loved his neighbor. So do you then say, well "no flesh" can perfectly love their neighbor as Jesus did, therefore i need not love my neighbor.

That is correct IF you are talking about being justified by loving your neighbor as "NO FLESH" can be justified by the law's demand to love His neigbor but Christ alone. On the other hand those already JUSTIFIED by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone can IMPERFECTLY love their neighbor and remain UNCONDEMNED for imperfect love because Christ paid the penalty of the law that demands SINLESS obedience.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Again, you apparently do not see your "hidden" presumption.

And it is this: You presume that the Jew rests in the Law in terms of a moral code, and you discount the possibility that the Jew rests in the Law as an ethnic delimiter.

I make no such presumption - I argue for the ethnic reading from context. And to the extent that the law is for Jews only, to say that one "rests in the law" could, repeat could, indeed be read as a statement about "resting in being a Jew".

Are you a blind man? Did you not see Paul's explicit language in Romans 2:17-21 that their boast was in "the law" and three of the TEN COMMANDMENTS are listed!!!!!! If the ten commandments is not the MORAL law then please inform us what law is??????????

He didn't say they rested in being a JEW or boasted in being a JEW but their boast was in claiming to OBEY THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and he list three of them they BOAST in obeying.

You are reading into the text what it does not say or mean because it condemns your accursed gospel of works.

 

[Chowmah]

Isn't that the same as a works salvation.
The gift of God (salvation) is elsewhere defined as a "free gift."
Where in the Bible is a "free gift" conditioned by those that will walk after righteousness?
If that is true then it is not a free gift. Neither is it grace.

David Koresh (a believer) who did not follow after righteousness will not recive this free gift. Jim Jones (a believer) who did not follow after righteousness will not recieve this free gift.

You guys keep saying because i observe to keep the 10 commandments, i am doing my works to be saved

Psalm 78:7-11
That they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments: [8] And might not be as their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God. [9] The children of Ephraim, being armed, and carrying bows, turned back in the day of battle. [10] They kept not the covenant of God, and refused to walk in his law; [11] And forgat his works, and his wonders that he had shewed them.

They aint my works

 

[DHK]

David Koresh (a believer) who did not follow after righteousness will not recive this free gift. Jim Jones (a believer) who did not follow after righteousness will not recieve this free gift.

Do you believe David Koresh was a believer? Google him, and find out what he really believed.
Do you believe that Jim Jones was a believer? Google him, and find out what he really believed.

If those are your brothers in Christ, then I feel sorry for you.

You guys keep saying because i observe to keep the 10 commandments, i am doing my works to be saved

That seems to be the philosophy that you are putting forth.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Here is what both of you are spiritually blind to. The Jew boasted in being a Jew BECAUSE they were given the Law and claimed to be not merely TEACHERS of the Law but boasting in obedience to the Law. The Gentiles were not given the law and therefore in the eyes of the Jews the gentiles could not be justified before God.

The boast of being a Jew is DERIVED from the GREATER BOAST of having the law, obeying the law, being justified by the Law.

In contrast because the Gentile was not given the Law, they could not boast in the Law, or boast in obeying the law and therefore could not be justified by the law.

You are taking the LESSOR boast and making it the PRIMARY boast and reinterpreting Scripture to support your perversion.

The PRIMARY BOAST was that the law was given to the Jews to be observed by the Jews so as to be justified by God. The LESSOR BOAST which is derived from receiving the law is that only Jews could be justified.

This is why Paul deals with the PRIMARY BOAST in Romans 2:17-23 and in Romans 3:27 demanding that "NO FLESH" can be justified by the law and so it destroys the secondary or lessor boast of being a Jew altogether making them no better than Gentiles before God as neither could be justified by the law only by faith.

However, your both spiritually blind and deceived by the accursed gospel and its author.

 

[Chowmah]

That is correct IF you are talking about being justified by loving your neighbor as "NO FLESH" can be justified by the law's demand to love His neigbor but Christ alone. On the other hand those already JUSTIFIED by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone can IMPERFECTLY love their neighbor and remain UNCONDEMNED for imperfect love because Christ paid the penalty of the law that demands SINLESS obedience.

PROPHECY FULFILLED!

ISAIAH 30 [8] Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: [9] That this is A REBELLIOUS PEOPLE, lying children, children THAT WILL NOT HEAR THE LAW OF THE LORD:

 

[Andre]

Are you a blind man? Did you not see Paul's explicit language in Romans 2:17-21 that their boast was in "the law" and three of the TEN COMMANDMENTS are listed!!!!!! If the ten commandments is not the MORAL law then please inform us what law is??????????

As I have already posted, telling the Jew that he might be a hypocrite is not equivalent to telling him that he does not need to do good works to be saved.

He didn't say they rested in being a JEW or boasted in being a JEW but their boast was in claiming to OBEY THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and he list three of them they BOAST in obeying.

You are inventing material - Paul never says that the Jew boasts in obeying the 10 commandments.

You are reading into the text what it does not say or mean because it condemns your accursed gospel of works.

Contentless and argumentative.

 

[Dr. Walter]

David Koresh (a believer) who did not follow after righteousness will not recive this free gift. Jim Jones (a believer) who did not follow after righteousness will not recieve this free gift.

You guys keep saying because i observe to keep the 10 commandments, i am doing my works to be saved

Psalm 78:7-11
That they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments: [8] And might not be as their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God. [9] The children of Ephraim, being armed, and carrying bows, turned back in the day of battle. [10] They kept not the covenant of God, and refused to walk in his law; [11] And forgat his works, and his wonders that he had shewed them.

They aint my works

Your problem is one of cause versus consequence! You make the consequence (walk after righteousness) as the cause for God justifying the sinner and giving them eternal life.

David Koresh was a heretic who believed in FALSE GOSPEL. He could do no good works because he had no basis for justification before God and no basis of goodness inside him (new birth) and therefore an EVIL tree brings froth EVIL fruit.

You have no basis for good works either, as you reject the only basis for justification before God and all who do that have no internal basis to produce good works (new birth). What is produced by such are "iniquity" in God's sight (Mt. 7:23; Isa. 64:6).