The Apostate Gospel of works

[Andre]

This is not a valid point!

I know that ThinkingStuff has addressed your post, but I will as well.

First, because the scripture clearly says that the law was never given to provide life.

This is untrue. Paul says this in Romans 10:

For (D)Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to (E)everyone who believes. 5For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law (F)shall live by that righteousness.

Paul is echoing texts like Lev 18:5:

'So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, (A)by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.

I am not sure what the relevance of your point is, but, either way, it is clear that there is indeed Old Testament statement about how doing the works of the Law of Moses leads to life. That creates some apparent contradictions, but dealing with them is not relevant to my argument, so I won't go there.

Second because the scripture cleary states that "no flesh" can be justified by the law.

True enough - but this does not impact my argument, which is that Jesus was obedient to the vocation of Israel to be the means by which the Adamic sin problem would be dealt with for all mankind. So, again, my argument is that when Paul writes of Jesus' obedience, he is writing not of His obedience to the Law of Moses, but to the covenantal responsibilities of Israel.

Third, because the Scriptures clearly says that it was "impossible" that the blood of bulls and goats could remit sin an NEVER could take away sin.

Fourth, because the Scriptures clearly say that the law was a "shadow" and NEVER was "the very image."

I agree, but this is no way challenges my argument.

I will deal with the rest of your post in a subsequent post.

 

[Dr. Walter]

And nothing in this statement by Andre states otherwise. Red herring that.

He teaches one is justified by good works! No red herring at all. However, Paul flatly contradicts that when he says "NO FLESH" is justified by good works of the law in Rom. 3:19-20. Try to put "JEWISNESS" in the place of "law" and "deeds of the law" in these verses and see if it makes any sense? Tell me how Jewishness reveals "the knowlege of sin"?????? Complete nonsense!

And another Red Herring since Andre never suggested that either. The sacrifice of animals is a foreshadowing of Christ.

When Andre demands that

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);

then the only "means" provided Israel by God to deal with sin was the sacrificial system. However, God NEVER designed the sacrificial system to literally remit sins of ANYONE (Heb. 10:1-4) but it was a "shadow" and NEVER the "very image" of what God designed since the Garden of Eden to deal with Sin - Christ (Heb. 10:5-18). What Israel demonstrated is that the best of men are men at best and man at his most righteous state is altogether vanity and sin goes deeper than the veneer of superficial righteousness. To say that Israel was God's chosen "means" to deal with the Adamic sin is complete nonsense as the eternal purpose of God was always "the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20) or the lamb slain "from the foundation of the world." Israel was simply the "means" through which the Messiah would come as the ONLY "means" to deal with the Adamic sin.

He did act in Israel's behalf as he did all men. You believe he only acted on the behalf of the elect. I find that to be more in line with your accusation. However, Jesus being the Messiah brought about the eschatology of the Jews. Judaism has its consumation. Life is now found in Christianity. Jesus never the less fufilled the law and thus the "foreshadowing of Christ" is in effect back to the institution of Israel as well as the consumation of all things.
Certainly there are covental periods. But Jesus was crucified before the world was made.

He did not act in behalf of Israel in the role of Redeemer any more or less than he acted in behalf of all nations in that role. The only role that Israel played and failed in is the same role the church plays today - to proclaim the gospel of Christ (Acts 10:43; 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2) and administer the ordinances as the "house of God" (Mt. 23; Heb. 8:1). Israel's failure in performing that role is delineated in Matthew 23. Jesus did not fulfil the eschatalogy of Israel, he fulfilled and satisifed the requiresments of God's righteous standard.

I think you mistate Andre's position. But I may be corrected here. I think you need to define what you mean by salvation and justification. Certainly Paul say we are saved unto good works.

There is a huge difference between "UNTO" good works (Eph. 2:10) and justified "BY" good works (Rom. 3:19-20,27-28). In Ephesians 2:8-10a you are already "saved" through faith (v. 8 - perfect tense - completed action) without works (v. 9) being the CREATIVE work of God "in Christ" BEFORE you produce "good works" (Eph. 2:10b). Thus the tree is first made GOOD (Eph. 2:8-10a) BEFORE it can be produce "GOOD" fruit (works). This is the Biblical order.

Andre's position is the very reverse. We are not saved through faith as a completed past tense action. Indeed there is no one "saved" as a completed past tense action becuase according to Andre that can NEVER happen until the day of judgement and it is your good works that determine if you are really "saved" as a COMPLETED PAST TENSE ACTION. The only "saved" Andre believes in is a POTENTIAL action that only becomes a completed past tense action at judgement day. The term "saved" used now in Andre's vocabularly means only "potentially" saved not completely saved as in John 5:24 so that the believer "SHALL NOT COME INTO JUDGEMENT" in regard to eternal life or death in the future. Andre believes every person (believer or unbeliever) shall come into judgement later in order to establish eternal life or eternal death based upon YOUR works.

I have not misrepresented his position at all! Ask him if even those he considers true believers will come in to judgement where there works will determine eternal death or eternal life!!!

 

[Dr. Walter]

My problem is you said the bible never says and I show you where it does say. You tend to add... whats the word... conditions... after the fact. So you say the bible never said. But I show you where it does say and then you add a condition. Not good.

The problem is with your reading of the scripture - you ignore the conditions and you ignore the clear and explicit denials by scripture that any man can meet those conditions. Thus when I say the Bible NEVER says any man can be justified by works, I am conveying the COMPLETE position of the scriptures rather than doing what you are doing - pick and choose while ignoring the overall context.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Most of your responses I have answered and repudiated in my response to Thinkingstuff - read it there. Like him, you pick and choose, or present the PARTIAL teaching of the scriptures while ignoring its overall and complete teaching.

True enough - but this does not impact my argument, which is that Jesus was obedient to the vocation of Israel to be the means by which the Adamic sin problem would be dealt with for all mankind. So, again, my argument is that when Paul writes of Jesus' obedience, he is writing not of His obedience to the Law of Moses, but to the covenantal responsibilities of Israel.

This is an absurd and rediculous statement! Give me one text where the Bible says anywhere by anyone that Israel is "the means by which the Adamic sin problem would be dealt with for all mankind."?????

If you mean, the second Adam, the promised Genesis 3:15 "seed" the promised "seed" of Abraham would come through the nation of Israel and die for Israel as well as all nations - Ok! But if you mean that Israel WAS "the means" to deal with the Adamic sin and Christ came to do what Israel failed to do - that is absurd!

I agree, but this is no way challenges my argument.

It most certainly does destroy your argument. If you are saying that Israel WAS the means but failed, the only provision God gave Israel in regard to sin was the sacrificial system. It did not fail, because it was NEVER designed to deal with the Adamic sin just as Israel was never designed by God as the "means" to deal with the Adamic sin.

 

[Andre]

He teaches one is justified by good works!

True enough, but in a carefully nuanced sense that you have not fully reproduced here.

However, Paul flatly contradicts that when he says "NO FLESH" is justified by good works of the law in Rom. 3:19-20.

Paul never says any such thing - the phrase "good works" appears nowhere in the text to which you refer. You have made an interpretation that it is "good works" that are on Paul's mind here. Well, that's no crime. But as per extensive discussions that we have already had, I do not think your argument succeeds.

 

[Andre]

Try to put "JEWISNESS" in the place of "law" and "deeds of the law" in these verses and see if it makes any sense? Tell me how Jewishness reveals "the knowlege of sin"?????? Complete nonsense!

Strawman - you place words in my mouth that I never uttered.

I have never denied that that the Law of Moses reveals sin.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Strawman - you place words in my mouth that I never uttered.

I have never denied that that the Law of Moses reveals sin.

Nice try! You did utter and you continue to utter that the phrases "by the law" and "by the deeds of the law" are synonomous with JEWISHNESS or ETHNICITY in Romans 2-4. This is your interpetation of those very terms in Romans 3:27-28!!!!!

I have simply shown how absurd that interpretation is when you substitute "JEWISHNESS" or "ETHNICITY" in the place of these terms in Romans 3:19-20! You cannot say the words "justified by the deeds of the law" mean one thing in Romans 3:20 and means another thing in Romans 3:28.

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.

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

However, by YOUR INTEPRETATION of those phrases to be consistent these texts would have to read:

Therefore by ETHNIC JEWISHNESS there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by ETHNIC JEWISHNESS is the knowledge of sin

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without becoming ENTHIC JEWISHNESS.

Thus my point that you make ETHNIC JEWISHNESS in Romans 3:20 to be "the knowledge of sin" is bore out by your demand that the phrase "deeds of the law" means "ETHNIC JEWISHNESS!

Your interpretation is absurdly rediculous and contradicts scripture as well as common sense.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Because Dr. Walter I enjoy yanking your chain.

You enjoy "yanking" my chain because you despise the truth of the gospel - so your real attack is on Christ - not me - as I simply convey his message.

 

[Andre]

Nice try! You did utter and you continue to utter that the phrases "by the law" and "by the deeds of the law" are synonomous with JEWISHNESS or ETHNICITY in Romans 2-4. This is your interpetation of those very terms in Romans 3:27-28!!!!!

Please do not bear false witness.

You will, of course, find no post of mine which directly, or indirectly, states or implies that the Law of Moses does not reveal sin.

I have simply shown how absurd that interpretation is when you substitute "JEWISHNESS" or "ETHNICITY" in the place of these terms in Romans 3:19-20!

Please do not present falsehoods.

I have never suggested one can simply "substitute" Jewishness or ethnicity every the phrase "law" or "deeds of the law" occurs.

It is difficult enough to debate this issue with a person who plays fair and does not distort and misrepresent what I am saying.

I have indeed been arguing that when Paul argues against "justification by works" he is making the argument that justification is not for those who do the works of the Law of Moses, that is to say, Jews.

But you are ascribing to me things I have never said or implied.

 

[Andre]

When Andre demands that

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);

then the only "means" provided Israel by God to deal with sin was the sacrificial system.

I never said this - you are creating another strawman.

Again: Israel was covenantally chosen to by God to be the means by which the Adamic sin problem is "fixed", Israel failed to do so, and Jesus then took on the role of Israel and fulfilled her covenantal obligation for her on the cross.

I never suggested that this involved "the sacrificial system". This is a view that you, for reasons only known by you, have projected onto me.

Now I have a lot more I need to say about "how this all work" but, please, do not represent me as saying things I have never said.

To say that Israel was God's chosen "means" to deal with the Adamic sin is complete nonsense....

The LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do,
18since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed?

In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."

I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed

Now, I fully concede that presenting these texts does not entirely "make the case". But they are, of course, entirely consistent with the proposal that the way that the nation of Israel will bless the nations is by "undoing" the Adamic sin problem.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You are the one bearing false witness. You have repeatedly stated from the very beginning that the phrase "deeds of the law" in Romans 3:27 is synonomous with "JEWISH ETHNICITY" and yet you would have us believe that merely seven verses earlier the same exact phrase means something entirely different when the context is the same "justification by"!

Don't play us for fools! You can't have it both ways. Either the words "deeds of the law" means "JEWISH ETHNICITY" or it means "DEEDS of the law" obedience to the law of God but it cannot mean BOTH when BOTH verses (Rom. 3:20; 27) use it in the very exact same context of JUSTIFICATION and BOTH deny the very same thing that we are JUSTIFIED "by the deeds of the law."

You are caught in your perversion of the scriptures and think by changing the subject or shifting the blame of me you can escape. Sorry, nice try, but you are GUILTY AS CHARGED.

Please do not bear false witness.

You will, of course, find no post of mine which directly, or indirectly, states or implies that the Law of Moses does not reveal sin.


Please do not present falsehoods.

I have never suggested one can simply "substitute" Jewishness or ethnicity every the phrase "law" or "deeds of the law" occurs.

It is difficult enough to debate this issue with a person who plays fair and does not distort and misrepresent what I am saying.

I have indeed been arguing that when Paul argues against "justification by works" he is making the argument that justification is not for those who do the works of the Law of Moses, that is to say, Jews.

But you are ascribing to me things I have never said or implied.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The problem is with your reading of the scripture - you ignore the conditions and you ignore the clear and explicit denials by scripture that any man can meet those conditions. Thus when I say the Bible NEVER says any man can be justified by works, I am conveying the COMPLETE position of the scriptures rather than doing what you are doing - pick and choose while ignoring the overall context.

No I read scripture as it is. You read theology into it. Big difference.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Let the reader note, that Andre is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He demands that the phrase "deeds of the law" in verse 28 must mean "JEWISH ETHNICITY" and has argued this at length based on verses 29-30. Yet, he objects to this meaning being attached to the very same language in Romans 3:20 because it makes his interpretation of Romans 3:28 look foolish. Well it is foolish.

Romans 3:20 and 3:28 deal with the very SAME ISSUE - justification "by the deeds of the law" and both texts deny anyone can be justified by the "deeds of the law." Both phrases in both texts MEAN THE SAME THING becuase they are found in the SAME CONTEXT - justification by and both texts deny justification "by the deeds of the law."

Andre wants to interpret it one way in one text and interpret another way in the other text when both texts deal with the SAME EXACT ISSUE - Justification by "the deeds of the law." He can't have it both ways as that is pure eisgesis on public display!!!!

The phrase "deeds of the law" in EVERY TEXT dealing with justification "by the deeds of the law" refers to OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW in order to obtain justification.

No amount of mental gynastics by Andre can change this fact and no amount of mental gymnastics by Andre can make this phrase "justification by the deeds of the law" means "JEWISH ETHNICITY" anywhere it is found! That is eisgesis on public display. He is caught in his error and simply is too proud to admit his interpretation of Romans 3:27-28 is ERRONEOUS and thus his whole position is ERRONEOUS!!!

 

[Dr. Walter]

No I read scripture as it is. You read theology into it. Big difference.

What a farce! I read my own theology into it when I simply quote the scriptures that are abundant and which repeatedly deny anyone can be justified by the deeds of the Law? What a joke?

You zero in on the condition "do and live" but ignore the Biblical conclusions which are repeatedly stated:

Rom. 3:20 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.

Rom. 3:27 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.

Rom. 4:1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Gal. 3:19 ¶ Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

No, either you cannot read or your blinded by error! I believe you can read so that leaves the latter.

 

[Andre]

You are the one bearing false witness. You have repeatedly stated from the very beginning that the phrase "deeds of the law" in Romans 3:27 is synonomous with "JEWISH ETHNICITY"

Your statement is false. I have said something related to this, but it is your invention to ascribe to me the position that one can simply take the phrase "deeds of the law" and replace it with "Jewish ethnicity".

You are misrepresenting me - I have never said this.

You are caught in your perversion of the scriptures and think by changing the subject or shifting the blame of me you can escape. Sorry, nice try, but you are GUILTY AS CHARGED.

You have been caught in falsehoods - that's not my problem.

You think I am taking the readers as fools? Well prove it. Show me any post of mine - any one at all - where I have said that one can simply take the phrase "deeds of the law" and replace it with "Jewish ethnicity".

You will, of course, not be able to do this.

Why? Because this is simply something I have never done.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your statement is false. I have said something related to this, but it is your invention to ascribe to me the position that one can simply take the phrase "deeds of the law" and replace it with "Jewish ethnicity".

You are misrepresenting me - I have never said this.

Responding to my comment on Romans 3:27-28

But you have not made that case. I can legitimately raise the possibility that, by "works", Paul is intending to the refer to the practices of the Law of Moses as they function to ethnically mark out the Jew from the Gentile - Andre



Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
He anticipates it by denying that ANY MAN ("a man" by characterziation) is justified by "the law of works" IN GENERAL and therefore neither is the Jew justified by doing the deeds of the law of Moses in SPECIFIC as the general is inclusive of the specific just as the GENERIC man is inclusive of the Jew versus Gentile. - DW

Again, you simply presume that "works" means "moral activities designed to earn justification" as opposed to "works that reflect a justification achieved on other grounds - ethnic privilege". I will not tire of pointing out what the careful reader will know - you have simply assumed a "good works" reading here, while I have actually argued for an "ethnic privilege" reading. - Andre


Commenting on Romans 2:27:

You have not actually made a case for this - where is the speciifcally scriptural evidence to support your claim that "the law of works" is a law about "good works" and not a law about ethnic exlusivity for that limited sub-set of humanity who do those works. – Andre


All the above passages are responses by Andre to my assertion that "deeds of the law" refer to obedience to the law or works of righteousness for justification. Andre, repeatedly specifies that "works" and "deeds" of the law refer to what defines JEWISH ETHNICITY in contrast to Gentiles. Hence, Andre repeatedly defines "deeds of the law" to mean JEWISH ETHNIC demarcations that separate from Gentiles.

 

[Andre]

Let the reader note, that Andre is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He demands that the phrase "deeds of the law" in verse 28 must mean "JEWISH ETHNICITY".....

If you persist in telling falsehoods, I will contact the moderators. You simply do not have your have facts straight and you have been repeatedly told this.

 

[Dr. Walter]

If you persist in telling falsehoods, I will contact the moderators. You simply do not have your have facts straight and you have been repeatedly told this.

Please do contact the moderators! I just presented your position on the meaning of "works" and "deeds" in my previous post and what has been your response? Nothing!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Let the words of your own mouth prove who is telling falsehoods! Below is proof that you define "deeds" or "works" of the law in Romans 3:27-28 as ETHICAL MODIFIERS that are restricted to ETHNIC JEWS. Hence, bottom line interpetation is that "deeds of the law" = JEWISH ETHNICITY

Responding to my comment on Romans 3:27-28

But you have not made that case. I can legitimately raise the possibility that, by "works", Paul is intending to the refer to the practices of the Law of Moses as they function to ethnically mark out the Jew from the Gentile - Andre



Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
He anticipates it by denying that ANY MAN ("a man" by characterziation) is justified by "the law of works" IN GENERAL and therefore neither is the Jew justified by doing the deeds of the law of Moses in SPECIFIC as the general is inclusive of the specific just as the GENERIC man is inclusive of the Jew versus Gentile. - DW

Again, you simply presume that "works" means "moral activities designed to earn justification" as opposed to "works that reflect a justification achieved on other grounds - ethnic privilege". I will not tire of pointing out what the careful reader will know - you have simply assumed a "good works" reading here, while I have actually argued for an "ethnic privilege" reading. - Andre


Commenting on Romans 2:27:

You have not actually made a case for this - where is the speciifcally scriptural evidence to support your claim that "the law of works" is a law about "good works" and not a law about ethnic exlusivity for that limited sub-set of humanity who do those works. – Andre


All the above passages are responses by Andre to my assertion that "deeds of the law" refer to obedience to the law or works of righteousness for justification. Andre, repeatedly specifies that "works" and "deeds" of the law refer to what defines JEWISH ETHNICITY in contrast to Gentiles. Hence, Andre repeatedly defines "deeds of the law" to mean JEWISH ETHNIC demarcations that separate from Gentiles.

 

[Andre]

Responding to my comment on Romans 3:27-28

But you have not made that case. I can legitimately raise the possibility that, by "works", Paul is intending to the refer to the practices of the Law of Moses as they function to ethnically mark out the Jew from the Gentile - Andre

This statement of mine, of course, does not mean that I am suggesting that it is appropriate to substitute "deeds of the law" with "Jewish ethnicity".

I should really not have to explain to you and other posters how to parse english sentences.

What I said above is what I said. And it is decidedly not a statement by me that it is appropriate to substitute "deeds of the law" with "Jewish ethnicity".

It is what it is! A statement that when he uses the term "works", Paul is intending to refer to.....what? If your falsehoods are to be believed, I should then say "....he is referring to Jewish ethnicity". But, of course, that is not what I go on to say. I go on to say "he is refering to the practices of the Law of Moses as they function to ethnically mark out the Jew from the Gentile"

Please stop making statement which are false.