Tuesday, February 24, 2009

The Law and Gospel: Part 2

The Biblical Data that supports Law and Gospel

Now that we have taken a look at dogmatics of law and gospel we should explore the biblical foundations for the law and the gospel because if it is not found in God’s word then it is not worth preaching at all.

The Law: Its Uses and Nature in Scripture

My contention is that general characteristics in the Reformed understanding of law are found in the biblical data including the first and third uses of the law. The law of God is a reflection of the Holy character of God and thus requires perfection as is clearly taught in Matthew 5:48: “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” If one violates the law at one point then he has broken all of it (James 10:10-12). Thus, the scriptures clearly teach that the law requires as the Westminster confession says “perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience” (WCF 7.2; WLC 20, 93) and it is Holy because it is a reflection of the nature of God. In addition, the law is revealed to everyone, even those who lack special revelation, but have general revelation (Rom. 2:12-15). The law also points out our sin and misery and our desperate need for a savior (Rom. 3:20). The scriptures even go so far as to say that the law produces more sin in us as it says in Romans 5:20 “Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased”. In light of these consideration it seems that pedagogical use of the law is taught clearly in scripture (Romans 3:10-12 ,3:19, 4:15, 5:13 ,7:5, 7:7, 7:12-13). Now that we have been shown to be dead in our sins by the law we can now be redeemed and live to God out of gratitude for what he has done for us and follow the law as a norm (Gal. 2:19-20). For all believers that are justified by faith are required to follow the law in its third use as Paul teaches us in Romans 3:31: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” Thus, it seems that given the biblical data we are warranted in believing in the third use of the law as well as the rest of the teaching concerning the law in the Reformed tradition.



The Gospel: A Free Gift

My contention is that the Gospel taught in the Bible is the Gospel of the Reformation of a free gift to be received by faith alone through grace alone on the basis of Christ’s righteousness. We receive what God has given to us as a gift by grace and faith as Paul says in Ephesians 2:8 “by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” Paul teaches in Ephesians that this is not of our own doing at all. Moreover, he teaches that this gift we have received righteousness not from us or anything we have done but by faith in Christ as he states in Philippians 3:9 “be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith”. This righteousness is from Christ and his obedience by fulfilling the law and giving to us as an unconditional gift by his free grace (Rom. 5:15; 8:1-4) . God gave us his righteousness and he took up the punishment of sin on the cross so that we can receive his gracious gift as Paul teaches in 2 Corinthians: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Moreover, another key point of the Gospel is that God out of his grace sent his son into the world to redeem us from the law so that we might become adopted sons and receive Christ’s benefits through faith alone (Gal. 4:4-5). Thus, it seems that the Bible is covered with the Gospel message of the Reformation (Rom. 3:20-31; 5:1-5; Gal 3:6-9).

The Relationship between Law/Gospel

In this section we will look at the relationship between the law and the gospel in the Reformed tradition and how that tradition is established by the word of God.
The Relationship of Law and Gospel in the Reformed Tradition

There are two antithetical hermeneutical moods that one ought to read the scriptures with in the Reformed tradition; they are the Law and Gospel. As I have mentioned in passing above the relationship between law and gospel to us is antithesis. As Dr. Scott Clark notes about the law/gospel distinction in the mind of the Reformed Scholastic Wollebius “They differ in their “proper material” (propria material). That is, the stuff of gospel is not the stuff of law. The law is about our “doing” (facienda), and the gospel is about our “believing” (credenda) .” Dr. Clark is emphasizing that the essential fundamental difference between law and gospel is that the gospel asks us to believe and the law asks us to do . This is why the distinction can also be seen as the antithesis between faith and works. However, Dr. Clark does note that the Law and Gospel are only antithetical to us as sinners but to God they are not antithetical . In other words, he is trying to say that the law/gospel distinction is analogous to the doctrine of divine simplicity, there may be distinctions to us as creatures, but to God it is all one; these creaturely distinctions are called “relative distinctions” . Beza thought that if one did not know the fundamental distinction between law and Gospel as two parts then this would lead to the corruption of Christianity . The Reformed antithesis between law and gospel are essential moods but there are other ways to view and express these moods in scripture.

The law and gospel distinction can be also seen as the antithesis between law and promise-fulfillment or between a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. Reformed theologians like Ursinus explained the distinction between law and gospel in language of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace . In other words, the covenant of grace is on an entirely different attitude than the covenant of works . The reason why they are different principles is because the law does contain promises but they are largely legal; they are based on our doing and following the conditions set before us . Whereas the Gospel or the covenant of grace is not based on our doing but based on Christ’s doing and we receiving this promise by faith alone. As Scott Clark Rightly points out about the relationship between the law/gospel distinction and covenant theology in the thinking of the Reformed theologian Ursinus:

“Ursinus’s construal of the law/gospel distinction would seem to make impossible any disjunction between covenant theology and the law/gospel hermeneutic. In other words, if we follow Ursinus, to preach covenantally is to preach the law (relative to justification) and the gospel as two distinct principles .”

It seems then that our covenant theology is going to be intimately connected to a Reformed conception of the law and the gospel distinction. Moreover, other Reformed theologians like Michael S. Horton also believe that there is a link between this intimate relation between covenant theology as it relates to the law gospel distinction . He writes “….law and gospel are distinguished and even opposed whenever we mean by these terms a covenant of law and a covenant promise .” In this quotation the law/gospel distinction are defined in terms of covenant theology and thus reinforces the close connection between law/gospel and covenants of grace and works. In lights of these considerations this seems to suggest that the law/gospel distinction is linked and grounded in the distinction between the covenant of works and grace.

The Law/Gospel distinction in Scripture

The law gospel distinction of antithesis is grounded in the scriptural distinctions between works/law and faith/promise. In Romans 3:21-23 Paul makes a distinction between the righteousness of God through faith in Christ and the law which has righteousness apart from this. In Romans 3:27 Paul makes a starker distinction when he says “Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.” The Greek word here for “law” as used two times in this verse is no,moj and is probably best translated as principle or rule. The reason why it would not be best to translate no,moj as a command from the moral law of God or from the Torah is because faith is called a no,moj and faith is being contrasted with works in this verse. Moreover, above in the previous context (Rom. 3:21-26) Paul contrasts faith and works so that it would not make sense if he was using no,moj in this way because he would be contradicting himself in this verse. Thus, if we take Paul use of no,moj as a principle or as a rule then Paul would be teaching two distinct principles in the word of God: works and faith. This is nearly a decisive argument for the law/gospel distinction but there are other strong biblical arguments.

However, there are other strong biblical arguments throughout the writings of New Testament. In Galatians 3:18 Paul contrast between Law and Promise “For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.” Paul’s contrast is so stark that he argues that to even think that the inheritance came through law would exclude any notion of promise. This point is also reemphasized in the book of Romans as well as it relates to the promise of Abraham through faith and not through the law (Romans 4:13-16).
Another strong argument for the law/gospel distinction is found in the combined force of Romans 10:5-13 and Galatians 3:10-14. Romans 10:5 Paul argues that the righteousness based on the law is “that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.” Paul is saying here that a person who lives by the law is the righteousness based on the law. He contrasts this verse 6-13 with the righteousness by faith that does not find it’s righteousness in doing but rather believing and confessing. As it says in verse 9 “because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Here Paul is contrasting this believing with the righteousness based on the law in verse 5 . A similar line of biblical teaching is reinforced in Galatians 3:10-14 when Paul understands works of the law (e;rgwn no,mou) as a curse because “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them (v.10).” Thus the e;rgwn no,mou requires perfect obedience in all of God’s commandments or else a curse. Verse 12 Paul indicates a clear contrast between the law and faith when he says “But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them."” Paul is teaching that faith is not the same thing as the law because the law is about living by the commandments perfectly, whereas faith is just about “believing”. In verse 14 Paul concludes that we received the promised Spirit and the benefits of Christ through faith which is contrary to the law, as Paul says “so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.” These sections in the scriptures strongly support a robust law/gospel antithesis but the scriptures use different language like law and faith or belief in place of the law and gospel. This does not suggest that the law/gospel distinction is somehow unbiblical because the precise language is not found in scripture. If someone thought this was a legitimate criticism of the Reformed law/gospel distinction then to be consistent they ought to give up the doctrine of the trinity since the word trinity is never used in the Bible. What is important for a doctrine to be biblical is not that the precise wording is in the Bible but that the content and concepts are taught in the word of God.

Bibliography

Arand, Charles P., and Joel D. Biermann. Ap 2007. Why the two kinds of righteousness? Concordia Journal. 33 (2):123.

Bruce, F.F. Commentary on The Book of The Acts. Grand Rapids, Michigan, WM B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1973.

Clark, Scott. Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry New Jersey, P&R Publishing: 2007.

Horton,Michael. (Fall 2002). Law, gospel, and covenant: reassessing some emerging antitheses. Westminster Theological Journal. 64(2), 279-287.

Horton, Michael. God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology Grand Rapid, Baker Books: 2006.

Karlberg, M. W. (Spr 1981). Justification in redemptive history. Westminster Theological Journal. 43(2),

Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company: 1996.




10 comments:

  1. While you already know my feelings on this point, I did not know about this "Part 2."
    I think this Part 2 of your series highlights my objection that "law" must be interpreted in its context and that in most of the critical examples you mentioned I believe the "law" is the Mosaic Law only.

    What you have done is take various quotes of "law" from different passages and placed the wrong definition of "law" on them to generate a law/gospel distinction. The problem is you assumed the term "law" in all those cases meant any and all commandments when in fact, upon a more careful exegesis will reveal the "law" Paul is criticizing in nearly ever case is the Mosaic Law.

    A case in point is in your claim:
    "In Galatians 3:18 Paul contrast between Law and Promise"

    But looking carefully at the passage, Paul is not making the Law/Gospel distinction you are making. The Law Paul is talking about here is unequivocally specific: The Mosaic Law.
    The previous verse says the Law came "450 years later," which is talking about the ML which came 450 years after Abraham. Paul is NOT making a thesis/antithesis here, he is simply and quite explicitly saying the Promise given to Abraham would be pushed aside and nullified if God made that same promise to come via the ML 450 years later.

    This mix up is further proven when you quote Gal 3:10 "written in the Book of the Law" and apply the Law & Gospel argument to it. The fact is, 3:10 is clearly talking about the ML (and even directly quotes Deut)! So Paul is actually focused on a very specific law, the Mosaic Law, and not any and all works. Thus it is incorrect for you to build up your law/gospel antithesis from such texts.

    I believe this law/gospel antithesis, while a critical part of Reformed theology, is in fact built upon a wrong understanding of "law" and "faith" as Paul is CONTRASTING them. And as a result, Sola Fide is answering a question that Paul never asked or even envisioned when writing Romans and Galatians.

    ReplyDelete
  2. hello Nick,

    I would say the passages you pointed out are refering to the imperatives in the Mosaic law, that is the commands therein. This position is perfectly compatible with Reformed theology and in my paper I am presupposing that 90% of uses of the word nomos refer to the imperatives or commands in the Mosaic law.

    "The Mosaic Law.
    The previous verse says the Law came "450 years later,"

    Response: I agree this is a historical usage of nomos as opposed to a command or imperatival use. But I did not use this as a proof text in my paper so it is sort of off topic.

    I believe this law/gospel antithesis, while a critical part of Reformed theology, is in fact built upon a wrong understanding of "law" and "faith" as Paul is CONTRASTING them. And as a result, Sola Fide is answering a question that Paul never asked or even envisioned when writing Romans and Galatians.

    Response: I do not know how you are coming to this conclusion. The only way I can see you arguing this is if you argue that evertime Paul uses the term argou nomou this only refers to the laws that make you in the Jew covenant community (circumcision) as NP advocates argue, but you are arguing that it refers to the entire mosaic law which is a suffcient basis to establish Sola Fide, so no the reformed position does not rest on the assumptions you have said.


    I hope that clears things up.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I would say the passages you pointed out are refering to the imperatives in the Mosaic law, that is the commands therein. This position is perfectly compatible with Reformed theology and in my paper I am presupposing that 90% of uses of the word nomos refer to the imperatives or commands in the Mosaic law."

    Then my argument is mostly proven.

    If Paul was using ML interchangeably with "any and all works", that would be equivocation.
    Given that Paul would not be equivocating, and you admit 90% of the time he means ML, then it is clear Paul is not contrasting faith to 'any and all works' but rather opposing faith to the ML.

    That is very important to realize, the ML is not equivalent to 'any and all works.'
    A solid proof of this is Mk 10:2-12 where the ML allows divorce but Jesus forbids it.

    GIVEN THAT EVIDENCE: it is a logical fallacy to say faith vs ML = faith alone.
    The only way Paul could mean 'faith alone' is if he were saying faith vs 'any and all works.'

    This realization contradicts the original definitions you gave for the Law/Gospel antithesis because the terms are not in actuality what you defined them to be in part 1.

    Next, it makes no sense to say Jesus kept the ML in your place, especially if the ML is not equivalent to any and all works.


    "I agree this is a historical usage of nomos as opposed to a command or imperatival use. But I did not use this as a proof text in my paper so it is sort of off topic."

    How is it off topic when you explicitly quoted Gal 3:18 in regards to "promise" vs "law"? I quoted 3:17, one verse earlier! It cannot be off topic, and to ignore context is unacceptable exegesis. This is especially unacceptable when 3:17 also mentions "law" and "promise," and I quote:
    17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

    The only possible interpretation here is that this is the ML. And yet Paul's concern is not that the ML is too hard or anything like that, but rather that IF God had attached salvation to the ML it would invalidate His previous promise to Abraham 450 years earlier. So even if Jesus kept the ML for you, it wouldn't matter because if the perfect obedience to the ML was imputed to you AND USED AS the basis for justification it would invalidate God's promise to Abraham.

    Notice how Sola Fide doesn't fit in the picture Paul is painting and is actually an answer to a problem Paul never propsed.


    "but you are arguing that it refers to the entire mosaic law which is a suffcient basis to establish Sola Fide, so no the reformed position does not rest on the assumptions you have said."

    No it is not a sufficient basis: First, ML does not equal any and all works, so it cannot be faith ALONE Paul is talking about. Second, Paul is clear the ML itself never saved, so keeping it perfectly whether by you or Jesus still wouldn't justify.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Then my argument is mostly proven.

    Response: I never rejected your argument and neither do the Reformed.

    If Paul was using ML interchangeably with "any and all works", that would be equivocation.

    Response: Not at all. Paul uses nomos at three different ways in Romans 7 in the context.

    Given that Paul would not be equivocating, and you admit 90% of the time he means ML, then it is clear Paul is not contrasting faith to 'any and all works' but rather opposing faith to the ML.

    Response: Well just in galatians I would take it 95% of time to do with the Moasic law. But in Romans 4 and Romans 10 Paul just condemns works in general, and not argou nomou. So it seems Paul tends to condemn all works as means for salvation whether they be all the Jewish, new covenant only, old and new covenant, or the natural law. But I never thought the Mosaic law catholic defense never did well against sola fide. Given that most of the New Testament laws are in the Mosaic covenant. New Testament either eliminates itself of certain ML or it intensifies them. In either case you have most of the laws in the New covenant from the Mosaic covenant with substraction of the laws that are abolished. Plus you have more intense laws in matthew 5 through 7. So I do not see how this helps you seeing that there is all this overlap between the laws in the covenants to begin with. To put it simply most of the new testament laws are in the mosaic covenant, but most of the mosaic covenant is not in the new covenant. Paul Contrasts faith and Mosaic works of law because he was addressing legalistic Jews, if he were addressing legalistic gentile christians then he would not need to do that but condemn other works of law.

    That is very important to realize, the ML is not equivalent to 'any and all works.'
    A solid proof of this is Mk 10:2-12 where the ML allows divorce but Jesus forbids it.

    Response: Yeah, this would be a instance of intensification. I would say that he condemn's one set of works when talking to legalistic jews, but the principle is that of works and not what type of works. Paul condemns the class of all works as a instrument of justification, but when talking to certain people they may see one type as a instrument of justification and not another type in which case Paul would need to address the relevant type of works of laws he has to condemn, but he uses the same principle of illistration to condemn all types of works.

    GIVEN THAT EVIDENCE: it is a logical fallacy to say faith vs ML = faith alone.

    Response: I was never arguing this anyways. But what laws in the new testament would be counted as works in Roman Catholic theology that would contribute to your justification that would not be in the Mosaic law. I think you find a small insuffcient list such that it would not get you all you need for roman dogma.

    The only way Paul could mean 'faith alone' is if he were saying faith vs 'any and all works.'

    Response: I think he does this in Romans 3,4, 10, and eph, 2.

    This realization contradicts the original definitions you gave for the Law/Gospel antithesis because the terms are not in actuality what you defined them to be in part 1.

    Response: How do they contradict it? The Mosaic law and the laws in the New Testament would all fit under the categorical mood of law because they are imperatives.

    Next, it makes no sense to say Jesus kept the ML in your place, especially if the ML is not equivalent to any and all works.

    Response: Well The Reformed Believe that Jesus Fullfilled the Mosaic law and that was suffcient for imputation of his active obedience (since that was prior to the New covenants full inauguration).


    How is it off topic when you explicitly quoted Gal 3:18 in regards to "promise" vs "law"? I quoted 3:17, one verse earlier! It cannot be off topic, and to ignore context is unacceptable exegesis. This is especially unacceptable when 3:17 also mentions "law" and "promise," and I quote:
    17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

    Response: No, this is a perfectly legitimate interpretation. Nomos is used in the same context in romans 7 in three different ways. But aside from that I have a question I would like to ask you: In galatians 3 they contrast the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenant, that which Abraham recieved by faith and not by works and the the mosaic covenant that which is works in it....but when Abraham was around there was no Mosaic covenant. So it seems the works would only fit there in terms of a natural law. But that means that the works category would be wider which would give more weight to my thesis that Paul is condemning all types of works, in this case we have two types condemned natual and Moasic. Also Romans 4 contrasts works with faith, not works of the laws. Paul uses works or eraga here instead of nomos, which means Paul was condemning the works aspect more than a specific type of works (natural or Mosaic).

    The only possible interpretation here is that this is the ML. And yet Paul's concern is not that the ML is too hard or anything like that, but rather that IF God had attached salvation to the ML it would invalidate His previous promise to Abraham 450 years earlier. So even if Jesus kept the ML for you, it wouldn't matter because if the perfect obedience to the ML was imputed to you AND USED AS the basis for justification it would invalidate God's promise to Abraham.

    Response: Salvation is in Christ obeying the Mosaic law rather than us obeying it by ourselves this is the disinction between law and promise. Promise is something that is not earned but promised to you (christ fits this fine), but law is something you work for.

    Notice how Sola Fide doesn't fit in the picture Paul is painting and is actually an answer to a problem Paul never propsed.

    Response: This is probably not going to be a shock, but I disagree.


    No it is not a sufficient basis: First, ML does not equal any and all works, so it cannot be faith ALONE Paul is talking about. Second, Paul is clear the ML itself never saved, so keeping it perfectly whether by you or Jesus still wouldn't justify.

    Response: Actually I think in Galatians 3 he is saying that we can never be saved by it, but christ can because he is not weakened by the sinful flesh (Romans 8:1-4). Everything you said here I addressed up above. I hope you have a good weekend.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Nate and Nick,

    Forgive me for barging in on this exchange. Your comments have proved thought provoking for me.

    Consider these verses:
    10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. (Gal 3:10-14)

    Several curiosities arise from these verses (and the passage (and book) in which they are embedded). (As a preliminary note it seems that nomos indicates specifically "torah" throughout these verses.)

    1) Could full obedience to Torah procure justification?
    Paul quotes duet. saying that everyone who does not conitnue to do everything written in Torah is cursed and says that ALL who rely on Torah are cursed. Therefore he means that all who rely on Torah fail to keep Torah in its totality and are cursed as a result of this failure. Paul also quotes lev. saying that the man who does these things (Torah) shall live by them. The important question pertaining to the present issue is whether Paul views Torah as hypothetically able to impart justification and life were it kept perfectly. From his quotation of Lev. 18:5 saying "the man who does these things will live by them" it seems that he does. Even though in 3:21 Paul states that Torah cannot impart life, the reason in 3:22 is not its inherent inadequacy but rather universal human sinfulness. Here and elsewhere Paul (in line with proper Jewish custom) seems to understand Torah as efficacious unto life and justification if it were fully observed by a people and/or individuals.

    2) Why did Christ have to become cursed?
    Christ redeemed US by becoming a curse FOR US. Christ redeemed those who were under a curse due to thier failure to observe the Torah upon which they relied. (v10) It seems abundantly clear here that Christ's means of redeeming those under the curse of Torah was to shoulder the curse of Torah for disobedience due to them.

    3) Is the justification procured by faith the same as that which could have been procured by observance of Torah?
    It seems that it is. The way in which Paul directly contrasts "the righteous shall LIVE by faith" and "the man who does them shall LIVE by them" seems to indicate that the justification and blessing which Torah could have imparted upon perfect obedience, but does not impart because of human sinfulness is exactly what faith in Jesus Christ affords.

    It is an interesting question however, to whom the first person plural objective pronoun refers in v13. it is interesting how the Gentiles are added on in v 14 as if they weren't encompassed under the "US" of v13. It may be that only Jews are intended in v 13 as Paul presumably wouldn't think of the Gentiles as previously "relying on Torah" and thereby being cursed. I haven't quite thought through the possible exegetical implications of this.

    Take care,
    David

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry for not getting back sooner.

    I'll start with David first. David, I think you are on the right track. The Torah is undoubtedly what Paul has in mind when he speaks of "law" in Gal 3.

    The key to the Gal 3:10-14 which you quote is verse 12:
    "The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."

    What does Paul mean here? How can the Law not be based on faith if it requires belief in God and such. Of course the Law is based on faith, at the very core it is. But that doesn't answer the issue here...
    The way I and others (eg St Thomas Aquinas) interpret this is that while yes the Law requires faith, there are TWO focal points for faith. Those going by the Law were focused on earthly rewards and earthly life (which is what ML promised), the more important faith looks BEYOND that to Heavenly rewards. They see this when the Jew looks beyond the Torah to see where it points: Jesus! Look at what Paul says one verse earlier:
    "11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."

    Paul is not talking about the Law being too hard, he is saying the HEAVENLY focused righteous man will LIVE LIFE by FAITHFULNESS to God. Paul is quoting from Hab 2 where Habakuk was in a desperate situation and had to trust God good would EVENTUALLY come. (This is precisely how Heb 10:35-38 interprets Hab 2, as perseverance). So too with Christians, we don't look to earthly relief in our struggle but live life trusting God will make evertyhing OK in the end. The Torah on the surface promised earthly comforts (eg land, long life, prosperity), but only through the lens of Christ do we see the Torah was temporary (gal 3:24-25).

    Compare that with Rom 10:
    2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

    Paul is NOT saying there are TWO ways to Heaven, he is not giving the OPTION of "trust Jesus" or "keep the Law perfectly." He is talking about TWO kinds "righteousness." The Judaizer type of righteousness was that which was drawn up along racial-national lines (biological descendant of Abraham, Mosaic Law) and STUBBORNLY refused to remain faithful to God (eg killing Prophets and Jesus) where as "God's Righteousness" was His promise to send Christ in which the Mosaic Law was TEMPORARY to bringing about Christ. Note verse 4, Christ is THE END OF THE LAW, the endpoint.
    BUT Paul is not done:
    "5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."[a] 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'[b]" (that is, to bring Christ down)"

    NOTICE again, the "live by them" is an earthly living, where as looking past that, the "righteousness that is by faith" looks and sees the Law was pointing to Christ and Heavenly ends.

    I didn't come up with this stuff, it's part of Catholic understanding and drawn from commentaries like St Thomas Aquinas and beyond.

    I believe what I am describing harmonizes the Scripture far better than the "Law/Gospel" and "Grace/Pelagian" outlook does. I and Paul condemn pelagianism, but if you TAKE the pelagian glasses OFF when you read Paul, you will see that was NOT his MAIN focus.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Now to Nate's last comments:

    "If Paul was using ML interchangeably with "any and all works", that would be equivocation.

    Response: Not at all. Paul uses nomos at three different ways in Romans 7 in the context."

    In Rom 7 Paul does not use ML interchangably with "any and all works." Paul is speaking of ML in Rom 7, but does introduce a new concept using the term "law" at the end of ch7 which he explicitly calls "another law" which he defines as "law of sin" which wars against the "law of his mind." That is a spiritual struggle he is describing. Paul is NOT equivocating with the term "law" by making one definition interchangeable with another definition.


    "Well just in galatians I would take it 95% of time to do with the Moasic law. But in Romans 4 and Romans 10 Paul just condemns works in general, and not argou nomou."


    Notice what you are saying here. If Paul is focused on the ML in Galatians BUT NOT in Romans, then he is discussing TWO DIFFERENT issues in each book. Is that what you believe? That cannot be because the Judaizer issue is the same and Paul preaches only one Gospel. Given your admission about Galatians, I say interpret Gal in light of it referring to the ML and see what happens. THEN, take that understanding and see IF it fits in Romans. I PERSONALLY believe it does fit, nicely.


    "But in Romans 4 and Romans 10 Paul just condemns works in general, and not argou nomou."

    I don't agree with that, especially considering Rom 3 ends strongly talking about "works of the Law." But Rom 4 itself supports this:
    "9Is 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."

    Notice how he ties in Abraham's faith in contrast to circumcision. That is the Mosaic Law Paul is focusing on. But that is not all!!
    "4:13It 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"

    That sounds EXACTLY LIKE GAL 3:15-18!!!! And as for your claim Rom 10 talks about "works in general", that doesn't fit clear references and quotes from the Moses and Mosaic Law in 10:5.


    "Given that most of the New Testament laws are in the Mosaic covenant. New Testament either eliminates itself of certain ML or it intensifies them."

    Irrelevant. The key is not about whether they occur in the Old Covenant, the key is that you are NOT under the Old Covenant when you obey them. Take two contracts, the first contract says drive 10 miles AND run 10 miles, the SECOND contract says drive 10 miles and fly 5 miles. The fact is "10 miles" appear in both contracts (covenants), but you are not obeying "10 miles" under the Old Contract but rather obeying it under the New. If you are under the Old, you don't have to fly 5 miles, and if you are under the New you don't have to run 10 miles. Mark 10:2-12 says the Mosaic Law allows divorce, but Jesus' NEW and improved laws say divorce is forbidden. You can divorce under the Old, you cannot under the New.
    This answers the rest of your claim.


    "Paul Contrasts faith and Mosaic works of law because he was addressing legalistic Jews, if he were addressing legalistic gentile christians then he would not need to do that but condemn other works of law."

    That is simply false. There was not a matter of strict legalism, it went down to deeper things like biological ancestry, that's why Rom 4 is primarily concerned with establishing Abraham as our "spiritual father" because Judaizers claimed "superior race" because they were biological ancestors.

    "GIVEN THAT EVIDENCE: it is a logical fallacy to say faith vs ML = faith alone.

    Response: I was never arguing this anyways. "

    You werent? I thought you were arguing faith vs 'any and all works' logically results in "faith alone." So in contexts where it says "faith and not by works of the Law" you were substituting "works of the Law" with 'any and all works.'

    If you were NEVER arguing: faith vs ML = faith alone then you really have no grounds to say Paul is talking about "faith alone."


    "But what laws in the new testament would be counted as works in Roman Catholic theology that would contribute to your justification that would not be in the Mosaic law."

    Simple, look at the example of Mk 10:2-12. That is a NT 'work' that falls OUTSIDE of the ML.


    "The only way Paul could mean 'faith alone' is if he were saying faith vs 'any and all works.'

    Response: I think he does this in Romans 3,4, 10, and eph, 2."

    But above you said: "I was never arguing this anyways" in regards to my "faith vs ML = faith alone"... YET here you quote Rom 3 and Rom 3:28 says "faith apart from works of the Law"...that IS "faith vs ML"!


    "Response: How do they contradict it? The Mosaic law and the laws in the New Testament would all fit under the categorical mood of law because they are imperatives."

    You are mixing usage of "law," the very thing I've been struggling all this time to keep straight. You are throwing EVERYTHING under the category of "law" but Paul is NOT doing that! Paul is not talking of NT teachings but rather the Mosaic Law alone.


    "Well The Reformed Believe that Jesus Fullfilled the Mosaic law and that was suffcient for imputation of his active obedience "

    Jesus only fulfilled the ML in that it FORESHADOWED Him. For example Jesus was the Passover Lamb, WE are NOT. Fulfilled does not mean Jesus kept the ML for us, and Paul NEVER teaches such a thing. Further, Paul NEVER teaches imputation of and alien righteousness, much less 'Christ's righteousness'.


    "How is it off topic when you explicitly quoted Gal 3:18 in regards to "promise" vs "law"? I quoted 3:17, one verse earlier!...

    Response: No, this is a perfectly legitimate interpretation. Nomos is used in the same context in romans 7 in three different ways.

    This is fallacious argumentation. The burden is on you to prove Paul meant TWO DIFFERENT "law" and "Promise" in the span of Gal 3:17-18 where he used the term in each verse. Further, Paul is NOT shifting the definition of "law," even in Rom 7 (he explicitly says "another law" "the law of sin").


    "but when Abraham was around there was no Mosaic covenant. So it seems the works would only fit there in terms of a natural law."

    No. Paul was attacking the ML only, and he did this multiple ways. First he says the ML didn't come around until 450 years later, thats Gal 3. In Rom 4 Paul attacks circumcision (the ML gateway) by pointing to a HISTORICAL date BEFORE Abraham was circumcised. Paul has cut the Judaizer off at the ROOTS.


    "Response: Salvation is in Christ obeying the Mosaic law rather than us obeying it by ourselves this is the disinction between law and promise."

    The Bible NEVER says Jesus obeyed the ML in our place. NEVER. That itself is very problematic for your claim.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hello Nick,

    In Rom 7 Paul does not use ML interchangeably with "any and all works." Paul is speaking of ML in Rom 7, but does introduce a new concept using the term "law" at the end of ch7 which he explicitly calls "another law" which he defines as "law of sin" which wars against the "law of his mind." That is a spiritual struggle he is describing. Paul is NOT equivocating with the term "law" by making one definition interchangeable with another definition.

    Response: I was not arguing for the Mosaic Law being talked about here or the new covenant law, but merely that the word nomos can mean different things in the same context which by your comments you grant. Seeing that this is the case then it is possible that Paul can use nomos with different meanings in the same context.

    Actually there are four ways he uses nomos in Romans 7. The law of the mind and the law of sin (7:25). The Nomos that when he wants to do the good evil is close at hand (7:21). And of course the Law of God, whether this is all of the law or just the Mosaic covenant…it is still at least four uses in Romans 7. This is hardly equivocation since in Greek the name words can have different content given the context; equivocation uses the same word in the same context in English. Since this is a possibility this is what I am saying occurs in Paul with the law. This happens in Romans 2:

    Romans 2:13-15 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

    Nomos in 13 refers to hearing the Mosaic Law and 14-15 refer to the natural law.

    Notice what you are saying here. If Paul is focused on the ML in Galatians BUT NOT in Romans, then he is discussing TWO DIFFERENT issues in each book. Is that what you believe? That cannot be because the Judaizer issue is the same and Paul preaches only one Gospel. Given your admission about Galatians, I say interpret Gal in light of it referring to the ML and see what happens. THEN, take that understanding and see IF it fits in Romans. I PERSONALLY believe it does fit, nicely.

    Response: I never said that he is addressing two different issues. He is addressing the same issue, but the manner in which he addresses them is different, that is in Galatians he addresses a type of work, but in Romans and Ephesians in the places I pointed out he addressing all types of works. You did not deal with any of my arguments on these points. I agree Paul teaches one Gospel and I think in both he teaches that a part of the Gospel is justification by faith alone, he attacks the judaizers more in Galatians and in Romans and Ephesians he makes more general statements about works.



    I don't agree with that, especially considering Rom 3 ends strongly talking about "works of the Law." But Rom 4 itself supports this:
    "9Is 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."

    Response: works of law means different things in different contexts as I have shown you previously from Romans 2 and the natural law. The verse you cited is just saying that both Jews and Gentiles can be saved by faith alone. But if Paul wanted to make it clear he was discussing the mosaic law he would have used law instead of works because he would be mostly concerned with following the new covenant laws as a instrument of justification, but Paul uses the term works in Romans 4, 10, and Eph. 2 because he mostly concerned with condemning works because to him all sorts of works are bad as a instrument for our justification.

    Ephesians 2:8-9 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

    It is also funny you mentioned Romans 3 because I think Romans 3 end very strongly on the note that both Gentiles (Romans 1) and Jews (Romans 2) are both condemned. And Paul tops off his argument with this verse right before getting to the Gospel of Justification by faith alone:

    Romans 3:20 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

    Obviously the gentiles do not have the Mosaic law and Paul has just condemned them, so obviously Romans 3 is using argou nomou very broadly.

    Notice how he ties in Abraham's faith in contrast to circumcision. That is the Mosaic Law Paul is focusing on. But that is not all!!
    "4:13It 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"

    Response: Circumcision is not part of the Mosaic law but to Abrahamic covenant. You can contrast the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic in this context because the Mosaic has laws that one ought to follow and the people took on the oath to be faithful. Whereas in the Abrahamic covenant God swore on himself to fulfill the promise. Thus, one is based on trusting and the other on working. And again I think Paul can condemn works in general and then condemn specific sorts of laws one follow to receive their justification, it is all based on context (circumcision or anything like that). Romans 2 switches from speaking of the Mosaic Law to the natural law, here Paul is making a similar argumentative movement. But he still uses works in general to contrast with Abrahams faith and again you still have not dealt with the fact that Abraham was not justified by works but why would Paul even bring this up if there was no Mosaic covenant? This is a sure indication that he condemning all works because this is prior to the Mosaic works.

    Romans 4:2 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

    Paul condemns all works here not on the basis that they are Mosaic but that because they give us grounds for boasting and that to Paul is theologically dangerous. As he says in Ephesians 2:9 “9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”


    That sounds EXACTLY LIKE GAL 3:15-18!!!! And as for your claim Rom 10 talks about "works in general", that doesn't fit clear references and quotes from the Moses and Mosaic Law in 10:5.

    Response: I was referring to this verse:

    Romans 9:31-32 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,

    Notice how Paul uses works instead of law, that is because the central problem with Israel is that they tried to pursue their justification by works. The problem is not with what type of works, whether law it be the Mosaic Law, but rather the problems is with works.

    That is simply false. There was not a matter of strict legalism, it went down to deeper things like biological ancestry, that's why Rom 4 is primarily concerned with establishing Abraham as our "spiritual father" because Judaizers claimed "superior race" because they were biological ancestors.

    Response: I would say it was a matter of strict legalism and being a part of Jewish line. I see no reason for doubting this.


    You werent? I thought you were arguing faith vs 'any and all works' logically results in "faith alone." So in contexts where it says "faith and not by works of the Law" you were substituting "works of the Law" with 'any and all works.'

    Response: It depends on the context, most of Galatians I would see as condemning a type of work, the Mosaic works. But again I think it is a legitimate application to say that Paul is condemning all works by these types of works. However, I would argue that he wants to condemn all works rather than a type of work on the basis of other parts of the Bible and not Galatians alone.

    If you were NEVER arguing: faith vs ML = faith alone then you really have no grounds to say Paul is talking about "faith alone."

    Response: I would argue that from other parts of the Bible rather than just the book of Galatians.


    Simple, look at the example of Mk 10:2-12. That is a NT 'work' that falls OUTSIDE of the ML.

    Response: Yeah but what about murder, raping, lying, cheating, stealing, sexual immorality are we to follow the commandments that teach against such thing as an instrument of our justification? Because all of these works are in the Mosaic Law.



    "Response: How do they contradict it? The Mosaic law and the laws in the New Testament would all fit under the categorical mood of law because they are imperatives."

    You are mixing usage of "law," the very thing I've been struggling all this time to keep straight. You are throwing EVERYTHING under the category of "law" but Paul is NOT doing that! Paul is not talking of NT teachings but rather the Mosaic Law alone.

    Response: I know Greek. So a lot of the word meaning has to do with Context and other canonical considerations. Nomos can mean all the natural law, Mosaic Law, or all imperatives and commands. It just depends on the context and as I have shown in Romans 7 sometimes the words can change meaning given the immediate context. So I am not mixing up things I am simply interpreting things in light of their context, whereas you want a rigid meaning for every usage, but I am sorry Greek just does not work that way. Sanctification means totally different things in different parts, same with justification and righteousness. You need to go by the context to determine the meaning.


    Jesus only fulfilled the ML in that it FORESHADOWED Him. For example Jesus was the Passover Lamb, WE are NOT. Fulfilled does not mean Jesus kept the ML for us, and Paul NEVER teaches such a thing. Further, Paul NEVER teaches imputation of and alien righteousness, much less 'Christ's righteousness'.

    Response: Yes he does.

    Philippians 3:9 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-

    Romans 5:19 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

    Colossians 2:14 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

    Paul gives us a legal category and we are righteous by what Christ did. There is a legal imputation of Christ righteousness to us and our sins are legal transferred to Christ. We view it legally because those are the categories Paul gives us in Colossians 2.

    This is fallacious argumentation. The burden is on you to prove Paul meant TWO DIFFERENT "law" and "Promise" in the span of Gal 3:17-18 where he used the term in each verse. Further, Paul is NOT shifting the definition of "law," even in Rom 7 (he explicitly says "another law" "the law of sin").

    Response: Looking at the verse I would view it consistently as the commandments and the oaths sworn upon by the people in the Mosaic covenant. That would be the meaning of the term law here but the gloss would just simply be law.


    "but when Abraham was around there was no Mosaic covenant. So it seems the works would only fit there in terms of a natural law."

    No. Paul was attacking the ML only, and he did this multiple ways. First he says the ML didn't come around until 450 years later, thats Gal 3. In Rom 4 Paul attacks circumcision (the ML gateway) by pointing to a HISTORICAL date BEFORE Abraham was circumcised. Paul has cut the Judaizer off at the ROOTS.

    Response: The Mosaic Law was not given at the time of Abraham. But The Abrahamic covenant is. How do you make sense out of Romans 4 in light of that? Paul says Abraham was justified by works, but these could not be Mosaic works because the covenant was not around. Why would he mention the Mosaic covenant when it was not around?


    The Bible NEVER says Jesus obeyed the ML in our place. NEVER. That itself is very problematic for your claim.

    Response: The Bible does teach this:

    Galatians 4:4-5 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

    He redeems us under the law by giving us his works and righteousness, as I have argued above.

    I hope you have a great weekend!

    God Bless you,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  9. Response: I was not arguing for the Mosaic Law being talked about here or the new covenant law, but merely that the word nomos can mean different things in the same context which by your comments you grant. Seeing that this is the case then it is possible that Paul can use nomos with different meanings in the same context.

    Nick: And my point is there has to be solid grounds to make such a claim. The burden of proof is on you to say Paul uses a word differently in any given context.


    "Actually there are four ways he uses nomos in Romans 7. The law of the mind and the law of sin (7:25). The Nomos that when he wants to do the good evil is close at hand (7:21). And of course the Law of God, whether this is all of the law or just the Mosaic covenant…it is still at least four uses in Romans 7."

    Nick: I point out that this is clearly distinguished in Rom 7, that cannot be said for other chapters. When Paul talks of "the Law" on its own it is almost exclusively ML.

    "This is hardly equivocation since in Greek the name words can have different content given the context; equivocation uses the same word in the same context in English."

    Nick: Equivocation can happen in any language. My point is that it is not equivocation because Paul is not SHIFTING definitions of "Law." If I talk of the "law of sin," and "the law of the Spirit," and "Law" he is distinguishing between THEM and thus NOT equivocating.

    IF Paul was using "law" in the same context to mean ML INTERCHANGABLY with "any and all works," that is equivocation.


    "Since this is a possibility this is what I am saying occurs in Paul with the law. This happens in Romans 2:
    Nomos in 13 refers to hearing the Mosaic Law and 14-15 refer to the natural law."

    Same issue. Paul is NOT interchanging between ML and "any and all works." I never denied Paul could make a distinction, that is not the same as setting two different definitions equal to eachother. THUS, if Paul is talking about ML in a context, you CANNOT rip that verse out and say "here is 'law' versus 'gospel'" because in that phrase you mean 'any and all works," but that is not the same as ML.

    As a crude example, lets say Paul was talking about the SuperBowl and frequently used the term "Bowl." YOU think Paul is talking about dishes, so you go around contrasting plates to bowls. The problem is Paul is not using "bowl" like that, he means something more specific, the big football game. You keep going through and finding references in Paul to "bowl" and keep saying 'dishes' when that is NOT the same as SuperBowl (what Paul really means). When I point this out, you say that Paul sometimes does use "bowl" to mean dishes, BUT I never dispute that. I dispute you taking any reference to "bowl" and making it mean dishes or saying bowls for eating and SuperBowl mean the same thing.


    "Response: I never said that he is addressing two different issues. He is addressing the same issue, but the manner in which he addresses them is different, that is in Galatians he addresses a type of work, but in Romans and Ephesians in the places I pointed out he addressing all types of works."

    You are doing just what I described above as erroneous/equivocation. If Paul means SuperBowl in Gal 3, you cannot turn to another book and argue it means "bowls for eating" and that there is NO significant difference.

    "You did not deal with any of my arguments on these points."

    Sure I did. In Rom4 I point out how Paul is contrasting circumcision to faith and in Rom 10 how Paul is quoting Mosaic Law.

    "I agree Paul teaches one Gospel and I think in both he teaches that a part of the Gospel is justification by faith alone, he attacks the judaizers more in Galatians and in Romans and Ephesians he makes more general statements about works."

    I believe he is attacking the Judaizers just as much in Romans. Ephesians I believe is the same but far less intense.


    "Response: works of law means different things in different contexts as I have shown you previously from Romans 2 and the natural law."

    Romans 2 uses "work" in the singular, not plural. But the real issue is you are ignoring context to focus upon a valid alternate use in Rom 2. You are ripping Rom 3:28 out of context of 3:29-31 and saying 3:28 IS works in general BECAUSE Paul uses law differently than ML in Rom 2. See the logically fallacious argument you are making? You are not allowing context to drive interpretation, instead you are appealing to Rom 2 ANY TIME "law" appears and you want it to mean "any and all works."

    "The verse you cited is just saying that both Jews and Gentiles can be saved by faith alone."

    You are engaging in eisegesis. If you are talking about my citation of Rom 3:28, you are eisegeting it to mean "any and all works" with total disregard for context (29-31). If you are talking about Rom 4:9, contrasting circumcision to faith is not the same as "any and all works" much less 'faith alone.'


    "But if Paul wanted to make it clear he was discussing the mosaic law he would have used law instead of works because he would be mostly concerned with following the new covenant laws as a instrument of justification,"

    Paul did make it clear, hence Rom 3:29-31, EXPLICITLY contrasting Jew to Gentile and circumcised to non which is precisely what Rom 4:9 is doing.


    "but Paul uses the term works in Romans 4, 10, and Eph. 2 because he mostly concerned with condemning works because to him all sorts of works are bad as a instrument for our justification."

    I've already addressed this and showed you are INSERTING your definition of "law" and "works" into a passage without letting context determine the definition. As for Eph 2:8-9, keep reading and you will see the "circumcision" vs "uncercumcision" is the same theme (see v11-12, 15, etc).


    "It is also funny you mentioned Romans 3 because I think Romans 3 end very strongly on the note that both Gentiles (Romans 1) and Jews (Romans 2) are both condemned."

    Are you really looking at how Rom 3 ends? See v28-31! It is the ML alone.

    "And Paul tops off his argument with this verse right before getting to the Gospel of Justification by faith alone: Romans 3:20 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
    Obviously the gentiles do not have the Mosaic law and Paul has just condemned them, so obviously Romans 3 is using argou nomou very broadly."

    False. Read 3:19. Paul's point is that if the Jews are stand condemned than those 'below' the Jews, the rest of the world, wont stand a chance.


    "Response: Circumcision is not part of the Mosaic law but to Abrahamic covenant."

    It is part of the ML because the Abrahamic builds/expands into that. Abraham's biological lineage directly ties into circumcision and being given the Law and being bound to the Law (Gal 6:3).

    "You can contrast the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic in this context because the Mosaic has laws that one ought to follow and the people took on the oath to be faithful. Whereas in the Abrahamic covenant God swore on himself to fulfill the promise."

    The Promise was not based on Abraham's circumcision, that is the key.

    "Thus, one is based on trusting and the other on working. And again I think Paul can condemn works in general and then condemn specific sorts of laws one follow to receive their justification, it is all based on context (circumcision or anything like that). "

    Bogus. You have not established "works in general," especially in contexts explicitly contrasting faith to circumcision. If it is works in general, attaching the ML is irrelevant. It would be as absurd as arguing all crime is bad but proceed to prove your case based on the crime of theft only.

    "Romans 2 switches from speaking of the Mosaic Law to the natural law, here Paul is making a similar argumentative movement."

    You are still reading your own definitions into the text rather than letting context determine meaning of law. Rom 4 is focusing on circumcision more than anything.


    "But he still uses works in general to contrast with Abrahams faith and again you still have not dealt with the fact that Abraham was not justified by works but why would Paul even bring this up if there was no Mosaic covenant? This is a sure indication that he condemning all works because this is prior to the Mosaic works."

    You are not reading the chapter. Read Rom 4:9-12 esp. Paul is cutting the Judaizers off at the roots by proving circumcision (biological lineage) was not the basis for Abraham's true fatherhood.

    "Paul condemns all works here not on the basis that they are Mosaic but that because they give us grounds for boasting"

    Paul's point is that Abraham's favor in God's eyes was not derived from a inherent value in Abraham.


    "Response: I was referring to this verse:Romans 9:31-32 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,"

    Nick: They you mistyped because you kept saying Rom 10. But even Rom 931 is not a problem for the same thing is being talked about, the Mosaic Law.

    "Notice how Paul uses works instead of law, that is because the central problem with Israel is that they tried to pursue their justification by works. The problem is not with what type of works, whether law it be the Mosaic Law, but rather the problems is with works."

    False, the term "law" is explicitly mentioned and very clear in the following verses of 10:4-5. The works that are condemned is the Judaizers looking to biological descendancy as the grounds for God's favor in them. The issue is a racial superiority complex.

    "Response: I would say it was a matter of strict legalism and being a part of Jewish line. I see no reason for doubting this."

    Paul's main grounds of objection are not primarily pelagian. They werent busying their way into heaven, they thought Heaven and God's favor was tied to their lineage.

    "Response: It depends on the context, most of Galatians I would see as condemning a type of work, the Mosaic works. But again I think it is a legitimate application to say that Paul is condemning all works by these types of works."

    Nick: I call that a serious presumption. It is a major presumption to jump from ML to any and all works.


    "However, I would argue that he wants to condemn all works rather than a type of work on the basis of other parts of the Bible and not Galatians alone."

    Nick: My case is that Galatians on its own makes perfect sense when taken as ML only.


    "Response: I would argue that from other parts of the Bible rather than just the book of Galatians."

    Nick: Again, I believe Galatians on it's own is very coherent just by recognizing it is the ML that is being condemned. Once you realize this, you realize it is a valid interpretation you realze that this understanding can be tested against other books.


    "Response: Yeah but what about murder, raping, lying, cheating, stealing, sexual immorality are we to follow the commandments that teach against such thing as an instrument of our justification? Because all of these works are in the Mosaic Law."

    Nick: Paul never talks about an "instrument of justification," that is built from a presumption of what Gen 15:6 is saying (including ignoring passages like Ps 106:30f).
    My sole point is that Jesus in Mk 10:2-12 (among other places) says His standards are above ML, which is inferior.


    "Response: I know Greek. So a lot of the word meaning has to do with Context and other canonical considerations. Nomos can mean all the natural law, Mosaic Law, or all imperatives and commands. It just depends on the context and as I have shown in Romans 7 sometimes the words can change meaning given the immediate context. So I am not mixing up things I am simply interpreting things in light of their context, whereas you want a rigid meaning for every usage, but I am sorry Greek just does not work that way. Sanctification means totally different things in different parts, same with justification and righteousness. You need to go by the context to determine the meaning."


    Nick: You've got to be kidding me. You've virtually ignored context when defining "law" as used in the "law/gospel" antithesis. NOWHERE, not in Rom 2, Rom 7, or anywhere else have you established "law" to mean "any and all works," which is just the definition you need to find in Scripture for your argument to stand up.


    Response: "Yes he does. Philippians 3:9 Romans 5:19 Colossians 2:14"

    NONE of those talk about "Christ's Righteousness," nor do they talk of imputing it. You are reading foreign concepts into the text.

    "Paul gives us a legal category and we are righteous by what Christ did."

    There is no "legal category" and "what Christ did" is not equivalent to "Christ's Righteousness," much less it imputed. Phil 3:9-11; Rom 5:18-19 and Col 2:12-14 say the exact opposite of 'legal category' and alien righteousness and imputation.

    "There is a legal imputation of Christ righteousness to us and our sins are legal transferred to Christ. We view it legally because those are the categories Paul gives us in Colossians 2."

    Nick: Sorry, but this concept of imputing Christ's Righteousness is not taught in Scripture, nor is the legal transfer of our sins to Christ. For the latter, see my Penal Substitution debate by clicking on my profile.


    "Response: Looking at the verse I would view it consistently as the commandments and the oaths sworn upon by the people in the Mosaic covenant. That would be the meaning of the term law here but the gloss would just simply be law."

    You are arbitrarily making such conclusions. You are reading your definition into the text rather than letting the text speak and breath for itself.


    "Response: The Mosaic Law was not given at the time of Abraham. But The Abrahamic covenant is. How do you make sense out of Romans 4 in light of that? Paul says Abraham was justified by works, but these could not be Mosaic works because the covenant was not around. Why would he mention the Mosaic covenant when it was not around?"

    Nick: Circumcision is primarily what Paul is attacking in Rom 4, and that doctrine leads upto and is the basis for the Mosaic Law, later attacked in Rom 4:13-15...compare to Gal 3:15-18 and Rom 5:13-14a.



    "The Bible NEVER says Jesus obeyed the ML in our place. NEVER. That itself is very problematic for your claim.

    Response: The Bible does teach this:

    Galatians 4:4-5 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

    He redeems us under the law by giving us his works and righteousness, as I have argued above."

    Nick: You are reading foreign concepts into the text. Nothing there says Jesus fulfilled ML IN OUR PLACE. Nowhere does Paul talk about Jesus "giving us his works and righteousness." Again, you have preconceived notions of what Paul is saying, when the fact is Paul never speaks like that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hello Nick,

    Thanks for all the time you have spent so far. Also, typing in caps tends to more confuse me than it does to clarify things for me personally.


    Nick: And my point is there has to be solid grounds to make such a claim. The burden of proof is on you to say Paul uses a word differently in any given context.

    Response: Well, I would say the burden of proof is on both of use to show what a word means in it is given context.

    Nick: I point out that this is clearly distinguished in Rom 7, that cannot be said for other chapters. When Paul talks of "the Law" on its own it is almost exclusively ML.

    Response: I would say that it is clearly distinguished as well in those contexts. I would disagree that it is almost always exclusively the ML.

    Nick: Equivocation can happen in any language. My point is that it is not equivocation because Paul is not SHIFTING definitions of "Law." If I talk of the "law of sin," and "the law of the Spirit," and "Law" he is distinguishing between THEM and thus NOT equivocating.

    Response: I agree with everything you have said here. My claim is that Paul is distinguishing between types of laws throughout the book of Romans. It is hard to see how this is response to what I was saying because I have never claimed that Paul is arbitrarily shifting definitions of law, but rather that the context distinguishes the types of law. Lastly, I never claimed that Greek is exempt from equivocation or any language for that matter.

    Same issue. Paul is NOT interchanging between ML and "any and all works." I never denied Paul could make a distinction, that is not the same as setting two different definitions equal to eachother. THUS, if Paul is talking about ML in a context, you CANNOT rip that verse out and say "here is 'law' versus 'gospel'" because in that phrase you mean 'any and all works," but that is not the same as ML.

    Response: The Mosaic Law is a type of law and a type of work. Thus, if one has established elsewhere that any and all works of law are not to be used as a instrument of justification then when you come to passages that teaches against one type of law contrasted with faith then you can assume that it in turn applies to all type of works since I believe that Paul condemns all types of works elsewhere. However, if I could not show that elsewhere Paul does not condemn all types of works of law then of course your point would be taken. But in my estimation thus far it seems that you have failed to do that.

    As a crude example, lets say Paul was talking about the SuperBowl and frequently used the term "Bowl." YOU think Paul is talking about dishes, so you go around contrasting plates to bowls. The problem is Paul is not using "bowl" like that, he means something more specific, the big football game. You keep going through and finding references in Paul to "bowl" and keep saying 'dishes' when that is NOT the same as SuperBowl (what Paul really means). When I point this out, you say that Paul sometimes does use "bowl" to mean dishes, BUT I never dispute that. I dispute you taking any reference to "bowl" and making it mean dishes or saying bowls for eating and SuperBowl mean the same thing.

    Response: This is a false analogy first off. And Secondly, I am not saying something as absurd as this. I am saying that there is a class of works, and in that class of works there are types of works mosaic and so on. Just like there is a class of tree’s and in that class there are oak trees and Pineapple tree’s and so on. There is the general term works and there are specific instances of works. The Mosaic Law is a specific instance of works. Just like we can call a Pineapple tree, a tree, we can also call Mosaic Law, works. In some contexts Paul refers to them generally and specifically. We have to use the context to determine which usage it is. That is all I am saying. If your analogy was correct it would more or less be about the class of bowls and specific types of bowls rather than the obvious equivocation you attribute falsely to me.


    You are doing just what I described above as erroneous/equivocation. If Paul means SuperBowl in Gal 3, you cannot turn to another book and argue it means "bowls for eating" and that there is NO significant difference.

    Response: I am not sure what you are saying here. But I think it can be sufficiently cleared up with the general class and particular instances of a class distinction that I made earlier.

    Sure I did. In Rom4 I point out how Paul is contrasting circumcision to faith and in Rom 10 how Paul is quoting Mosaic Law.

    Response: No, you did not. These are gnomic statements, that is to say these are statements of fact that are timeless truths and these truths are applied to the specific circumstance of Abraham and David being justified by faith in proceeding text.

    Romans 4:4-5 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

    This is a general timeless truth that is applied to Abraham prior to the Mosaic Law. What reason do you have for limiting the scope of “ergon” or works here?

    Romans 9:32 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,

    The problem with Israel was not the Mosaic Law but that they tried to pursue their justification by works; if the problem was that it was based on the intrinsic nature of the Mosaic Law Paul would have used nomos instead of ergon.


    I believe he is attacking the Judaizers just as much in Romans. Ephesians I believe is the same but far less intense.

    Response: This is probably incorrect because most commentators think that Romans is a predominant Gentile community with some Jews in it (Moo for example shows this consensus in scholarship in his commentary). That is why he begins addressing the pagan and general revelation in Romans 1.

    Romans 2 uses "work" in the singular, not plural. But the real issue is you are ignoring context to focus upon a valid alternate use in Rom 2. You are ripping Rom 3:28 out of context of 3:29-31 and saying 3:28 IS works in general BECAUSE Paul uses law differently than ML in Rom 2. See the logically fallacious argument you are making? You are not allowing context to drive interpretation, instead you are appealing to Rom 2 ANY TIME "law" appears and you want it to mean "any and all works."

    Response: I am not making the argument that when nomos occurs it necessarily means any and all works, that it not my argument, so if you bring up again (as you have been doing this entire time) then I will just have to correct you again. My argument is more like this: Romans 2 opens up that possibility but we must look to the context to make that final determination. I think the context is pretty clear for Romans 3, but you do not so I suppose I will have to argue for it:

    Romans 3:19-20 9 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

    Exposition: Previously in Romans 1:1 to 3:18 he has shown that both Jews and Gentiles are condemned before the law. Romans 3:19-20 acts as a summary build up statement right before Paul tells us a alternative way to salvation since we all stand condemned by the standard of works and following the law. Paul says that every mouth may be stopped but the Mosaic Law was not given to everyone and then he says that the whole world may be held accountable but the Mosaic Law was not given to the entire world. Then Paul continues in the next verse using the continuation greek word “gar” or for to complete his thoughts. He says here “works of the law” and that no can be justified by this, but in the previous verse he has told us that those under the law are held accountable to it and that we are all under the law for the purpose of every mouth being stopped, but if this were by the Mosaic law then not every mouth would be stopped since it was not given to everyone. My claim is that given the context that Paul has shown that both Jews and Gentiles are guilt under the law whether it is Mosaic or general that all are under obligation to God’s commands so that all mouths may be stopped before God. This view, which would be all works, I think fits the context best.

    You are engaging in eisegesis. If you are talking about my citation of Rom 3:28, you are eisegeting it to mean "any and all works" with total disregard for context (29-31). If you are talking about Rom 4:9, contrasting circumcision to faith is not the same as "any and all works" much less 'faith alone.'

    Response: I think Romans 4:9 is showing that this blessing of justification by faith alone is for Jew and Gentile because, quite frankly, that is what the text says. Paul is demonstrating a different point here to let his readers know that all can be justified by faith and not any works.

    Romans 3:28 is condemning the intrinsic nature of works rather than condemning the intrinsic nature of the Mosaic law in this verse. Why do I think this?

    Romans 3:27-28 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

    Exposition: Paul is attacking the intrinsic nature of works because one can boast; this is true of any work. It is hard to see how this could even make sense if he was attacking the intrinsic nature of the Mosaic Law. If Rome is correct about justification by works then you have a reason to boast according to Paul here because you do not go by a law of faith which excludes boasting. Thus, Paul is attacking all things that are ergon in these verses.

    This also leads Paul to anticipate this objection:

    Romans 3:31 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

    Paul is saying this because his readers might think, oh well I am justified by faith therefore I do not have to have any works. You might say Paul is referring to the Mosaic Law here, but here is why that cannot be the case. If law here refers to Mosaic law then Paul is telling us to uphold it, but the Bible teaches elsewhere that the Mosaic law is abolished:

    Hebrews 8:13 13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

    2 Corinthians 3:10-11 10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

    Thus, it has to be referring to works in general here and specifically works that are prescribed in the New Testament.


    Paul did make it clear, hence Rom 3:29-31, EXPLICITLY contrasting Jew to Gentile and circumcised to non which is precisely what Rom 4:9 is doing.

    Response: I would not grant what you have said about Romans 3:29-31 for the reasons I gave above, but 4:9 Paul is just saying justification by faith alone can come to Jews and Gentiles. I do not see how your reference here really answers anything I have said or argued thus far.


    I've already addressed this and showed you are INSERTING your definition of "law" and "works" into a passage without letting context determine the definition. As for Eph 2:8-9, keep reading and you will see the "circumcision" vs "uncercumcision" is the same theme (see v11-12, 15, etc).

    Response: Why think that works here does not refer to all works? Why limit the meaning to that? Paul talks about good works in the next verse and he says that is how Christians should live, producing good works, but certainly you would not take this to mean the Mosaic Law, so why limit the condemnation of works as a way we are saved in verse 9? This is my problem with Roman Catholicism is that it tries to argue that every single statement of works cannot have any sort of general meaning, it always has a reference to specific types, but the Greek word ergon can just mean all actions in general, especially since it is used in the plural here in verse 9. Thus, there has to be a reason in the context for limiting its universality.



    Are you really looking at how Rom 3 ends? See v28-31! It is the ML alone.

    Response: I have argued to the contrary above.


    False. Read 3:19. Paul's point is that if the Jews are stand condemned than those 'below' the Jews, the rest of the world, wont stand a chance.

    Response: The text does not say what you just said. Obviously they would have a chance because the work of the law is written on their heart as it says in Romans 2.

    Romans 3:19 19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.


    It is part of the ML because the Abrahamic builds/expands into that. Abraham's biological lineage directly ties into circumcision and being given the Law and being bound to the Law (Gal 6:3).

    Response: No, it is not because it originates in a different covenant. The covenants are distinct but they aim towards the same purpose, redemption in Christ alone.

    Galatians 6:3 3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.

    I do not know how this proves your point…..

    You are still reading your own definitions into the text rather than letting context determine meaning of law. Rom 4 is focusing on circumcision more than anything.

    Response: No, I am letting the context determine it. Moreover, Romans 4 is giving a specific example of Abraham who was imputed and had the promise apart from works and the work Paul capitalizes on is circumcision. He is also saying that justification can be had by Jew and Gentile.

    You are not reading the chapter. Read Rom 4:9-12 esp. Paul is cutting the Judaizers off at the roots by proving circumcision (biological lineage) was not the basis for Abraham's true fatherhood.

    Response: I am reading it. Paul is arguing that his justification and Promise was not based on works but rather his faith. And we can be sons of Abraham by having this faith.

    Paul's point is that Abraham's favor in God's eyes was not derived from a inherent value in Abraham.

    Response: If someone has works then that is a positive intrinsic moral property and thus inherent to their value.

    Nick: They you mistyped because you kept saying Rom 10. But even Rom 931 is not a problem for the same thing is being talked about, the Mosaic Law.

    Response: No, it is talking about works rather than faith as a basis for our justification, it is accidental that it happens to be in Mosaic law otherwise Paul would have condemned Mosaic law as the basis.

    False, the term "law" is explicitly mentioned and very clear in the following verses of 10:4-5. The works that are condemned is the Judaizers looking to biological descendancy as the grounds for God's favor in them. The issue is a racial superiority complex.

    Response: One’s Biological decadency is not a work, it is just who you are. That is like saying someone being African American is a work or an action. It may be used in the following verses but Paul emphasis is on the problem of the works aspect rather than what type of works they are, otherwise he would have used nomos rather than ergon.

    Paul's main grounds of objection are not primarily pelagian. They werent busying their way into heaven, they thought Heaven and God's favor was tied to their lineage.

    Response: I do not deny that is part of the problem, but that is not a work. And Paul is condemning strict legalism, I do not see any reason for doubting this.

    Nick: I call that a serious presumption. It is a major presumption to jump from ML to any and all works.

    Response: Not if you have established that all works are intrinsically bad as an instrument for justification in other passages and contexts.


    Nick: Paul never talks about an "instrument of justification," that is built from a presumption of what Gen 15:6 is saying (including ignoring passages like Ps 106:30f).
    My sole point is that Jesus in Mk 10:2-12 (among other places) says His standards are above ML, which is inferior.

    Response: So do you believe that the Bible teaches as Rome does that justification is on the basis or instrument of “the new law”?


    NONE of those talk about "Christ's Righteousness," nor do they talk of imputing it. You are reading foreign concepts into the text.


    There is no "legal category" and "what Christ did" is not equivalent to "Christ's Righteousness," much less it imputed. Phil 3:9-11; Rom 5:18-19 and Col 2:12-14 say the exact opposite of 'legal category' and alien righteousness and imputation.

    Response: Paul says the transaction is legal in Col. 2:12-14, so I do not know what you are talking about. I would say all of these categories can be inferred textually.

    Nick: Sorry, but this concept of imputing Christ's Righteousness is not taught in Scripture, nor is the legal transfer of our sins to Christ. For the latter, see my Penal Substitution debate by clicking on my profile.

    Response: I believe it is.

    Romans 4:5 5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness

    The Bible teaches that the ungodly are counted righteous.

    Romans 5:18 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

    Christ’s action leads to the justification of the ungodly.

    Philippians 3:9 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-

    The Righteousness comes from Christ

    Colossians 2:14 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

    There was a legal cancellation.

    It seems from these texts that it is pretty clearly taught in Scripture.


    You are arbitrarily making such conclusions. You are reading your definition into the text rather than letting the text speak and breath for itself.

    Response: Why think that?

    Nick: Circumcision is primarily what Paul is attacking in Rom 4, and that doctrine leads upto and is the basis for the Mosaic Law, later attacked in Rom 4:13-15...compare to Gal 3:15-18 and Rom 5:13-14a.

    Response: Then this would defeat your point that law and works refer only to the Mosaic covenant in these passages, you think they can mean other types of works as well.


    Nick: You are reading foreign concepts into the text. Nothing there says Jesus fulfilled ML IN OUR PLACE. Nowhere does Paul talk about Jesus "giving us his works and righteousness." Again, you have preconceived notions of what Paul is saying, when the fact is Paul never speaks like that.

    Response: The Bible does not say those words precisely in that way and in one section just like the doctrine of the trinity. I think the passages I provided above for my view of imputation plus the Mosaic Law reference (Gal. 4:4-5) sufficiently establishes that Christ gave us his righteousness from obeying the law of God.

    I hope you have a great week!

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete