What is justification by works of the law?

sermonindex Aug 14, 2009

I have heard people say that justification by works of the law is the idea that you need to "repent of your sins" in order to be forgiven. Often these people appeal to Paul for their position. But after studying the writings of Paul, I don't think that he had repentance in mind. I think that the "works" he was talking about was circumcision, and the "law" he was refering to was the Torah.

This is something posted online which gives a lot of clarity:

BUT WE DO NOT NEED TO OBEY THE TORAH OR BE UNDER THE JEWISH LAWS TO BE SAVED:

When Paul was talked about the “law" he often was talking about the Jewish system, the Judaic law of Moses. Paul was not talking about the moral law. He was talking about all of the Torah. The moral law does not demand circumcision anywhere! The moral law only demands love! It is the Jewish Torah that demands circumcision. Therefor when Paul said that we are not justified by the law, he is saying that we are not justified by being circumcised.

Paul emphasised predestination because His ministry was to the Gentiles, who were also "chosen" people. Likewise, Paul emphasised that we are not justified by the law (the Torah) because his ministry was to the Gentiles who were not under the law (under the Torah).

We are not saved by obeying the Torah. We are saved by turning from our sins and turning to Christ. Gentiles do not need to become Jews to be saved. They do not need to be circumcised (obey the Torah or obey the law) to be saved:

"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren and said, except ye be CIRCUMCISED AFTER THE MANNER OF MOSES, YE CANNOT BE SAVED." Acts 15:1

"But neither Titus who was with me, being a GREEK, was compelled to be CIRCUMCISED. And that because of FALSE BRETHREN unawares brought in who came privily to spy out our LIBERTY which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into BONDAGE, to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.... But contrariwise, when they saw that the GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMSISION was committed unto me..." Gal 2:3-7

"Therefore we conclude that aman is justified by faith WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW. Is he the God of the JEWS only? is he not also of the GENTILES? Yes of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God which shall justify the CIRCUMCISION by faith, and the UNCIRCUMCISION through faith." Romans 3:28-30

"Behold I Paul say unto you that if ye be CIRCUMCISED, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is CIRCUMCISED, that he is a debtor to do the WHOLE LAW. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever you are that are JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW, ye are fallen from grace." Gal. 5:2-4

When Paul said that we did not have to obey the law to be saved, He was saying that we do not have to obey the Torah or become Jewish to be saved. We do not need to be circumcised according to the Jewish law to be saved. Paul was not saying that we do not need to repent of our sins (change our mind about breaking the moral law). Both Jew and Gentile are under the moral law. But only the Jews were under the Torah.

"And unto the JEWS I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are UNDER THE LAW as under the law, That I might gain them that are under the law. To them that are WITHOUT LAW as without law (being not without LAW TO GOD, but UNDER the LAW TO CHRIST) that I might gain them that are without law" (1 Co. 9:20-21)

It is very clear that to be "under the law" is to be Jewish, it is to be under the Torah. But to be "without law" is to be without obligation to the Torah, but to still be under the law to God and under the law of Christ.

Paul was not coming against the idea that we need to repent of our sins, turn from our sins, or forsake our sins to be forgiven. Or else Paul would be contradicting the rest of the Bible. But Paul was saying that Gentiles do not need to obey the Torah or be circumcised to be justified. We need to read Paul, not through the eyes of the reformers, but through his own eyes with the cultural context he was in.

C

Christinyou Aug 14, 2009

The believer lives in the Spirit and is called upon to walk in the Spirit so that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in him through the only fulfiller of the Law, Jesus Christ in you the hope of Glory. "Let us not be desirous of vain-glory (the law fosters such a spirit, but grace humbles), provoking one another, envying one another"--which is the sad effect of vain-glory, provocation and envy.

All law, be it moral or any other Law, is vain-glorious to the law keeper, except the Law of God by Grace through Christs' new commandment and His Cross being the epitome of Love.

Vain-Glory is fostered by the law, ones own justification to please God, ones own works righteousness, that by the keeping of the Law, and his believing in Christ is what has saved him.
This vain-glory also fosters ones own sanctification in himself, that his works will show his faith and that is what saves him and keeps him saved.

Grace says, loud and clear, it is not us, for God has said; 1 Corinthians 1:25-31 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Christ is our glory, Christ has been made our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption.

I don't have the wisdom of Christ, the righteousness of Christ the sanctification and redemption of Christ and there is nothing I can do to get it or keep it. It must be God that makes it appropriated unto me by His Grace through the Faith given me, which is not of myself, but that which is the Faith in which I now live this new life in Christ with the faith of Christ. Now I am Free and am not to take upon me the yoke of bondage ever again. Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, (law keeping) but after the Spirit.

It is no longer I who have life but Christ who lives in me, and for sure He will never leave me. WE have been elected to Lambship by the Lamb of God and we know His voice and the Holy Spirit has sealed us to this precious position of son's of God. The Seal can never be broken.

In Christ: Phillip

sermonindex Aug 14, 2009

Good job. However what do you mean by "eye's of the reformers" Which reformers are you refering to??

sermonindex Aug 14, 2009

Good job. However what do you mean by "eye's of the reformers" Which reformers are you refering to??

In the days of the Reformation (Luther & Calvin) the problem was all the works Catholicism taught were necessary for salvation: rosary, penitents, offerings, etc. While it is true that we are not saved by these things, neither do we need to do them to be saved, when Paul talked about "the works of the law" he was specifically talking about the Torah and circumcision. We have a tendency of reading the writings of Scripture and interpreting them by our own circumcstances and experiences, rather then through the circumstances and experiences of the writer himself. The circumstances Paul was dealing with was the Judiazers. The law Paul talked about was the Torah, the works Paul talked about was circumcision.

An example is how some interpret the book of Galatians. Those who view "works of the law" as repentance of sin, think that the Galatians were repenting of their sins and Paul thought "I better put a stop to this!" Nothing could be further from the truth. Paul was not condemning the Galatians for repenting of their sins! Paul was confronting the Galatians because they were being influenced by the Judiazers, they were Gentiles who were being circumcised and started to obey the Torah.

Likewise many read the writings of Paul, in regards to predestination, through the eyes of the reformers. In the days of the Reformation the question was "Does God predestine individuals?" but in the days of the Apostle Paul the question was "Has God also chosen the Gentiles?" Paul argued from Romans 9 all the way to Romans 11 that the Gentiles were also chosen people. Then Paul affirmed this in his letter to a Gentile Church in Ephesus by saying that God has "chosen us". The "us" is Jews and Gentiles. Yet many confuse what Paul meant by these teachings because they do not read them with the circumstances and situations of Paul's day.

The reason that Paul talked so much about justification by the works of the law and about predestination and election, more than any other New Testament writer, is because his ministry was to the Gentiles.

I

imnowhere Aug 14, 2009

We have a tendency of reading the writings of Scripture and interpreting them by our own circumcstances and experiences, rather then through the circumstances and experiences of the writer himself.

The reason that Paul talked so much about justification by the works of the law and about predestination and election, more than any other New Testament writer, is because his ministry was to the Gentiles.

If we were to interpret Rom 9 not through our own filter but in Paul's context, we'd look at Romans 9:6 and probably conclude that Paul was addressing the conclusion of the Jews that because so few Jews were believing Paul's gospel that either it was a lie or God had lied in all His promises to them in the OT.
Paul then states...

Rom 9:6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

So it appears that Paul is talking election here not to encourage gentiles, but to defend God's election even within Israel to the Jews that contended with him. (Hence the follow up of the examples of Issac/Ishmael and Jacob/Esau).

Without a biased filter and trying to keep things in line with Paul's intent, how do we interpret who Paul's antagonists are and what they are attacking Paul with in these two statements?...

Rom 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

In the context, who would come after Paul with these two attacks, the one who believes in sovereign election or the one who holds to free will?

sermonindex Aug 14, 2009

Rom 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
In the context, who would come after Paul with these two attacks, the one who believes in sovereign election or the one who holds to free will?

I think that the context is how God has sovereignly cut off Israel, because they do not meet the conditions of their election (for their unbelief) but the Gentiles were granted in because they met the conditions of their election (belief). Israel cannot accuse God of unrighteousness because He has good reasons for what He does. He cuts of those He cuts of, with good reasons. And He graffs in those He graffs in, with good reason.

The Jews would object to being cut off because they would say, "We are the chosen people! We are the children of Abraham" and they would object to the Gentiles being grafted in because they were not children of Israel or the "chosen" people. What the Jews failed to understand was that their election was conditional, and that even though they were the elect or chosen, they could still lose their salvation and be cut off.

The context of Romans 10 and 11 give us great insight into Romans 9. Paul starts off Romans 9 talking about the Jew/Gentile issue and he finishes Romans 9 with the Jew/Gentile issue. It was never about God predestination individuals for Heaven and Hell. Esau was not chosen for reprobation, Jacob was not chosen for automatic salvation. That had to do with who the chosen people would be, who the Messiah would come at through, etc. Esau represented Edom (Gentiles) and Jacob represented Israel (Jews). Yet God sovereignly cut off Israel for their unbelief and chose to save the Gentiles that believed. Many are called, but the chosen are few, because God only chooses to save those who choose to respond to the call.

sermonindex Aug 14, 2009

"Even us, whom he hath called, not of the JEWS ONLY, but also of the GENTILES" Romans 9:24

Paul sums up his point by saying:

"What shall we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith? But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness?" (Romans 9:30-31)

Romans 9, 10, and 11 is Paul's argument for the election of the Gentiles and the cutting off of Israel. This he must have felt necessary to do because his ministry was to the Gentiles and many Jews thought that God was not interested in saving the Gentiles.

The context has nothing to do with the unconditional election of any individual. The context is about the conditional graffing in and cutting off of Nations.

I

imnowhere Aug 14, 2009

I think that the context is how God has sovereignly cut off Israel

Rom 11:1 ¶ I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew...

because they do not meet the conditions of their election (for their unbelief) but the Gentiles were granted in because they met the conditions of their election (belief).

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
John 1:12-13, Romans 9:16

The context of Romans 10 and 11 give us great insight into Romans 9. Paul starts off Romans 9 talking about the Jew/Gentile issue

Might want to relook at Romans 9 again and give it a few read overs. John Piper did a 7 year (I think) work on Romans 9:1-23 titled, 'The Justification of God'. He spent a fair amount of time looking at Romans 9 and has come up with a very different interpretation.

It was never about God predestination individuals for Heaven and Hell. Esau was not chosen for reprobation, Jacob was not chosen for automatic salvation. That had to do with who the chosen people would be, who the Messiah would come at through, etc. Esau represented Edom (Gentiles) and Jacob represented Israel (Jews).

That's a difficult one. You're saying that Paul verifies the truth before the Spirit and the Son (Romans 9:1-5) in wishing that he could be cut off from Christ and accursed if what? if his jewish brethren according to the flesh could what? be in the line of the Messiah? They already were. Be saved? Yes! Why did Paul wish he could be accursed from Christ (strongest statement in the bible), testifying he is speaking the truth, and for what? governmental favour? Lineage they already had?
I don't think so. Take another look. With Paul's context.

Many are called, but the chosen are few, because God only chooses to save those who choose to respond to the call.

Rom 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Faith and repentance. Gifts? (2 Tim 2:24-25, Phil 1:29)

As Spurgeon said, as long as Romans 9:16 is in the bible, free-will theology doesn't have a chance. (http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/0442.htm)

~~[b]~~But you didn't answer my question. Who was contending with Paul's gospel, the one who believed in God's sovereign election of grace (no procuring merit), or those that held to free-will doctrine?[/b]

L

Logic Aug 14, 2009

A good commentary of Romans would explain the answer.

~~[b]~~Romans 3:20[/b] [color=990000]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[/color] (Galatians 2:16
Man can not glory because his past sins cancel out the works that are done by the law.

~~[b]~~Romans 3:27[/b] [color=990000]Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.[/color]
By what law?
A better word for "law" would be "principle" or "economy".
The principle of faith excludes boasting, but works of the law does not exclude boasting.

~~[b]~~Romans 3:28[/b] [color=990000]Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.[/color]
Because of what Paul said in Romans 3:19-20 & Galatians 2:21 & 3:21.

~~[b]~~Romans 4:30[/b] [color=990000]Seeing it is one God, who shall justify the circumcision ~~[b]~~by[/b] faith, and uncircumcision ~~[b]~~through[/b] faith.[/color]
In this verse, the term "by" faith is doing
"through" faith is only believing.

The circumcision are justified ~~[b]~~by[/b] faith, or obeying/doing the law in the obedience of faith.

The uncircumcision are justified ~~[b]~~through[/b] faith (working the spirit of the law) by acknowledging Christ's sufficiency to justify without reliance of self effort in works of the letter of the law.

~~[b]~~Note:[/b] This “law” which we are not to depend on in self effort for justification is the letter of the law, not the moral & spirit of the law. Because we must obey the moral & spirit of the law. The letter of the law was fulfilled in Christ.

In obedience to the spirit of the law, we must keep in mind the forgiveness of God through Christ for our shortcomings of adherence to it.

~~[b]~~Romans 3:31[/b] [color=990000]Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.[/color]
We establish the law through faith by the acknowledgment of our own inability to do away of our passed transgressions of the law, or the maligning of God's character, which total adherence to the law can never make up for.

~~[b]~~Romans 4:1[/b] [color=990000]What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, has found?[/color]
This means is his obedience to God's command (law) as in "works".

~~[b]~~Romans 4:2[/b] [color=990000]For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something in which to boast; but not before God.[/color]
James 2:21 - James 2:22 shows us that Abraham was justified by works, but the works were of faith, not of the law.

~~[b]~~Romans 4:3[/b] [color=990000]Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.[/color]
Works of the law are based on one's own ability to become righteous after one has been sinning or already sinned; works of faith bases the dependence on Christ for righteousness & to justify one after the acknowledgment of sin.

~~[b]~~Romans 4:7[/b] [color=990000]Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.[/color]
The law can not cover sin, but Christ does.
If one has faith in Christ for coverage of sin to righteousness, one will not rely one one's self with the works of he law to become righteous, for there is no coverage of sin.

~~[b]~~Romans 4:11[/b] [color=990000]And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also[/color]
Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of already being righteous, therefore, the righteousness was not because of adherence to a command (or law of circumcision), but because of faith.

~~[b]~~Romans 4:15[/b] [color=990000]Because the law works wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.[/color]
Because there is no coverage of sin with only the works of the law.
Working to the law proves one has no faith; where there is no faith, there is no coverage of sin, therefore, wrath
Where there is faith, there is no works of the law, therefore, no wrath.

~~[b]~~Romans 4:16[/b] [color=990000]Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the descendants; not to those only who are of the law, but to those also who are of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,[/color]
The righteousness is of faith that it be according to Gods kindness (grace)...

Let's break it down:
~~[b]~~It is of faith, that it might be by grace[/b]
Not debt

~~[b]~~To the end the promise might be sure to all the descendants[/b]
Those also of faith as of Abraham

~~[b]~~Not to those only who are of the law[/b]
Israel &/or those without faith

~~[b]~~But to those also who are of the faith of Abraham[/b]
Those with faith; grafted in from out of Israel.

L

Logic Aug 14, 2009

imnowhere wrote:
Faith and repentance. Gifts? (2 Tim 2:24-25, Phil 1:29)

No, they can not be.

Faith & repentance are commanded.
Commands are responsibilities.

If Faith & repentance are gifts, then God is directly responsible for the unrepentant & faithlessness of the world, because He refuses to give those gifts; He would be condemning sentient beings (His beloved creation) for that which He fails to do.

~~[b]~~Example:[/b]
God to sinner- I commanded you to put your faith in my Son & to repent. Why didn't you?

Sinner to God - Because I couldn't, it was impossible to obey you because you did not give be those gifts...
Therefore, it was not out of rebellion &/or disobedience that I did not, but out of reliance of what you failed to do; I was only sinning because I couldn’t do anything else.

sermonindex Aug 14, 2009

I think it would be best for this thread to stay on topic "Justification by works of the law" and not get side tracked into predestination, but I wanted to quickly address these points:

I think that the context is how God has sovereignly cut off Israel

Rom 11:1 ¶ I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew...

Yes the Jews that believe were not cut off. But the Jews that did not believe were cutt of.

"because of unbelief they were broken off" Rom. 11:20

Paul says that they are not all Israel that are of the seed of Abraham, but those who believe are the true Israel (Rom. 9:6).

because they do not meet the conditions of their election (for their unbelief) but the Gentiles were granted in because they met the conditions of their election (belief).

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
John 1:12-13, Romans 9:16

That verse has nothing to do with salvation. It has to do with God choosing the Israelites to be the chosen people through which the Messiah would come. Genesis says that through the seed of Abraham ALL NATIONS would be blessed Gen. 22:18 . Isaiah says Israel was chosen to be a LIGHT unto the GENTILES Isa. 42:6 and Isa. 49:6 . God chose Jacob for this purpose. Jacob was not chosen for unconditional salvation. "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" has nothing to do with being chosen for salvation or reprobation.

Romans 11 is clear that Israel was cut off because of unbelief, but the Gentiles were grafted in because of faith. That has to do with salvation.

The context of Romans 10 and 11 give us great insight into Romans 9. Paul starts off Romans 9 talking about the Jew/Gentile issue

Might want to relook at Romans 9 again and give it a few read overs. John Piper did a 7 year (I think) work on Romans 9:1-23 titled, 'The Justification of God'. He spent a fair amount of time looking at Romans 9 and has come up with a very different interpretation.

I have done a 9 year study of romans 9 and have come up with a very different interpretation than Piper.

It was never about God predestination individuals for Heaven and Hell. Esau was not chosen for reprobation, Jacob was not chosen for automatic salvation. That had to do with who the chosen people would be, who the Messiah would come at through, etc. Esau represented Edom (Gentiles) and Jacob represented Israel (Jews).

That's a difficult one. You're saying that Paul verifies the truth before the Spirit and the Son (Romans 9:1-5) in wishing that he could be cut off from Christ and accursed if what? if his jewish brethren according to the flesh could what? be in the line of the Messiah? They already were. Be saved? Yes! Why did Paul wish he could be accursed from Christ (strongest statement in the bible), testifying he is speaking the truth, and for what? governmental favour? Lineage they already had?
I don't think so. Take another look. With Paul's context.

What you are saying doesn't make any sense. Why would Paul want to be accursed so that God would choose Jacob over Esau? He has already done that! If Jacob was chosen for automatical salvation, why would Paul want to be cut off so that Israel could be saved?

The fact that God chose Jacob over Esau, yet Israel was cutt off for unbelief, and Paul wishes that He could be cut off instead of them, is absolute proof that God did not choose Jacob for salvation, or Esau for damnation. Jacob was chosen to be the Promised Nation. Esau was not chosen to be the promised Nation.

Jacob was not chosen because he was good, Esau was not rejected because he was bad. If this was talking about salvation and reprobation, it would be saying that Jacob was not chosen because of any good, but Esau was not rejected because of anything bad. Does God condemn people to hell before they deserve it? before they do anything bad? Is this saying that God choose Esau for eternal hell, not because of any sin, but because of His soveriegn will? The Bible is clear that people go to hell for sin. Again, Esau was not chosen for Hell, Esau was simply not chosen to be the Promised Nation.

Many are called, but the chosen are few, because God only chooses to save those who choose to respond to the call.

Rom 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Verse 20 is about how God has chosen the Gentiles.

Verse 21 is about how God wanted Israel to be saved, yet they were not saved because of their choice to be disobedient. That shows free will is involved in salvation. If only God's will was involved in salvation, Israel would have been completely saved.

Israel was the vessel of wrath, which fitted themselves to destruction (Jer. 18:4) that God endured with much LONGSUFFERING (Rom. 9:22). God loved Israel, but because of their consistent disobedience, God turned them into vessels of wrath.

Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Yes, the election of grace is that God saves those who believe. There was a remnant of Israelites that believed, therefore there was a remnant of Isrealites who were saved.

Faith and repentance. Gifts? (2 Tim 2:24-25, Phil 1:29)

God gives us the opportunity to repent and believe, but repenting and believing our own choice. Those verses simply teach that God gives us the opportunity.

As Spurgeon said, as long as Romans 9:16 is in the bible, free-will theology doesn't have a chance.

That doesn't make any sense. How could one chapter in the Bible undue the rest of the Bible? Especially when that one chapter has nothing to do with unconditional salvation vs. free will?

But you didn't answer my question. Who was contending with Paul's gospel, the one who believed in God's sovereign election of grace (no procuring merit), or those that held to free-will doctrine?

I did address your question. It was the Jews who would think they could find unrighteousness with God for cutting them off, because He made a promise to them, they were the chosen people.

Romans 9 has absolutely nothing to do with "sovereign election" or "free will". You are reading this passage through the eyes of the Reformers instead of through the eye of the Apostle. The question in the reformation was "does God predestination individuals?" But this was not a question in the Early Church. Paul was not arguging or discussing that question. The question in the Early Church was, "has God also chosen the Gentiles?" That is what Paul was arguing for: http://www.libraryoftheology.com/predestinationwritings.html

E

Eli_Barnabas Aug 15, 2009

I want to give a public warning to everyone concerning truefaithsav's post. At this time we ought to be wise and identify and discern right from wrong, but so many are going to be swept away in this ungodly deception. It's the age old wickedness being cloaked in a new disguise. What it is called is the "New Perspective of Paul" and it is a complete and total undermining of the gospel of grace as revealed in the Scriptures.

The New Perspective on Paul argues that when Paul was speaking about the law he was only referring to the ceremonial aspect of the Jewish law of Moses. This is utter blasphemy and total ignorance. Those who espouse this view are completely ignorant of what the law is. Truefaithsav wrote that Paul's use of the law only referred to the Torah. What is the Torah but the entire law of God - all the commandments given by Moses demanding the obedience of all who are under it? You cannot cut the law up into separate divisions as they do to maintain a gospel of works. That is what they are trying to do; it is heresy. If we accept this damnable idea then Christ has died for nothing - according to them a person must be morally flawless in order to gain eternal life.

God has told us otherwise in the Scriptures. Even before Moses the Scripture tells us that no one will be just in the sight of God by works. "How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?" (Job 25:4-6) How dare any man say they are just before God by their works - to say that their walk is righteous - that they entirely fulfill the demands of right? This is what the New Perspective is attempting to say.

"And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." (Psalm 143:2)

No man living - whether Jew or Gentile, or anyone alive to this day - is justified in God sight. Except for the imputed righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ all will be eternally condemned forever. Anyone attempting to establish their own righteousness before God will be condemned.

The New Perspective drags the gospel in the dirt when it says that Paul is merely referring to the abolition of the ceremonial distinction between Jew and Gentile. They say that circumcision and feasts only are gone, but still men must live righteous lives to be just before God! What a trifling of the glorious gospel of grace! No wonder Paul vehemently opposed the Judaizers to their face, for so much more was at stake than just a social issue! We are dealing with an eternal justice!

I publicly defy this deceptive doctrine and warn everyone on here concerning it. Paul was not arguing for anything less than the righteousness of God. The law is one whole - it includes every moral command ever given. To say otherwise is to deny the words of the Lord Jesus who said: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40) It is to deny the inspired apostle who wrote clearly that according to morality in the sight of God there is "none righteous, no not one" and that whether one is Jew or Gentile, "by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20) The gospel is all about "the righteousness God without the law" (Romans 3:21) that "justifies freely" (Romans 3:24) ungodly sinners (Romans 4:5) who believe in the blood of Christ on Calvary. If you wish to see what the apostle Paul truly meant when he spoke about "the law", click ~~[url=http://www.timothyministry.com/2007/12/evidence-that-law-includes-moral-law.html]~~here[/url].

If any man preaches another gospel than that which has been preached, let him be accursed. If anyone is fooled into believing this deceptive undermining of the old evangelical gospel, they do so at the cost of their own souls. I could not be more serious.

"They be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." (Matthew 15:14)

"Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." (Philippians 3:8-9)

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." (Galatians 6:14)

sermonindex Aug 15, 2009

What it is called is the "New Perspective of Paul"

I don't even know what the New Perspective of Paul is. I have never studied that theology. I have simply studied the Scriptures.

The New Perspective on Paul argues that when Paul was speaking about the law he was only referring to the ceremonial aspect of the Jewish law of Moses. This is utter blasphemy and total ignorance. Those who espouse this view are completely ignorant of what the law is. Truefaithsav wrote that Paul's use of the law only referred to the Torah.

Is that what they teach? The New Perspective of Paul is wrong then! The Torah included the moral law. Paul said that we cannot be justified by the works of the law (Torah) for by the law is the knowledge of SIN. The Torah not only included the law of circumcision, it also included the Ten Commandments. The moral law cannot declare us just (justify us) because we are not innocent. We must be justified by grace, since we dont deserve justification.

My point was that Paul was not arguing against repenting of your sins (as the NT teaches we must), Paul was arguing against the idea that Gentiles need to obey the Torah and be circumcised. Gentiles were never under the Torah in the Old Testament and they do not need to be under the Torah in the New Testament.

But Gentiles were under the moral law in the OT and in the NT. Gentiles do not need to be circumcised, but they do need to repent of their sins and trust in Christ.

according to them a person must be morally flawless in order to gain eternal life.

It is impossible to be morally flawless because we have all sinned. Only Jesus was morally flawless. But we can change our mind about sin (repent) and be forgiven, and through Jesus we can have victory over all sin.

Gentiles do not need to obey the Torah to be saved. Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to be saved.

How did God save Nineveh the Gentile city? Were they circumcised or become Jews? NO! It says that they:

1. Believed God - Jonah 3:5
2. Turned from their sins - Jonah 3:8

That is how God saved Gentiles in the OT and that is how God saves Gentiles in the NT. Gentiles do not need to become Jewish, Nineveh did not. If Gentiles will repent and believe, God will gaciously and mercifully forgive.

"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren and said, except ye be CIRCUMCISED AFTER THE MANNER OF MOSES, YE CANNOT BE SAVED." Acts 15:1

"But neither Titus who was with me, being a GREEK, was compelled to be CIRCUMCISED. And that because of FALSE BRETHREN unawares brought in who came privily to spy out our LIBERTY which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into BONDAGE, to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.... But contrariwise, when they saw that the GOSPEL OF THE UNCIRCUMSISION was committed unto me..." Gal 2:3-7

"Therefore we conclude that aman is justified by faith WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW. Is he the God of the JEWS only? is he not also of the GENTILES? Yes of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God which shall justify the CIRCUMCISION by faith, and the UNCIRCUMCISION through faith." Romans 3:28-30

"Behold I Paul say unto you that if ye be CIRCUMCISED, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is CIRCUMCISED, that he is a debtor to do the WHOLE LAW. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever you are that are JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW, ye are fallen from grace." Gal. 5:2-4

"And unto the JEWS I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are UNDER THE LAW as under the law, That I might gain them that are under the law. To them that are WITHOUT LAW as without law (being not without LAW TO GOD, but UNDER the LAW TO CHRIST) that I might gain them that are without law" (1 Co. 9:20-21)

This was so important I wanted to share it again:

How did God save Nineveh the Gentile city? Were they circumcised or become Jews? NO! It says that they:
1. Believed God - Jonah 3:5
2. Turned from their sins - Jonah 3:8
That is how God saved Gentiles in the OT and that is how God saves Gentiles in the NT. Gentiles do not need to become Jewish, Nineveh did not. If Gentiles will repent and believe, God will gaciously and mercifully forgive.

We are not saved by works of the law (circumcision, etc). We are saved by believing and repenting (faith). Faith is when we embrace Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, when we trust Him as our Lord and Savior.

sermonindex Aug 15, 2009

Here is the question, is a person saved by mere belief, or by believing and repenting? Does faith consist in embracing Jesus as Savior only, or does it also include embracing Him as Lord?

If a person believes, but they do not repent of their sins, are they saved?

If a person believes in Christ, but they continue to cheat on their wife and murder their neighbor (break the moral law), are they saved because they believe?

Does mere belief save, without repentance? Does a person need to repent of their sins, or change their mind about breaking the moral law, in order to be pardoned? Why would a Ruler pardon a criminal who still plans on committing crimes? A good Ruler would only pardon a criminal who has had a change of mind about crime. Changing your mind about sinning (repentance) is not a work of the law. There is a huge difference between a "work" and a "change of mind". Being circumcised is a work, changing your mind about sin is not a work.

If a person intellectually consents to the atonement of Christ, but their heart is still set on sinning, they are not forgiven. Until the heart forsakes sin, God does not pardon.

I believe that it is possible for a person to believe in Jesus, that He died for their sins, and still go to hell, if they do not turn from their sins. If a person believes that Jesus died for their sins, but they do not forsake their sins, their belief does not save them. Their faith is dead and cannot save. A living faith includes forsaking sin and only a living faith saves.

The person who believes in Jesus, but continues on their sins, only has the "faith of devils" as Catherine Booth put it.

C

Christinyou Aug 15, 2009

I don't know your name, but I know the Spirit in you.

Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

John 3:15-21 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Even unto repentance, very few understand repentance, unto salvation. It is not my sins that condemns me, it is my non belief, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, to believe this is the true repentance that God requires for salvation, and He even provides the Faith to repent, by the Faith of the Christ that is in us when we believe.

What was Adams original sin? He believed a lie more than He believed God. In doing this he received the spirit of darkness, Satan as his believer and God instantly was out and Satan was in.

True repentance is now believing what God says is truth and not a lie. In doing this, instantly we receive the spirit of light, now Satan is out and Christ is in. How can we do this believing?

Colossians 1:26-29 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

Again How? "but now is made manifest to His saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:"

God makes it known and is manifest to us His saints and we can repent and believe the truth. The liar is out and Christ is in.

In Repentance and believing Jesus Christ is the Son of God and saved and reborn by the Incorruptable Seed of Christ By His Spirit that is in me, a son God by the Son of God:

Phillip

L

Logic Aug 15, 2009

[quotetruefaithsav wrote:
Here is the question, is a person saved by mere belief, or by believing and repenting?Repentance proves their faith (belief) to be real!

Does faith consist in embracing Jesus as Savior only, or does it also include embracing Him as Lord?

To not embrace Christ as Lord is truly denying the fact that He really is Lord; it doesn’t matter if one thinks so or not.

Jesus is Lord no matter what, if one repents or not.
However, Jesus may not be savior to the ones who refuse to let him save them.

* If a person believes, but they do not repent of their sins, are they saved?
* Does mere belief save, without repentance?
* Does a person need to repent of their sins, or change their mind about breaking the moral law, in order to be pardoned?
* Why would a Ruler pardon a criminal who still plans on committing crimes?

When you understand obedience towards God in contrast to obedience towards the "Torah" or the Law, you will see that our obedience towards God is by the spirit of the law and not the letter.

The letter is made of 613 separate commands from the Torah. This is compared to only 1 command of the Spirit, which is love.

The difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law is that the letter relates to the outward action; the spirit relates to the motive or intention of the heart and from which the act should proceed.

The spirit of the law requires impartial goodwill &/or benevolence, and is all expressed in one word--love. The letter of the law requires strict adherence to every precept, it is all expressed in one word--obey.

When you understand this, you will see why they call it the "Law of Liberty"!

An example, the letter of the law says, "Do not commit murder!" but the spirit of the law says, ‘‘anyone who is angry with his brother without cause shall be liable to Judgment.'' (Matthew 5:21-22)
The spirit requires that certain conditions to be examined in their proper place.

The letter of the law is unyielding and sentences “guilty” all violators of its precepts, without regard to the purpose of the violation. Just as the speed limit is 55 mph and one exceeds the limit, the law says, ''guilty''.

The spirit of the law, on the other hand, sees the purpose of the excess speed for an emergency and says, ''keep speeding until purpose is met".
Furthermore, when speeding for the purpose of an emergency, the spirit of the law is not broken, but fulfilled.

How is repentance different than obeying the letter of the Law?
When one repents, they are not turning from sin and towards the law, but very act of repentance is turning away from sin and toward God, and in faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Act 20:21

sermonindex Aug 15, 2009

Maybe we should ask this question: What was YOUR conversion experience like? What was your testimony? Did it include repentance?

I know that I believed in Jesus Christ long before I was converted. I believed in Jesus, I believed in the Bible, yet I was living in terrible terrible sin. But when I was converted to Christ, I repented of my sins. I was not saved when I merely believed in Jesus. I was saved when I believed He died for my sins AND forsake my sins.

To be more specific I used to do a lot of drugs and was sexually immoral with women. I also was a liar and a thief. I robbed houses to support my drug habit and even was involved in check frauds. During this time I went to Church, believed in Jesus, and believed the Bible was the Word of God. But I was not saved, I was going to hell. It was not until I repented of my sins that I had the assurance from the Spirit and of my conscience that my sins were forgiven by God.

I am convinced that ~~[i]~~if I continued on[/i] in my drug abusing, sexual immorality, lying and stealing, I would have gone to hell even though I believed in Jesus Christ. Am I wrong in this belief? Was I saved while I was doing these things? Did I "fall from grace" because I repented of my sins?

Was I saved when I merely believed, but did I lose my salvation when I repented? The way some people talk negatively about repentance, as if it is justification by works of the law, you would think that I was saved when I was sinning because I believed, but I lost my salvation when I repented! The truth is that I was hell bound when I merely believed yet continued on in my sins. I was not forgiven by God until trusted in Christ AND gave up my sins.

L

Logic Aug 15, 2009

truefaithsav wrote:
I was not saved when I merely believed in Jesus.

In other words:
~~[b]~~James 2:19[/b] [color=990000]You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble![/color]

The way some people talk negatively about repentance, as if it is justification by works of the law, you would think that I was saved when I was sinning because I believed, but I lost my salvation when I repented!

~~[b]~~Mat 3:8[/b] [color=990000] Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance,[/color]
Repentance is the fruit of faith.

Faith is the first & primary step.
Repentance/conversion stems from faith; it is a fruit from or of faith. Faith without this primary work of repentance is dead.

If one does not repent, he is proving that he really has no faith at all!

I

imnowhere Aug 15, 2009

In Romans 1:17, Paul says that the gospel contains the 'righteousness of God', which is the 'power of God unto salvation'.

Then, once all the gentiles, religious, and Jews are indicted of their guilt in chptrs 2 and 3, Paul again comes back to the cross, where again Paul points to the righteousness of God as our saving hope.

The gospel is about the righteousness of God. Not man. Paul does encourage us in our sanctification, but not till chptr 12 once the doctrine of the gospel of God's righteousness is complete.

What makes saving faith different from counterfeit faith is that saving faith is in Christ and not in one's self.

Eph 2:10 follows verses 8 and 9. Not the other way around. It's always a part of salvation, but doesn't procure it. It is of grace.

1 Cor 4:7

sermonindex Aug 15, 2009

If one does not repent, he is proving that he really has no faith at all!

Yes it says that Nineveh "believed God" and then they turned "every one from his evil way".

It was only after Nineveh believed God and repented of their sins that "God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

This is how God saves Gentiles. God repents of their punishment when they repent of their sins. God turns from His anger when they turn from their evil ways.