Faith or Law?

[Soyeong]

But faith alone apart from works isn't salvific. Scripture is clear. No one is "required" to do good works its a choice. Faith doesn't cause good works it if did atheists couldn't do good works but that's not the case. Just to head it off I'm not suggesting good works done by atheists are salvific.

There is a difference between these two positions:

1.) Our salvation requires us to choose to be workers of lawfulness because that is the way to embody our faith.

2.) Our salvation requires us to choose to be workers of lawfulness in order to earn it as the result.

The Bible affirmes 1 such as with Matthew 7:21-23 while denying 2. The position of faith alone is in accordance with 1 but denies 2.

 

[TMS]

If the the tree does not have fruit it will be cut down.

Luk 13:6-9
6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. 7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? 8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: 9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.


Mat 7:16-21
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Ye that work iniquity will not be saved... they are not known by Jesus. Works are important not to earn salvation but to reflect the image of our master and Lord.

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Fruit are the results of the Spirit transforming the heart. Fruits of the Spirit are....

Gal 5:19-23
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are....... drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

 

[studier]

I think that "law of works" refers to "works of the law" while "law of faith" refers to the Law of God that our faith upholds (Romans 3:31).

This is one of the uses of "law" that many have struggled with and think it's better to view as Paul speaking about a "principle" or such thing vs. a "law".

I'm not so sure we have to go there. I tend to go directly to the most literal translation and attempt to deal with it first at that level.

Paul is asking rhetorically what kind/sort/nature [of] law excludes boasting - he concludes that boasting is excluded through [a] law [of] faith and not through [a] law [of] the works.

So, we already have the contrast you identified, but we don't IMO yet have the full meaning of law. The reason I'm including these brackets around "of" is because they identify where translators are inserting words that carry much more meaning than "of". Even in English, "of" can mean several different things - see an English dictionary. In Greek we can run through a list of 30+/- different meanings to place into the bracket to replace "of".

Here's a list from Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace identifying the different things Paul could be telling us about faith vs. works in regard to law:

The Genitive Case
Overview of Genitive Uses
Adjectival Genitive78
1. Descriptive Genitive (“Aporetic” Genitive)79
2. Possessive Genitive81
3. Genitive of Relationship83
4. Partitive Genitive (“Wholative”)84
5. Attributive Genitive85
6. Attributed Genitive89
7. Genitive of Material91
8. Genitive of Content92
9. Genitive in Simple Apposition94
10. Genitive of Apposition95
11. Genitive of Destination (a. k. a. Direction or Purpose)100
12. Predicate Genitive102
13. Genitive of Subordination 103
14. Genitive of Production/Producer 104
15. Genitive of Product 106
Ablatival Genitive 107
1. Genitive of Separation 107
2. Genitive of Source (or Origin) 109
3. Genitive of Comparison 110
Verbal Genitive (i.e., Genitive Related to a Verbal Noun) 112
1. Subjective Genitive 112
2. Objective Genitive 116
3. Plenary Genitive 119
Adverbial Genitive 121
1. Genitive of Price or Value or Quantity 122
2. Genitive of Time (within which or during which) 122
3. Genitive of Place (where or within which)124
4. Genitive of Means 125
5. Genitive of Agency 126
6. Genitive Absolute 127
7. Genitive of Reference 127
8. Genitive of Association 128
After Certain Words 131
1. Genitive After Certain Verbs (as Direct Object) 131
2. Genitive After Certain Adjectives (and Adverbs) 134
3. Genitive After Certain Nouns 135
4. Genitive After Certain Prepositions 136

So, we know that Paul is describing a kind of law - what kind of law is it? Until we select from this or a similar list a category - or categories in the case of some intended ambiguity - we really don't know.

IOW, I don't think the issue is about the word "law" - I think it's about the inserted word "of".

I also think your attaching this to "the works of the law" is likely correct in whatever sense, and your second attachment may have some merit but may be clarified and maybe modified once the above is sorted out.

Please note also that the phrase "the works [of] the law" also contains the same "of" in the brackets. This is a catch-all translation that mostly indicates the translators are likely not dealing with the actual specificity in the original wording.

IMO we're trying to reach conclusions on author's meanings apart from knowing what they're actually saying. Then we're arguing over opinions at a very surface level.

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

Someone who is a courageous is a doer of courageous works by definition, so they do not just want to do them, but rather that trait characterizes their works. Someone does not need to be perfectly courageous in oder for that trait to characterize their works, otherwise there is no one who would be courageous, but someone being courageous is more than just them wanting to be courageous. Likewise, someone does not need to have sinless obedience to the Law of Moses in order for it to characterize their works, but being a doer of the Law of Moses is more than just wanting to obey it. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), which he embodied through his works by living in obedience to the Law of Moses and Christianity is about being made to be like Christ through embodying His character traits in accordance with following his example, not about having sinless obedience or about just wanting to be like him.

The Bible repeatedly says things along the lines that they to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments (Luke 10:25-28) or that Jesus has become a source of eternal salvation for those who obey him (Hebrews 5:9).

This reminds me of something someone told me on onother forum. He said something on the order of, "You don't have to be perfect, you just have to be good enough". Well, good enough won't cut it. That's why we're totally (not partially) dependent on Christ's sacrifice for our sins being sufficient to avoid His wrath.

 

[rewriter]

This is one of the uses of "law" that many have struggled with and think it's better to view as Paul speaking about a "principle" or such thing vs. a "law".

I'm not so sure we have to go there. I tend to go directly to the most literal translation and attempt to deal with it first at that level.

Paul is asking rhetorically what kind/sort/nature [of] law excludes boasting - he concludes that boasting is excluded through [a] law [of] faith and not through [a] law [of] the works.

So, we already have the contrast you identified, but we don't IMO yet have the full meaning of law. The reason I'm including these brackets around "of" is because they identify where translators are inserting words that carry much more meaning than "of". Even in English, "of" can mean several different things - see an English dictionary. In Greek we can run through a list of 30+/- different meanings to place into the bracket to replace "of".

Here's a list from Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace identifying the different things Paul could be telling us about faith vs. works in regard to law:

The Genitive Case
Overview of Genitive Uses
Adjectival Genitive78
1. Descriptive Genitive (“Aporetic” Genitive)79
2. Possessive Genitive81
3. Genitive of Relationship83
4. Partitive Genitive (“Wholative”)84
5. Attributive Genitive85
6. Attributed Genitive89
7. Genitive of Material91
8. Genitive of Content92
9. Genitive in Simple Apposition94
10. Genitive of Apposition95
11. Genitive of Destination (a. k. a. Direction or Purpose)100
12. Predicate Genitive102
13. Genitive of Subordination 103
14. Genitive of Production/Producer 104
15. Genitive of Product 106
Ablatival Genitive 107
1. Genitive of Separation 107
2. Genitive of Source (or Origin) 109
3. Genitive of Comparison 110
Verbal Genitive (i.e., Genitive Related to a Verbal Noun) 112
1. Subjective Genitive 112
2. Objective Genitive 116
3. Plenary Genitive 119
Adverbial Genitive 121
1. Genitive of Price or Value or Quantity 122
2. Genitive of Time (within which or during which) 122
3. Genitive of Place (where or within which)124
4. Genitive of Means 125
5. Genitive of Agency 126
6. Genitive Absolute 127
7. Genitive of Reference 127
8. Genitive of Association 128
After Certain Words 131
1. Genitive After Certain Verbs (as Direct Object) 131
2. Genitive After Certain Adjectives (and Adverbs) 134
3. Genitive After Certain Nouns 135
4. Genitive After Certain Prepositions 136

So, we know that Paul is describing a kind of law - what kind of law is it? Until we select from this or a similar list a category - or categories in the case of some intended ambiguity - we really don't know.

IOW, I don't think the issue is about the word "law" - I think it's about the inserted word "of".

I also think your attaching this to "the works of the law" is likely correct in whatever sense, and your second attachment may have some merit but may be clarified and maybe modified once the above is sorted out.

Please note also that the phrase "the works [of] the law" also contains the same "of" in the brackets. This is a catch-all translation that mostly indicates the translators are likely not dealing with the actual specificity in the original wording.

IMO we're trying to reach conclusions on author's meanings apart from knowing what they're actually saying. Then we're arguing over opinions at a very surface level.

And yet another, often ignored, problem is that Paul is not writing these words himself, but rather he is dictating what he wants to say to a scribe. The scribe then works to figure out exactly what words to use because there are limits to how many individual letters can fit onto an expensive handmade page using expensive handmade ink, the idea being keeping the expenses down, but still delivering the idea. Think the executive telling his secretary to take a letter, lots of blah, blah, blah gets included in his dictation so the secretary can make it sound nice and proper. I doubt there was much "blah, blah, blah" but still the scribe likely had to adjust words and terms, possibly more.

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

We can't earn our entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven even as the result of having perfect obedience to the Law of God because it was never given as a way of earning our way there in the first place, not because we fall short of being good enough and need repentance to bridge the gap. In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus said that only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven in contrast with saying that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the reason why our entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven requires us to be workers of lawfulness is not in order to be good enough to earn our way there but because that is the way to know Jesus. Christianity is not just about having our sins forgiven but about turning from our sins and being made to be like Christ.

This message is self-contradictory. Your first statement says that obedience to the law is not an entrance into heaven even if it is perfect obedience (which is consistent with your rejection of the Scriptures which tell us that the law demands perfect compliance and the Scriptures that tell us that those who perfectly obey the law have life because of their obedience, though they warn that no one will have gained eternal life that way which strangely you agree with in the first sentence). But in the second sentence, you contradict the first sentence when you claim that the entrance into heaven is through partially obeying the commandments because partial obedience to the law is how we come to know Jesus and knowing Jesus gets us into heaven (never mind that Jesus did not say that knowing Him is how people avoid judgement, but He said that Him knowing them was what is important). Please clarify whether or not you believe partial obedience to the law is required to get eternal life.

 

[studier]

You name definitely rings a bell now that I think about it. Maybe Christian Forums?

May have been that site and I may not have used the same ID, which I could have dropped because I didn't like it, or at this point just forgotten about after a hiatus and joining a different forum. I do recall discussions with you being mutually respectful.

If relying on "works of law" involves doing something that is not continuing to do everything in the Book of the Law, then it would be natural to quote Deuteronomy 27:26 in order to show that all who rely on "works of the law' come under that curse. In other words, there were people who relying on becoming circumcised (converting to being Jews) in order to be saved instead of relying on the Book of the Law (Romans 2:17-29).

So, you seem to be saying that 'works of law' does not mean full, continual Torah observance, which is the opposite of what Paul says 'works of law' is.

Maintaining focus on one section of Scripture at a time.

 

[Nedsk]

You're assuming Paul & James are talking about the same moment of salvation, but they're not. Paul is talking about how a sinner is justified before God (Rom 3:28 & 4:5). James is talking about how a believer's faith is shown to be genuine before men (Jas 2:18). Paul excludes works from justification because ""to the one who does not work but believes, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom 4:5). James excludes empty profession because ""faith by itself"" (which James says does exist) is dead & unproductive (Jas 2:17). Paul's point: works don't contribute to justification. James' point: works demonstrate the reality of the faith that justifies. If works were part of faith's essence, James couldn't speak of ""faith by itself"" at all. And if works were part of justification, Paul couldn't say justification is for the one who ""does not work."" They're addressing different questions, not contradicting each other.

Your Dilemma, Nedsk
If works are part of justification, why does Paul say justification is for the one who ""does not work"" (Rom 4:5)?

And if works are part of faith's essence, why does James say ""faith by itself"" exists (Jas 2:17)?

You can't affirm both apostles without contradicting one of them

Goodness gracious.

First, salvation is salvation period.

Second I have no dilemma. Paul is adamant that works of the law won't save us. But he has a different tact on good works. Romans 2:7 and 2 Corinthians 5:10.

And this nonsense about faith by itself, the only way for you to believe that is to ignore where James says faith is brought to completion by works. If faith by itself as you claim is sufficient it wouldn't need completion with works. In order to fully understand what James is saying you really need to know what sufficient means. That which is sufficient by itself does not need completion.

 

[Nedsk]

There is a difference between these two positions:

1.) Our salvation requires us to choose to be workers of lawfulness because that is the way to embody our faith.

2.) Our salvation requires us to choose to be workers of lawfulness in order to earn it as the result.

The Bible affirmes 1 such as with Matthew 7:21-23 while denying 2. The position of faith alone is in accordance with 1 but denies 2.

And? As I said all along, faith alone is not sufficient for salvation. Amen.

 

[Soyeong]

May have been that site and I may not have used the same ID, which I could have dropped because I didn't like it, or at this point just forgotten about after a hiatus and joining a different forum. I do recall discussions with you being mutually respectful.

Sounds good.

So, you seem to be saying that 'works of law' does not mean full, continual Torah observance, which is the opposite of what Paul says 'works of law' is.

Maintaining focus on one section of Scripture at a time.

Paul used "works of the law" in reference to the position that Gentiles are required to becoming circumcised (become Jews) in order to become saved/justified. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason and not just against incorrect reasons, then Galatians 5:2 would means that he caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughly 70% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, which was never the reason for why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Torah by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly obeying what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

 

[studier]

Sounds good.


Paul used "works of the law" in reference to the position that Gentiles are required to becoming circumcised (become Jews) in order to become saved/justified. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason and not just against incorrect reasons, then Galatians 5:2 would means that he caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughly 70% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, which was never the reason for why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Torah by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly obeying what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

Per Gal 3:10, 'works of law' means continuing to do all that has been written in the book of the law. Apart from continuing to do all that has been written in the book of the law, those relying on works of law [for righteousness] end up under curse.

 

[Nedsk]

Per Gal 3:10, 'works of law' means continuing to do all that has been written in the book of the law. Apart from continuing to do all that has been written in the book of the law, those relying on works of law for righteousness end up under curse.

And conversely those relying on faith alone end up on the outside looking in.

 

[studier]

And conversely those relying on faith alone end up on the outside looking in.

Both are error.

 

[Dino246]

Fruit are the results of the Spirit transforming the heart. Fruits of the Spirit are....

Gal 5:19-23
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are....... drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

I find it interesting that the fruit of the Spirit does not include “obeying the Mosaic Law”.

I think the Judaizers here should meditate on this.

 

[Nedsk]

Both are error.

Yes faith is brought to completion by works just as Scripture says. Amen

 

[Nedsk]

I find it interesting that the fruit of the Spirit does not include “obeying the Mosaic Law”.

I think the Judaizers here should meditate on this.

Love is one of the fruits of the spirit and if you love God then you will obey his commands.

 

[studier]

Yes faith is brought to completion by works just as Scripture says. Amen

That's because just before James says that, in James2:17 he's instructed through a prepositional phrase 'kath heautēn' (according to itself) and the word 'echō' (have/ possess) that 'works' are an intrinsic part of [genuine] faith - and just prior to that in James2:14 he's in effect instructed that apart from this [genuine] faith that in itself possesses works, a faith that does not possess works within itself does not save.

 

[Dino246]

Love is one of the fruits of the spirit and if you love God then you will obey his commands.

Like… not making graven images for yourselves? Tell that to all the Catholics who left Jesus on the cross.

 

[Nedsk]

That's because just before James says that, in James2:17 he's instructed through a prepositional phrase 'kath heautēn' (according to itself) and the word 'echō' (have/ possess) that 'works' are an intrinsic part of [genuine] faith - and just prior to that in James2:14 he's in effect instructed that apart from this [genuine] faith that in itself possesses works, a faith that does not possess works within itself does not save.

Correct. Dead meaning non salvific. But works have to be a choice. If those with faith have no choice but to do good works then there would be no need for judgement and there will be based on our actions or I actions. There would be no need for Paul warns, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. He wouldn't have had to tell.people not to neglect to do good works. Or would have had to consider how to spur on another to love and good works.

 

[Nedsk]

Like… not making graven images for yourselves? Tell that to all the Catholics who left Jesus on the cross.

So Jesus is a graven image? Interesting.

Like… not making graven images for yourselves? Tell that to all the Catholics who left Jesus on the cross.

So Jesus is a graven image? Interesting. So Numbers 21:4-9 is a lie? I didn't think the bible taught lies.