Christian Denomination that believes/teaches faith AND works

[Koineman]

I should also point out that in Galatians 5, Paul does not limit “works of law” to ceremonial works but actually refers to the entirety of the law:

“Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.”

He’s saying that if you are to be justified by circumcision, you need to be justified by the entire law. It’s not part of it but all of it. But he is arguing against this very thing when he says earlier in Gal. 3:

“10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”

Thus, he is in no way arguing **only **against justification by ceremonial works of law.

 

[KjetilK]

Or it’s only illogical according to our present understanding, which is limited.

Again: logic doesn’t work that way.

 

[KjetilK]

Where in Romans do you see Paul limiting works of law to “ceremonial” works?

Romans 3:28: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”

 

[Koineman]

Originally Posted by Koineman
Or it’s only illogical according to our present understanding, which is limited.

Sorry, I disagree. Two things can seem contradictory if we don’t have all the information.

 

[Koineman]

Originally Posted by Koineman
Where in Romans do you see Paul limiting works of law to “ceremonial” works?

I don’t understand how this answers the question.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I should also point out that in Galatians 5, Paul does not limit “works of law” to ceremonial works but actually refers to the entirety of the law:

“Works of law” in translations of Paul’s writings should be translated “works of Torah.” In Romans 3:28, Paul reiterates his thesis that “a man is justified by faith apart from works of Torah.” To support this, he asks rhetorically, “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also” (3:29). “Works of Torah” must therefore be something that are characteristic of Jews rather than Gentiles. If Paul has in mind anything particular here, it would presumably be the ceremonial components of Torah (circumcision, food laws, festival laws), which are distinctively characteristic of Jews. It would not be the moral components of Torah, since even Gentiles have these written on their hearts (2:15) and they consequently do them “by nature.”

 

[rcwitness]

I should also point out that in Galatians 5, Paul does not limit “works of law” to ceremonial works but actually refers to the entirety of the law:

“Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.”

As Peter wisely warned us, Paul can easily be seen as meaning one thing, but actually not. He seems to contradict things more than any other writer of the Scriptures. Maybe because he wrote so much and tried to be more specific. That seems to be what the Catholic Churches problem has been ever since Paul. The more we define, the more people think we are contradicting.

Acts 16 (RSVCE)

Timothy Joins Paul and Silas
16 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Ico′nium. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. 5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.

 

[Koineman]

Romans 3:28: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”

“Works of law” in translations of Paul’s writings should be translated “works of Torah.”

Why? The Greek word is “law.” As shown in Galatians, when Paul used the word law, he was referring to the entire body of law, not just circumcision or ceremonial aspects.

In Romans 3:28, Paul reiterates his thesis that “a man is justified by faith apart from works of Torah.” To support this, he asks rhetorically, “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also” (3:29). “Works of Torah” must therefore be something that are characteristic of Jews rather than Gentiles.

The difference is that the Jews had the codified law, whereas Gentiles have the “work of the law” written on their hearts:

“14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 2)

If Paul has in mind anything particular here, it would presumably be the ceremonial components of Torah (circumcision, food laws, festival laws), which are distinctively characteristic of Jews. It would not be the moral components of Torah, since even Gentiles have these written on their hearts (2:15) and they consequently do them “by nature.”

The text does not demand that we read Paul as referring to only the ceremonial law. In fact, it goes against such a reading, since Paul refers specifically to the moral law later in Romans 2, and he does so in reference to the Jews:

“17 But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God, 18 and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, 21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? 24 For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written.”

This is all the clearer when we remember that Paul’s purpose in this entire section of Romans is to show that all people–both Jews and Gentiles–are under sin. (See Romans 3:9.)

I’m sorry, but Paul does NOT limit his use of the word law to ceremonial aspects.

 

[ignatius777]

Ok I hope this is posted in the correct area…

IS there are Christian Denomination that teaches and believes that both FAITH AND WORKS are needed?

James 2:14-26 faith without works is dead.
Ephesians 2:8-10 faith and grace alone.
James 2:24 righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

Would they not go hand n hand? (faith grace and works)
Should not faith and works sow each other naturally?

I ask this because I know the big argument with Protestant vs. Catholism is that one is by faith and grace alone and the other is by works… but I do not believe things are black and white and there is gray area…
I was curious if there is a denomination that does teach and believe both and who… and/or if there are denominations that does teach both but are falsely accused of just one or the other.

The problem seems to be that some non catholic Christians think its either faith or works and you kind of hint at that here. or catholics however its both faith and works.

 

[Koineman]

As Peter wisely warned us, Paul can easily be seen as meaning one thing, but actually not.

That’s why you have to take into consideration what Paul wrote throughout the NT. See my 1 Cor. 9 reference below.

He seems to contradict things more than any other writer of the Scriptures. Maybe because he wrote so much and tried to be more specific. That seems to be what the Catholic Churches problem has been ever since Paul. The more we define, the more people think we are contradicting.

And the more you add, the more you have to explain. That is also part of the problem.

Acts 16 (RSVCE)

Timothy Joins Paul and Silas
16 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Ico′nium. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. 5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.

This was an example of Paul becoming all things to all men:

“19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;” (1 Cor. 9)

 

[KjetilK]

Sorry, I disagree. Two things can seem contradictory if we don’t have all the information.

But it doesn’t ‘seem contradictory.’ There is no logical problem in this instance. People are not saying ‘God is one person and three persons’ or ‘God is one nature and three natures,’ both of which would be logical contradictions.

It seems that you are saying ‘illogical’ - which is just really another word for false - when you mean ‘mysterious’ or ‘hard to grasp.’

 

[KjetilK]

I don’t understand how this answers the question.

I missed the word ‘ceremonial.’ My bad.

But I do agree with Per Crucem’s point, that the context tells us that the works in question are those specific to Jews.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Why? The Greek word is “law.” As shown in Galatians, when Paul used the word law, he was referring to the entire body of law, not just circumcision or ceremonial aspects.

Because the phrase that Paul uses, ergon nomou, has a specific historical context. This is confirmed in archaeological-lexical evidence because it also appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of the first-century Qumran community in Israel. It appears in a famous document known as MMT, which served as the Constitution or Declaration of Independence for the Qumran community. This document, whose name translates as “Some Pertinent Works of Torah,” is focused on certain disputed interpretations of specific Mosaic regulations, and it reveals an enormous preoccupation on the part of first century Jews with works of Torah. The phrase works of Torah/works of Law is used repeatedly and sheds great light on the meaning of the term in Paul.

The term “works of Torah” thus predates Paul and is a term he picked up from the Jewish vocabulary of his day (which is why he is having to dispute with people over it in Romans and Galatians, because they were already using the term).

The difference is that the Jews had the codified law, whereas Gentiles have the “work of the law” written on their hearts:

“14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 2)

In 2:6 Paul stated that God would judge every man according to his work. Obviously he did not mean works of Torah because the judgement of Gentiles was in view as well as the judgement of Jews (cf. 2:9-10).

In 2:7 Paul stated that God would reward those who persevered “in well-doing” (lit., “in good work”) by giving them eternal life or immortality (as well as glory and honor). But this is precisely what Paul says works of Torah will not get one because Torah does not give the power to deal with sin. (Thus there is a distinction in Paul’s mind between “good work” and “works of Torah.”)

And in 2:15 Paul stated that when Gentiles do by nature what Torah requires they show that “what the Torah requires” (lit., “the work of Torah”) is written on their hearts. This is the core of Torah which is really important—the same thing Paul has in mind in 8:3-4 when he says that God has done what Torah could not do by sending his Son to condemn sin in the flesh, “in order that the just [righteous] requirement of the Torah might be fulfilled in us” (8:4). The “work of Torah” of 2:15 is thus the same as “the righteous requirement of the Torah” of 8:4. It, not all the Torah’s commands about diet and festival and ceremony, is what is written on the hearts of Gentiles and which Christ died in order to empower us to accomplish.

 

[rcwitness]

That’s why you have to take into consideration what Paul wrote throughout the NT. See my 1 Cor. 9 reference below.

If you are one who wishes to claim prophecy of Scripture, you ought to have a good sound knowledge of all Scripture, the Universal established Teaching of the Church and most importantly the guidence of the Holy Spirit.

Just so you know, I havent jumped in here to disagree with anything you’ve said. I havent followed that closely.

And the more you add, the more you have to explain. That is also part of the problem.

Adding should not be done to Apostolic Tradition and foundational Scriptural Truths. But I meant in defining and confirming what is to be accepted by all and things leading to a more accurate understanding.

This was an example of Paul becoming all things to all men:

I agree. But he was not acting in regards to himself, but guiding Timothy, and on the surface he directly contradicts what he said before, “And I testify again that every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole law.”

“19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;” (1 Cor. 9)

I think this is the perfect verse to shed light on what he did with Timothy.

 

[pablope]

Sorry, I disagree. Two things can seem contradictory if we don’t have all the information.

And you think you have all the information? If not you, then who does?

 

[Koineman]

Because the phrase that Paul uses, ergon nomou, has a specific historical context. This is confirmed in archaeological-lexical evidence because it also appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of the first-century Qumran community in Israel. It appears in a famous document known as MMT, which served as the Constitution or Declaration of Independence for the Qumran community. This document, whose name translates as “Some Pertinent Works of Torah,” is focused on certain disputed interpretations of specific Mosaic regulations, and it reveals an enormous preoccupation on the part of first century Jews with works of Torah. The phrase works of Torah/works of Law is used repeatedly and sheds great light on the meaning of the term in Paul.

Even if this is true, it is far from convincing that such is the meaning Paul intended here. Both the immediate and broad contexts need to be consulted, and that is what I have done by bringing up two texts written by Paul himself: his reference to Jews failing to keep the moral law in Romans 2, and his clear use of the word law to refer to the entirety of the law going beyond mere circumcision (in Galatians). Thus, when Paul used the word law, he was referring to the entire law, not just a part of it.

In 2:7 Paul stated that God would reward those who persevered “in well-doing” (lit., “in good work”) by giving them eternal life or immortality (as well as glory and honor). But this is precisely what Paul says works of Torah will not get one because Torah does not give the power to deal with sin. (Thus there is a distinction in Paul’s mind between “good work” and “works of Torah.”)

I think you are really missing the point of Romans. Paul is establishing the universal sinfulness of humanity. In doing so, he refers to “works of law” in the context of failing to keep the moral law–both the Jews failing to keep it as well as the Gentiles failing to abide by the “work of the law” written in their hearts. Again, your limitation to ceremonial aspects of the law is forced on the text. The context does not demand such a reading and, in fact, goes against it.

And in 2:15 Paul stated that when Gentiles do by nature what Torah requires they show that “what the Torah requires” (lit., “the work of Torah”) is written on their hearts. This is the core of Torah which is really important—the same thing Paul has in mind in 8:3-4 when he says that God has done what Torah could not do by sending his Son to condemn sin in the flesh, “in order that the just [righteous] requirement of the Torah might be fulfilled in us” (8:4). The “work of Torah” of 2:15 is thus the same as “the righteous requirement of the Torah” of 8:4. It, not all the Torah’s commands about diet and festival and ceremony, is what is written on the hearts of Gentiles and which Christ died in order to empower us to accomplish.

The part I boldfaced is actually an assertion rather than something derived from the text. Paul’s entire point is that since all have broken the law and are under sin, salvation is by grace through faith alone–hence the reference in Rom. 4:5 to working versus believing:

“But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:”

The contrast is clear and unmistakable. Justification is not by working, for if it were, that would be debt (see v. 4). On the contrary, it is by believing. It is not work + belief; it is only belief. That is the clear truth stated by Paul. It’s a contrast, not a blending of the two. You are making it a blending of the two, but inspired Scripture patently denies that.

 

[Koineman]

Adding should not be done to Apostolic Tradition and foundational Scriptural Truths.

I agree. And so did Irenaeus.

I agree. But he was not acting in regards to himself, but guiding Timothy, and on the surface he directly contradicts what he said before, “And I testify again that every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole law.”

No, he doesn’t. That’s what the 1 Cor. 9 text shows. In Galatians, he was against circumcision for the purpose of being justified. In the Acts passage you quoted, it was not circumcision for that purpose.

I think this is the perfect verse to shed light on what he did with Timothy.

I agree.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Even if this is true, it is far from convincing that such is the meaning Paul intended here. Both the immediate and broad contexts need to be consulted, and that is what I have done by bringing up two texts written by Paul himself: his reference to Jews failing to keep the moral law in Romans 2, and his clear use of the word law to refer to the entirety of the law going beyond mere circumcision (in Galatians). Thus, when Paul used the word law, he was referring to the entire law, not just a part of it.

You are correct, esp. when it references Gentiles. What I was referring to in earlier posts was Paul’s specific phrase “works of law.” Hence, this influences how one reads Romans 3:28.

The part I boldfaced is actually an assertion rather than something derived from the text. Paul’s entire point is that since all have broken the law and are under sin, salvation is by grace through faith alone–hence the reference in Rom. 4:5 to working versus believing:

Rom. 8:12-14 “Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” Also Galatians 5:8 ff.

It’s very much derived from the text. If we are united to Christ, we have His Spirit and are, therefore, empowered to fulfill the law of love.

Paul clearly has the ceremonial works in mind but he does not clearly have the moral work in mind. This is indicated by the fact that he repeatedly and explicitly stresses the non-necessity of ceremonial works, and especially circumcision, but he never repeatedly or explicitly stresses the non-necessity of the moral work, such as love. Furthermore, Paul not only does not stress the non-necessity of love but that he lays a great deal of stress on the importance of love and obedience. For example, when Paul states that “we wait for the hope of [justification]” (Gal 5:5) he says that “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love” (Gal 5:6).

Also, Paul indicates that eternal life is a reward for “perseverance in good work” (Rom 2:7) and that we “seek . . . immortality by perseverance in good work”. He also states that “he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life” (Gal 6:8) and sowing to the Spirit is defined in context as “sharing all good things with him who teaches” (Gal 6:6, see also 2 Cor 9:1-6), “doing the good” (Gal 6:9), and “doing good to all men” (Gal 6:10). These clearly indicate the necessity of doing good in order to receive the gift of eternal life on the last day.

 

[Koineman]

You are correct, esp. when it references Gentiles. What I was referring to in earlier posts was Paul’s specific phrase “works of law.” Hence, this influences how one reads Romans 3:28.

He uses that phrase to refer to the whole law. Based on the texts I quoted earlier, to say that “works of law” refers to only the ceremonial law is to force a meaning on the text that was never intended.

Rom. 8:12-14 “Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” Also Galatians 5:8 ff.

Debtors, yes, but not for justification. Huge difference.

It’s very much derived from the text. If we are united to Christ, we have His Spirit and are, therefore, empowered to fulfill the law of love.

Yes, but not for justification. If it were, then that flatly contradicts his earlier statement that justification is not by working but by believing. The text you refer to is ***after ***Paul has moved on from speaking about the sinfulness of humanity and justification by faith alone, to speaking about the outworking of that justification in the Christian’s life. You’re conflating the two, and in doing so, you are mixing law and gospel.

Paul’s teaching is: Justification is not by working + believing; justification is by believing only, without working. That meaning is so abundantly clear as to render any contradiction of it utterly futile.

 

[Per_Crucem]

He uses that phrase to refer to the whole law. Based on the texts I quoted earlier, to say that “works of law” refers to only the ceremonial law is to force a meaning on the text that was never intended.

That again ignores the historical usage of the term. It also doesn’t explain why Paul references the works of the law in Romans 3:28 ff. as pertaining to Jews. It also ignores that in other places of Scripture where works of the law are referenced, it specifically mentions ceremonial rituals (see Gal. 4:10).

Yes, but not for justification. If it were, then that flatly contradicts his earlier statement that justification is not by working but by believing.

It wouldn’t contradict if what Paul has in mind are the ceremonial works of the Torah.