Why are the Protestants so misinformed with "works"?

[Techno2000]

Michael16:

As for Hodos’ linguistic analysis of the Greek; my question is this: If Hodos’ grammar, syntax and grammatical diagramming that the plain sense reading of Romans in the original Greek points to faith alone; why did all of the Greek speaking Jews and Gentiles of the 1st and 2nd century Church not notice the obvious and it was only until the 16th century before Luther picked up on it?

I’ve always wondered the same, how did Christianity mess it up out of the gate and it took 1500 years to fix by a few guys with slogans

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Right, and nobody got saved until about four hundred years ago.

 

[Hodos]

Bold mine.

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote.

Here it is again . . .

The “works of law” are workings apart from Christ.
Examples of this would be
“ circumcision ” or other rituals (ceremonial law) and natural virtue for the Jewish person ,
or mere natural virtue for those Gentiles under Noahide law.

Is this an exegetical argument or an eisegeical argument? Feel free to demonstrate from the text.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . .

Is this an exegetical argument or an eisegeical argument? Feel free to demonstrate from the text.

First of all just admit you did not read my answer correctly.

If you can’t admit that, then demonstrations of my exegesis won’t ever matter.

If you can, we are good to go on.

 

[BohemianBrother]

Yes, justification is a big word in theology now. Christology was the first big word back then, and today the miaphysites are in the Catholic Church. I didn’t want to say Hodos is totally right in this debate, I don’t have the neccessary knowledge to make that claim. I just wanted to say, that some Fathers did indeed come close to the Lutheran concept of Sola Fide, and that the doctrine isn’t neccessarily a totally new innovation that just came out of nowhere. He did indeed connect to an idea that existed within the Church at the time and before.

 

[BohemianBrother]

I agree with that Luther was partly just rewording catholic theology. I just don’t think it is different to such an extent as you claim. The divide into justification and sanctification still has the same implications for salvation as the catholic doctrine, no? I think Luther simply wanted to emphasize a stronger theology of the Cross, where our works are unable to save us, but we can refuse grace given to us if we don’t do works prepared for us. I’m no great expert on Lutheran thought, so correct me please.

Sadly there is so much bad blood here. I would like to know an example of a hypothetical person, who would get saved under one theology and damned under the other.

 

[Hodos]

First of all just admit you did not read my answer correctly.

If you can’t admit that, then demonstrations of my exegesis won’t ever matter.

If you can, we are good to go on.

No, I am just waiting for you to substantiate what you are saying from the text rather than to assert it blindly.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . .

No, I am just waiting for you to substantiate what you are saying from the text rather than to assert it blindly.

But you didn’t even read my answer correctly.

Even if I am right or wrong, you did not yet understand my answer.

Now you won’t admit it.

How can I take it to the next level when you can’t even admit you were wrong here?

.

For other readers here it is again.

From Cathoholic (me) . . .

On this post (see it right here)

The “works of law” are workings apart from Christ.
Examples of this would be “circumcision” or other rituals and natural virtue for the Jewish person, or mere natural virtue for those Gentiles under Noahide law.

Hodos response? Here it is (and here is the link too) . . .

Your understanding that it is only the ceremonial law that Paul is referring to holds no water . . . .

A complete non-comprehension
of my “understanding”.

So I politely make it clearer by bolding things and re-formatting my lines that highlight what I already stated (here’s that too) . . .

The “works of law” are workings apart from Christ.
Examples of this would be
“ circumcision ” or other rituals (ceremonial law) and natural virtue for the Jewish person ,
or mere natural virtue for those Gentiles under Noahide law.

Hodos response?

Was it?

. . . Sorry Cathoholic. Missed that. But I still think “Paul” is teaching justification by faith alone here, and this is why . . . .

No.

It was a moving of the goal posts.

Now the question has morphed into . . . .

Is this an exegetical argument or an eisegeical argument? Feel free to demonstrate from the text.

You can see that here.

At this point I am thinking, how is a guy going to admit he is wrong on an issue like justification, if he can’t even admit he is wrong on something so obvious as this?

I am thinking, it might be a waste of my time to bother, if this person can’t even get this far. So I say . . . .

First of all just admit you did not read my answer correctly.

If you can’t admit that, then demonstrations of my exegesis won’t ever matter.

If you can, we are good to go on.

Here was that from me.

Hodos response to this?

NO!

Here are Hodos’ exact words . . .

No, I am just waiting for you to substantiate what you are saying from the text rather than to assert it blindly.

My response right above here on this post?

How can I take it to the next level when you can’t even admit you were wrong here?

.

Well this is certainly going to be interesting.

 

[Michael16]

I think I see Cathoholic’s point. The basic point is that justification cannot be merited on natural virtue or works of the Old law; only through faith in Christ and the Blood of the New Law can our works have merit.

The Old Law, according to the Catechism; didn’t confer grace. It was just a set of ceremonial rituals, prescriptions and moral laws.

That’s what Saint Paul was talking about in Romans 1-3 and culminates in 3:28.

Only in cooperation with faith and grace, do our works have merit.

Our righteousness isn’t imputed, it’s infused in us.

The other point I wish to make is, Hodos: When you can’t get traction with the other person in your apologetics; you get pretty nasty and petulant.

 

[Cathoholic]

Michael16. I affirm what you are unpacking from what I said.

Except on this . . . .

Our righteousness isn’t imputed, it’s infused in us.

I would only add . . .

Our righteousness isn’t MERELY imputed, it’s infused in us ALSO.

 

[Cathoholic]

Here are Hodos’ exact words . . .

No, I am just waiting for you to substantiate what you are saying from the text rather than to assert it blindly.

But @Hodos. I never expected you to immediately assert what I was saying in the sense of affirmation.

But I do expect you to immediately assert what I was saying in the sense of comprehension.

If you don’t understand what I am saying, either I have to make myself clearer, or you have to read it more carefully. Or both.

 

[Michael16]

Another thing I’ve been unpacking from what you’re saying @Cathoholic is that in the context of the 1st century Roman Empire, Jews had it drilled into them that to be righteous with God they had to adhere to the Old Law and Gentile converts were expected to do the same.

What Saint Paul was saying in Romans, that any 1st century Jew would readily understand; was that faith and the obedience of faith replaces the Old Law for justification and that justification by faith doesn’t overturn the law; it upholds it.

Then Saint Paul goes on to say that Abraham did this already when he believed God, was reckoned righteous and was called a friend of God. That Abraham upheld the Law even before there was a Law.

Then Saint Paul goes on to say that faith in Jesus gives us grace and the help of the Holy Spirit.

When Saint Paul is taken in context with Jesus’ “ This is the New Covenant “; Jesus laid out a new covenant and each time covenant is mentioned in Scripture; it’s the giving of a law.

Faith in, and obedience to; Jesus is the New Covenant and the New Law.

Now I have a new understanding of how to dialogue with Protestants on how to understand Romans 3:28.

 

[Hodos]

But @Hodos. I never expected you to immediately assert what I was saying in the sense of affirmation .

But I do expect you to immediately assert what I was saying in the sense of comprehension .

If you don’t understand what I am saying, either I have to make myself clearer, or you have to read it more carefully. Or both.

No, I know exactly what you are saying, and I am waiting on the positive affirmation from Paul’s epistle to the Romans that what he MEANT to say is that you are justified by works.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

What you’re missing is that Saint Paul is making a comparison with the Old Law of Moses. Luther must have read just “ works “ and overlooked “ of the law “.

I can understand the oversight.

 

[chrisjb]

No, I know exactly what you are saying, and I am waiting on the positive affirmation from Paul’s epistle to the Romans that what he MEANT to say is that you are justified by works.

He effectively did say that, excluding works of the law. For, if you are justified by faith apart from works of the law, then that means works not of the law are included in justification - logically speaking. What works you might ask? Those that Jesus directly expects of us, love of God and love of people, particularly charity.

For as Paul pointed out in specifically in Galatians 5:6
6 For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

 

[Hodos]

What you’re missing is that Saint Paul is making a comparison with the Old Law of Moses. Luther must have read just “ works “ and overlooked “ of the law “.

I can understand the oversight.

Or conversely, Paul understands there are two audiences that Paul is addressing and both of which are justified by faith apart from works, as is demonstrated by using the example of Abraham who had not received the law. You keep trying to make it sound like Paul is refuting justification by faith apart from works in just that verse. That isn’t the case. Paul states emphatically that you are justified by faith by grace, apart from works, and that righteousness is given as the free gift of God repeatedly throughout the first six chapters, as was demonstrated previously. Nor is Romans the only place where Paul makes this case. This is also proclaimed explicitly to Gentile audiences in Ephesians.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

Your exegesis doesn’t hold and I’ll help you.

Romans 3:28 says: Faith apart from works of the law.

You’re omitting the of the law part of the verse and focusing on just works.

In the first century audience to whom Saint Paul was addressing, every Greek speaking Jew and Gentile would get the clear meaning of the whole verse. Works of the law.

The Law Saint Paul was speaking of was the Torah. In Judaism, the Torah is often referred to as the Law. Every Jew reading Romans 3:28 would easily get that reference and knew he was talking about the Torah.

If Saint Paul was speaking about works in general, he would have said just works, not works of the law; as when Saint James said: “ A man is justified by works. “ Saint James was clearly talking about works in general.

As for your exegesis of the rest of Romans, once we have the right meaning of Romans 3:28; we have the clear meaning that Saint Paul’s audiences took as they historically did. Leading up to Romans 6:21-23. For, if Saint Paul was talking about faith alone from works as your linguistic analysis of the Greek claims; the Greek speakers of his audiences would’ve picked up the clear meaning of the grammar, syntax, sentence structure and then pointed out the obvious.

What we do have is that Saint Paul wrote that works of the law don’t justify and then faith doesn’t overturn the law; but upholds it, and then Saint Paul goes on to replace it with faith in Jesus with obedience to that faith ( Logically you can derive doing what Jesus commands in the Gospels ), then goes into how what Christ did for us is a free gift of God that allows us access to grace and the help of the Holy Spirit that enables us to master sin and obey God in cooperation with grace and the Holy Spirit and then finalizes his soteriology at the end of Romans 6.

Saint Paul was clearly teaching faith and works in Romans. Once established that Romans taught what the first century audiences in the churches historically understood it to mean, justification flows into sanctification and they both lead to eternal life; then we can concretely know as fact that the rest of Saint Paul’s letters had the same meaning.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hodos . . . .

I am waiting on the positive affirmation from Paul’s epistle to the Romans that what he MEANT to say is that you are justified by works.

Now you are moving the goal posts yet again Hodos.

I never said St. Paul teaches we are “justified by works” in “Paul’s epistle to the Romans”.

But as long as you are going there I can deal with that too.

But first of all your “justified by works” baiting, is too nebulous.

I have already made the distinction concerning . . .

• “justified by works” on your own (avails nothing concerning justification)
• And AFTER becoming a child of God, the need for God working in you and through you to help you OBEY him.

.

And that “faith” that you are talking about in Romans assumes this obedience.

That’s exactly WHY St. Paul talks of . . . .

. . . The OBEDIENCE of faith in the context of Romans.

St. Paul asserts a saving faith NECESSARILY OBEYS!

You can reject the grace (notice it is a grace) of working WITH Jesus, but if you do so, you receive Jesus Christ in vain! (Notice this concerns people who have received Christ.)

Since you receive Christ with faith (but not faith ALONE), if you later refuse to work (or if you later choose to embrace sinful works – see 1st Corinthians 6:9), your reception of Jesus will be of no avail. As a matter of fact, in this case you reject MORE gifts and your second state is worse than the first without Christ.

Hodos you are attempting to divorce obedience from justification.

But St. Paul does not do this.

That “faith” that people are GRACED with, includes OBEDIENCE (obedience is a “work” Hodos). At least AFTER that moment when you become a child of God (according to your state in life as I have repeatedly said - “to whom much is given, much will be REQUIRED”).

ROMANS 1:5b-6 we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the OBEDIENCE OF FAITH for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ

ROMANS 16:26 26 but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the OBEDIENCE OF FAITH

 

[Nicene]

Christology was the first big word back then, and today the miaphysites are in the Catholic Church.

You may want to begin another thread on this one because it’s an interesting accusation. I’m not convinced you actually understand it’s meaning, however regardless you may want to read up on the catechism 464-478 before attempting that thread. Better not to derail this thread.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[TULIPed]

You’re omitting the of the law part of the verse and focusing on just works.

In Judaism, the Torah is often referred to as the Law.

Careful here - I don’t think you mean to include the whole Torah, no? The whole Torah are the first 5 books of the Bible, which include the 10 commandments - among a host of other non-ceremonial laws including how to treat widows, orphans and “aliens” for example. I think your argument is thus that when Paul says “works of the law”, what he really means is “justified by faith apart from the ceremonial and liturgical works of the Law.” Is this the gist of the argument?

If it is, I’d be curious to know your thoughts on why the US Conference of Catholic Bishops would argue differently here about how it’s defined only a few verses earlier in 3:19:

“* [3:19] The law: Paul here uses the term in its broadest sense to mean all of the scriptures; none of the preceding texts is from the Torah or Pentateuch.”

And then, they flesh it out fully here:

“* [3:27] Principle of faith: literally, “law of faith.” Paul is fond of wordplay involving the term “law”; cf. Rom 7:21, 23; 8:2. Since “law” in Greek may also connote “custom” or “principle,” his readers and hearers would have sensed no contradiction in the use of the term after the negative statement concerning law in Rom 3:20.”

While I can see where you’re coming from Michael, I think I have to agree with their broader interpretation of what Paul meant by “the law”.

Here’s the link if you’re interested:

Romans, CHAPTER 3 | USCCB

 

[Michael16]

@TULIPed

Good to see you again, old friend.

Actually, I had the entire Law in mind in my exegesis. This is based on the Catechism that states the Old Law conferred no grace and the contrast between the Old Law of Moses and the New Law of Jesus.

My whole point was that there’s no justification by works of the law alone as we see in the Old Testament.

What Saint Paul does in Romans is he replaces the Old Testament justification basis on the Law with a basis of faith and the obedience to that faith as demonstrated by Abraham. The object of that faith and obedience to that faith is of course Jesus.

The key concept here is that our justification is by faith and our obedience to that faith and that Jesus’ Teachings in the Gospels is the New Law. Faith in Jesus grants us access to grace and the help of the Holy Spirit to help us master sin and help us to obey God; without that grace and help we cannot obey Jesus. Make sense?