Why Romans 4 does NOT teach faith alone

[heisenburg]

This was mentioned (but lost) in a differant trhead, so, I wanted to start a new one and get your feed back. A thread was started about how Romans 4 teaches Faith Alone. Specificly, the verse he/she was talking about is as follows (though not an exact quote)

For if a man does no works, but believes in the one who redeems the ungodly, is righteous.

Now, Ive heard this used to defend faith alone frequently, but isnt this verse talking about works of the old law (like not eating types of meat) , and thus would say soemthing more along the lines of this?

for if a man does no works (of the old law) but believes in the one who redeems the ungodly, is righteous.

this is a statement that should be pretty ok by both catholics and protestants alike. Primarily because in later epistles, paul goes on to say that if you submit yourself to the law, then you are obliged to follow the law, and christs sacrifice amounts to nothing.

There is further support for this being what Paul is talking about. For the previous 3 chapters, and I believe two mroe after that, Paul is explaining to the ROmans what it means to be a Jew, the works of the Old Law, and the importance of Christ with respect to the Law. In other words, why would paul be talking about the law and the works of the law in every other verse around it, but then this verse specificly does not mean works of the law, but ALL works… Isnt that twisting scripture?

Anyway jsut a thought…

In Christ

 

[Tom]

Simple answer, yes, Paul is referring to “works” of the Law, not Christian “works” of love. That’s one of the major errors of ML and his followers, they take the writings of Paul out of context and attempt to teach that nothing is required to be done except believe. Which of course Jesus Himself tells us is incorrect. The writings of Paul make many references to “works” andd they all refer to “works” of the Law, not Christian “works” of Charity and Love.