Not By Works

[Bbrdrd]

seriously this is really useful obvious question to ask: how do we get to Romans 6:1.
why does Romans 6:1 ask what it asks; why is that the logical question that needs to be addressed based on Romans 1-5?
what's in Romans 1-5?

​

we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.​

(Romans 3:28)​

​

to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:​

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,​

And whose sins are covered;​

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”​

(Romans 4:5-8)​

​

what is this doing in my Bible if a faith, a righteousness, a justification apart from works is no faith at all, no righteousness at all, no justification at all? what does this have to do with Romans 6:1 ?

Do I need to bold that it specifies deeds of the law? The whole purpose of Romans is not to be a theological treatise on how man is to be saved, as many seem to presuppose, but an occasional letter for a church that was dividing itself up by those who were subject to the law(the Jewish church) and those who weren't(the gentile church). Paul here is stating that it is not by accounting of the law, that is to say the prescriptions of Moses, that one finds righteousness. Yet we find Paul confessing elsewhere "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. " and "
God "will repay each person according to what they have done." and "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. " So if Paul meant to teach that what we do doesn't matter and instead we are merely judged based on some acceptance of an ephemeral truth he provided much confusion.

 

[azamzimtoti]

Do I need to bold that it specifies deeds of the law?

You are right Paul is positioning his argument in regards to the Law, but in my opinion any work you consider to done to be saved is framing it as needed plus faith.

 

[Bbrdrd]

You are right Paul is positioning his argument in regards to the Law, but in my opinion any work you consider to done to be saved is framing it as needed plus faith.

The very idea of faith without requisite deeds is foreign to the Biblical corpus. It is not simply a belief or assent in a proposition, but a lifestyle lived with regard to a given proposition.

 

[azamzimtoti]

The very idea of faith without requisite deeds is foreign to the Biblical corpus. It is not simply a belief or assent in a proposition, but a lifestyle lived with regard to a given proposition.

So how do you figure this in?

(Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?)

(Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.)

(Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.)

(Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.)

Abraham was not under the Law of Moses.

 

[Bbrdrd]

So how do you figure this in?

(Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?)

(Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.)

(Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.)

(Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.)

Abraham was not under the Law of Moses.

Paul was explaining the relationship to Abraham which was not by way of paternity but one by way of spirituality. The same justification is seen in James, yet James makes clear that it is the completion of the deeds that makes the faith perfect rather than the plain belief. Romans is, as I've stated, an occasional letter about the proper relation to spiritual heritage because the Roman church was split between those crying heritage and those crying spiritual descent. One group said it was the law of circumcision, and the other made it clear that it was more than simple circumcision but an actual acceptance of Spiritual matters.

 

[azamzimtoti]

Paul was explaining the relationship to Abraham which was not by way of paternity but one by way of spirituality. The same justification is seen in James, yet James makes clear that it is the completion of the deeds that makes the faith perfect rather than the plain belief. Romans is, as I've stated, an occasional letter about the proper relation to spiritual heritage because the Roman church was split between those crying heritage and those crying spiritual descent. One group said it was the law of circumcision, and the other made it clear that it was more than simple circumcision but an actual acceptance of Spiritual matters.

James contradicts himself - personally I don't consider it doctrinal, more informational and homily.

 

[Bbrdrd]

James contradicts himself - personally I don't consider it doctrinal, more informational and homily.

I'm not much concerned what you consider James, but the Luther version of Paul contradicts himself at once declaring that man is justified purely by an act of God and yet still maintaining that man must answer for his deeds. Paul, when properly understood, maintains the necessity for personal culpability even alongside God's providential care in releasing us from our debts. The only conflict between faith and works is a made up one by people trying to define faith in a way that does not fit with the historic and Biblical picture of it.

 

[Guojing]

You talk about the cross like it's plan B, tho. Because you say things like "postponed" and "would have been a kingdom but the Jews..." and "He wanted to set up His earthly throne but He could not because of unbelief"

I referred you to Romans 11 but I guess you don't want to read it. All these verses indicated that God has temporarily blinded Israel so that he can show mercy to the Gentles thru the fall of Israel. But he is returning to save Israel. Read it literally.

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.

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

 

[posthuman]

The whole purpose of Romans is not to be a theological treatise on how man is to be saved, as many seem to presuppose, but an occasional letter for a church that was dividing itself up by those who were subject to the law(the Jewish church) and those who weren't(the gentile church).

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers, making request if, by some means, now at last I may find a way in the will of God to come to you. For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established — that is, that I may be encouraged together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles. I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise. So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also.
(Romans 1:8-15)
​

• Paul has not been to Rome
• their faith is spoken of throughout the world
• he wishes to impart some spiritual gift to them
• he longs to be encouraged together with them in their mutual faith

if this is a church famous throughout the region for their faith what about that indicates they are also split by race into two camps having two different gospels of different faiths?
why would Paul indicate his desire in writing is to be encouraged by the faith they share with him if their faith is divided and the church is at conflict with itself?

not sure where you're getting this idea about Romans not being a systematically presented soteriology. i find it extremely difficult to read Romans and not realize that this is exactly what it is - it seems manifestly obvious at even a cursory reading. could you maybe elaborate on what you mean by an 'occasional letter' ?

 

[posthuman]

I referred you to Romans 11 but I guess you don't want to read it. All these verses indicated that God has temporarily blinded Israel so that he can show mercy to the Gentles thru the fall of Israel.

yeah by His design.

so it's not like His own design has thwarted His own design. Christ never intended to take an earthly throne when He came and died "at just the right time" for the ungodly. He sits on His throne at the time He determines to sit on His throne.

God's ordained seasons are not "postponed" -- it is antichrist who believes man can change God's appointed times.

 

[Guojing]

yeah by His design.

so it's not like His own design has thwarted His own design.

I already stated, God already knew it and set that plan since the world began (Ephesians 3:9).

That was why Jesus forbid the 12 from preaching the gospel of the kingdom to the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5). It was not the time for the Gentiles yet.

He knew that he would saved the Gentiles, thru Paul, the moment Israel rejected him for the final time by stoning Stephen.

But Israel must be given a legitimate choice whether or not to accept him, that was why he did not correct the 12 when they asked him whether it is now that he will restore the kingdom to Israel in Acts 1.

 

[azamzimtoti]

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

The fullness of the Gentile is related to Paul"s preaching to the them and ended soon after he died. "All" Israel was saved in the 1st century.

James writes to them:

(James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting)

(James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.)

These guys are precisely the same firstfruits in John's revelation:

(Rev 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb)

 

[Bbrdrd]

​

​

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers, making request if, by some means, now at last I may find a way in the will of God to come to you. For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established — that is, that I may be encouraged together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.​

Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles. I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise. So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also. ​

(Romans 1:8-15)​

​

• Paul has not been to Rome
• their faith is spoken of throughout the world
• he wishes to impart some spiritual gift to them
• he longs to be encouraged together with them in their mutual faith

if this is a church famous throughout the region for their faith what about that indicates they are also split by race into two camps having two different gospels of different faiths?
why would Paul indicate his desire in writing is to be encouraged by the faith they share with him if their faith is divided and the church is at conflict with itself?

not sure where you're getting this idea about Romans not being a systematically presented soteriology. i find it extremely difficult to read Romans and not realize that this is exactly what it is - it seems manifestly obvious at even a cursory reading. could you maybe elaborate on what you mean by an 'occasional letter' ?

Essentially, if we look to the clues of Romans there's a precession of argument from a general plan of salvation to one that specifically pertains to the church. Now, every other letter of Paul is recognized as being a letter that is meant to address a specific situation, and if we look to the situation in Rome at the time the letter is written we can tease out a clear intent that aligns with the letter as a whole that doesn't require taking it as a complete treatise of soteriology or any other theological thing. In fact, if we look to the history of Rome at the time we find that there were deep divisions among the Jewish and gentile believers from the government driving the jews out of their homes and the Roman church developing without its jewish brethren. We find hallmarks throughout the letter that there is a specific issue in mind-disharmony between the jews and gentiles- and constantly see reminders that though the jews were given the law they are not superior to the gentiles and vice versa. It seems to me that in order to take it for something different from the rest of the letters Paul wrote we'd need to demonstrate a considerable difference and none springs to mind. Instead, it seems wholly appreciable within the confines of a letter meant to address discord between Jewish and Gentile believers and each of its terms can be fully understood in that manner. It is up to the one who wishes to read it as a thoroughly theological work to demonstrate that it is so since the bulk of the evidence including every other letter from Paul speaks to the opposite conclusion.

 

[VCO]

Do I need to bold that it specifies deeds of the law? The whole purpose of Romans is not to be a theological treatise on how man is to be saved, as many seem to presuppose, but an occasional letter for a church that was dividing itself up by those who were subject to the law(the Jewish church) and those who weren't(the gentile church). Paul here is stating that it is not by accounting of the law, that is to say the prescriptions of Moses, that one finds righteousness. Yet we find Paul confessing elsewhere "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. " and "
God "will repay each person according to what they have done." and "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. " So if Paul meant to teach that what we do doesn't matter and instead we are merely judged based on some acceptance of an ephemeral truth he provided much confusion.

Now if you will listen to the TRUTH, I will tell you.

Anything we DO, patting ourselves on the back, does not count one iota towards our SALVATION.

ONLY DEEDS DONE OUT OF PURE Agapê LOVE FOR HIM AND OTHERS, ARE DEEDS GOD COUNTS AS VALUABLE.

THERE ARE CROWNS WE CAN WIN, BUT SALVATION IS A FREE GIFT, AND NEVER COUNTED AS A REWARD.

TRUE OBEDIENCE IS DONE OUT OF GENUINE Agapê LOVE, AND ANYTHING LESS, GOD COUNTS THOSE DEEDS AS FILTHY RAGS.

Romans 7:18 (ESV)
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.

1 Corinthians 13:3 (NASB)
3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have {Agapê} love, it profits me nothing.

 

[Guojing]

The fullness of the Gentile is related to Paul"s preaching to the them and ended soon after he died. "All" Israel was saved in the 1st century.

James writes to them:

(James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting)

(James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.)

These guys are precisely the same firstfruits in John's revelation:

(Rev 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb)

Oh, you actually believed the Tribulation was in AD 70, and Christ return to Earth for the 2nd time then?

 

[azamzimtoti]

He knew that he would saved the Gentiles, thru Paul, the moment Israel rejected him for the final time by stoning Stephen..

Amazing how the mid-acts has you all mixed up. There is nothing to support this arbitrary "Israel rejected" at the stoning of Stephen as much as there is nothing to support Israel rejected him by having crucified.

(Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.)

Same folks today, will be in the future, the only hope for them is coming to the cross.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Now if you will listen to the TRUTH, I will tell you.

Anything we DO, patting ourselves on the back, does not count one iota towards our SALVATION.

ONLY DEEDS DONE OUT OF PURE Agapê LOVE FOR HIM AND OTHERS, ARE DEEDS GOD COUNTS AS VALUABLE.

THERE ARE CROWNS WE CAN WIN, BUT SALVATION IS A FREE GIFT, AND NEVER COUNTED AS A REWARD.

TRUE OBEDIENCE IS DONE OUT OF GENUINE Agapê LOVE, AND ANYTHING LESS, GOD COUNTS THOSE DEEDS AS FILTHY RAGS.

Romans 7:18 (ESV)
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.

1 Corinthians 13:3 (NASB)
3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have {Agapê} love, it profits me nothing.

Most of what you've posted is pure doctrine, and while it certainly is what has been taught throughout protestant circles it does not necessarily conform to Biblical teaching. The very idea that there is something different about "agape" as opposed to phileo or storge is an entirely doctrinal concept not built on Biblical verses or careful word study. Certainly we cannot impress God with our positive actions, but there is no separating true faith from the works that it produces.

 

[azamzimtoti]

Oh, you actually believed the Tribulation was in AD 70, and Christ return to Earth for the 2nd time then?

What do you think this means:

(Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.)

 

[Guojing]

What do you think this means:

(Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.)

No wonder, okay thanks for clarifying.

 

[azamzimtoti]

No wonder, okay thanks for clarifying.

The wonder is you can't see it.