| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 03/31/2004 9:13:43 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason:
I think perhaps you should all walk away from it for awhile before a bunch of you get suspended or banned. |
Posted on 02/24/2004 1:51:43 PM PST by Gamecock
And this is what Paul is referring to in Gal 2:16? This is "the works of the law" that never justify us?
How do we make sense of the rest of the chapter, then, and the following chapter?
What is happening in chapter 2?
Paul is relating how he reprimanded Pope Peter for being a hypocrite and not eating with the Gentiles. There were those teaching the Gentiles that they had to follow the Law of Sinai in order to be Christians. So much so that Jewish Christians would not eat with Gentile ones because they did not follow the dietary laws.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Paul says he is dead to the law. And yet you would have us believe that Christians even today follow "the law of God" in doing good works. He clearly contrasts trying to follow "the law" with being able to "live unto God."
Therefore, the Galatians passage is not wrenched out of context, for it has always been -- Old Testament and New -- a Good Work for the Faithful to practice the Law of God.
Gal 3:
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
What is Paul talking about? some vague notion of a "law of God" that even now we try to follow in order to know good works?
Or is he clearly talking about the Law, capital L, given to the Isaelites at Sinai? And if that is what he means by "law" here, why should 2:16 be talking about somethign different?
And if Paul's gripe is that people were wanting to circumcise and make Gentiles follow the Jewish Law, why does that word mean somethign different in 2:16?
SD
No, Paul says that justification was not found in "works of the law." "The law" means something. No matter how many paragraphs you use to try to re-define it.
SD
Here's the problem, SoothingDave.
You're basically attempting to maintain that Paul is teaching that the Old Testament Jews were not Justified before God by the performance of "Jewish Good Works", but that the Council of Trent is correct when it claims that Christians are (at least in part) Justified before God by the performance of "Christian Good Works".
But there's a problem with the false division of "Jewish Good Works" and "Christian Good Works" which you are attempting to create: Jesus don't play that.
Matthew 22:37-40 -- Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
To Love thy Neighbor, is to Practice the Law.
And it is, and has always been both Old Testament and New, a Good Work for a Believer to practice the Law of God.
The Error into which Bishop Peter fell, and for which Paul rebuked him, is that by his actions toward the Gentiles the good Bishop Peter was endorsing the false and judaizing error of the messianic Pharisees -- that a Man is Justified before God by the performance of Good Works. And for this cardinal Error, Paul rebuked him.
And Paul did NOT rebuke Peter's Error by saying, "Man is not Justified by the specific ceremonial regulations uniquely particular in former times to the Levitical Priesthood alone". This is what Rome would have us believe; but this is not what Paul said. Paul's rebuke of Bishop Peter's fundamental theological Error is far more sweeping -- and far more Damning to Rome, the Council of Trent, and the entire Roman theory of Salvation. What Paul said was, "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
This is a universal and all-encompassing condemnation of the false Romanist notion that the performance of ANY of the Good Works commanded in the Old Testament Law contribute WHATSOEVER to a man's Justification before God.
Do "Christian Good Works" contibute to a man's Justification before God, as the Council of Trent has claimed? Paul says that NONE of the Good Works commanded in the Old Testament Law contribute ANYTHING to a man's Justification before God. So let's examine some of the Good Works which were commanded in the Old Testament Law:
Any way you wanna slice it, It is a Good Work for a Believer to practice the Law of God; and the practice of the Law of God by a Believer is a Good Work. And Paul declares that by Justification is by Faith, and NOT by the practice of Good Works (Galatians 2:16). James also declares that True Faith is shown by its production of Good Works (James 2:18).
This must not stand.
Rome must Recant her Error. She must Condemn her Error. And she must proclaim her Repentance of this Error to all whom she holds in her sway; that they might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Best, OP
It is my contention that the Galatians verse being tortured here is referring to the Law given to the Israelites at Sinai, not to some nebulous concept of "the Law of God."
Paul, read in context, is clearly stating that it is not possible to follow the Jewish Law in order to find righteousness. He is not talking about anything else.
Words mean things.
SD
SD
Those who do right in order to be rewarded for it are acting selfishly. Selfishness is at the bottom of their character, they abstain from sin only lest they should suffer, and they obey only that they may be safe and happy. The man who does right, not because of heaven or hell, but because God has saved him, and he loves the God who saved him, is the truly right loving man. He who loves right because God loves it has risen out of the bog of selfishness and is capable of the loftiest virtue. He has in him a living spring, which will well up and flow forth in holy living so long as he exists.
I don't disagree with anything you have said. And yet it doesn't contradict what I said either. Acting selfishly for a reward is, well, selfish. And yet good works will be rewarded. Which is what I said.
SD
It's exactly what Paul said.
Words mean things. "The works of the law" is a very simple thing to understand, and the context makes it even clearer.
If you wish to impart other meaning onto the text, then we simply will never agree. All of the rest of your sermonizing and html skills notwithstanding. If you can't read a verse and agree on what the words mean, there is no hope for you to understand.
SD
Yes or No, Dave...
Old Testament Law, or NOT Old Testament Law?
If Paul intended to say that some Works of the Old Testament Law do Justify a Man, he could have said so.
He was a Pharisee, fer cryin' out loud... You're not giving a Canon Lawyer of the Old Testament Church much credit for precision here when you (in effect) claim that Paul probably meant that some Works actually do Justify, and the poor silly sod just forgot to say so.
Paul was a Pharisee. He knew what the Works of the Law included: "Give charity to the poor" (Lev. 25:35, 36; Deut. 15:8), "Pay the worker his wages on time" (Deut. 24:15), "Help must be given to load man or beast when necessary" (Deut. 22:4), "It is required to love one’s neighbor as oneself" (Lev. 19:18), "The persecuted are to be rescued even if it means killing the oppressor" (Num. 27:8). And of The Law, Paul said the following: "NOT by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
It's unfortunate that Rome requires you to pretend that Paul didn't know what he was saying, but I do understand that the Council of Trent requires you to maintain this pretense.
Ultimately, it all comes down to the basics.... Roman Catholicism allows you to maintain your core personal belief: "God doesn't always get what He wants."
Where our treasure is, there will our heart be also, neh?
Look, we disagree. I don't see any need for you to demean me, or to pretend that I am not telling you the truth, or that I secretly "know" that you are right, but I must "pretend" otherwise.
If you can't accept that I have a genuine belief in what I say here, then we have no further to go. I won't be called a liar.
Words mean things. "The works of the law" means what it says. Those following the Old Covenant Law.
Christians do not follow this Law. We are living in grace, not under the Law. I'm sorry you don't see what Paul is saying in this verse, having chose to overlay some other meaning than what is written. But that is your option.
I believe you believe it. Which is more credit than you have given me. Good day.
SD
SD
How very Pious of you, Dave... claim that I have besmirched your honor, called you a Liar -- and then say in turn that I "chose to overlay some other meaning than what is written"??
Cute, very cute, I'll admit that much.
But the fact remains: you claim that "Christians do not follow this Law, We are living in grace, not under the Law"; and yet every time I present you specific examples of the Old Testament Law, you are both utterly unable to deny that these are Good Works for Christians, and also utterly unable to deny that the Old Testament Jews did practice these Laws by grace.
So you fly away now, SoothingDave; if unable to maintain your argument, I suppose self-pity over my alleged accusations against your honesty will serve you well enough (even as you level similar accusations against mine, but never mind that....)
Fly, fly, fly...
Fly, fly, fly....
Do you believe this, or don't you?
Please, oh please, tell me if I have misquoted you in any way.
If I have, THEN I shall understand your unhappiness.
But if I have only quoted your own words back to you (and Dave.. we know I have) -- it's not MY fault that your ashamed of your own beliefs, and don't want them brought up in discussion.
I am not ashamed of mine.
When it comes to "accusations of dishonesty", remember this:
You started it, bud -- not me.
As always... you think you're perfectly free to dish it out, but of course you can't take it.
OP
That's not an accusation of lying or pretending. That's simply a description of your own misunderstanding.
If you can't tell the difference, that's your own problem.
But the fact remains: you claim that "Christians do not follow this Law, We are living in grace, not under the Law"; and yet every time I present you specific examples of the Old Testament Law, you are both utterly unable to deny that these are Good Works for Christians,
Just like you are unable, every time I bring it up, to look at what Paul means by "the works of the law" in the context of the book of Galatians? Fine, I'll play your little game.
Yes, every example you give is an example of what could be considered a "Good work." For a Christian today. (Nevermind the counter-examples that you claim do not apply today or to Gentiles. I'll let you cherry pick. I'm very gracious.) But they are not what Paul is talking about. They are not "works of the law."
they are works of the Spirit, works of grace. To put it another way, if I do not kill because it is God's law, I am also following the laws of this state. That doesn't mean I am refraining form killing because of my fear of the state.
It is irrelevant that the laws of the state happen to be the same as the laws of God. So is the case here. The acts of a Christian in doing good works happen to be described in the old Law. But the Christian is not doing "works of the Law." The Christian is not following the Law.
To continue my analogy, I refrain from murder not because it is a state law and not even because it is God's law. I do so because it is not in my nature as a spirit-filled Christian to do so. I appear to "follow" and do "good works" as defined by both man's and God's law.
But in reality I am doing neither. I am following the Spirit in grace.
As I said earlier, it is astonishing that a Catholic has to argue grace versus legalism to a Protestant.
and also utterly unable to deny that the Old Testament Jews did practice these Laws by grace.
I'm not sure why you think I would deny that Jews followed the Law. It must make some sense to you.
SD
Do you believe this, or don't you?
I believe that the question of free will versus determinism is larger than our ability to understand.
That said, we must operate in the realm of free will. We have choices and we will be held responsible for them. In that fashion we must operate under the assumption that what we choose matters and that it can be opposite than God's will for us.
In this way, and this is what I meant way back when, God does not always get what He wants.
On a higher level, discussing aspects of creation and how God made the world to be, we have a different scenario. But in practical terms as a Christian living day-to-day, it is simply dangerous and preposterous to posit a world in which there is nothign we can do that will displease God, or which is not what God wants of us. How is sin possible if we are all just doing what God wants?
But if I have only quoted your own words back to you (and Dave.. we know I have) -- it's not MY fault that your ashamed of your own beliefs, and don't want them brought up in discussion.
Who said I am ashamed? My beliefs do not always serve as a good bumper sticker, and can be taken out of context and misunderstood. Necessitating long boring elaborations. But in this case, it's just irrelevant to bring up into a conversation where you won't even address the very first thing I said, that "the works of the law" means something specific.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.