Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: LearsFool
Whoa there dude. You try to take Chapter 3 and apply it to Chapter 4? You had better read the beginning of Chapter 4 again. In Chapter 3 Paul was talking about the law. That would be the law of Moses. Now switch to chapter four and he's talking about Abraham and his obedience to God. Surely you wouldn't purport to tell us that Abraham was under the law of Moses would you? Abraham lived over 600 years before Moses. Abraham was credited with righteousness before he was circumcised and before the inauguration of the law. There is no way possible that Paul was talking about any legal law or obligation.

In verse 4 of Chapter 4 Paul is talking about what a man does to earn a wage. Those aren't works of the law. Those are physical things people do to earn a wage. Then in verse 5 he again uses that same analogy of things people do. Yes he talks about "works of the law" in other passages but in Chapter 4 he is not. If there was something we could do to attain righteousness the righteousness would be due for work done.

Paul told the Ephesians "not by works, so that no one can boast". Do you really think that men would only boast about following the law or do you think they would also boast about all the good deeds they did. Didn't Jesus say he would turn away all those who bragged they did all those things saying "I never knew you"? They weren't boasting about following any law.

222 posted on 02/07/2015 8:01:12 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies ]


To: CynicalBear

Paul introduces Abraham into the discussion to illustrate the point he’s been arguing. And what is his point? Back up and try to follow him. His point is that righteousness is accounted on the basis of faith and not works of law.

We’ve already seen that this “law” includes more than the Law of Moses. We saw that when he proved that Gentiles, who weren’t under the Law of Moses, are guilty nevertheless.

Surely you don’t think Abraham was guiltless because he wasn’t under the Law of Moses...Do you?? Abraham was guilty. If he was to be acquitted, it would have to be on basis other than his works, because his works could only condemn him. But as the Scripture says, he was justified by his faith, not works. So it’s of grace, not debt.

No, Paul doesn’t change gears for a couple of verses and start talking about earning a living. He’s made his point about what works of law can’t do (they can’t justify us because we’re guilty and therefore unjustifiable) so he presses on with his explanation of the only way a sinner can be justified.

Perhaps your misunderstanding arises because you begin in chapter 4 instead of chapter 1. Back up and follow Paul’s train of thought, and I think you’ll be able to understand his “works”.


255 posted on 02/08/2015 5:28:53 AM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson