Paul vs. James: Faith/Works interpretations discussion!

[Hoonbaba]

You repeatedly make this distinction throughout your post but give no Scriptural basis for taking such a course of action. Since it is the crux of your argument, why did you spend so little time defending it?

Because I'm not arguing. I'm stating my opinion. Additionally, I didn't feel the need to distinguish the difference: I assumed everyone knows the difference. Guess I shouldn't have done that...

Works of the law included such concepts as obeying God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and loving neighbors as yourself (Leviticus 19:34). Why would "works of righteousness" be distinguished from works of the law? Why would any works be excluded at all?

~Matt

I think we both have a completely different understanding of works. I suppose one can argue that 'faith' in God is a work...one must consciously believe, which requires mental activity

I might be wrong, but here's how I see the difference between works of righteousness and works of the law: It has to do with grace or the lack of it.

Basically, mankind cannot keep the law on one's own, apart from God's grace. With the impartation of the Holy Spirit, we do these 'good works' as mentioned in Eph 2:10. So, Christ's death and the Holy Spirit's work enables us to actually keep the law which God laid out in the old testament. After all, the two greatest commandments fulfill all the ten commandments (Matt 22:40). These are works of righteousness..

Keeping the law for the sake of keeping the law (i.e. works of the law) would suggest the believer is attempting to attain salvation on one's own...this is what Paul appears to refer to when he says "saved by grace, not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph 2:8-9)....which would be an attempt to take away from God's glory.

Additionally, apostle Paul says, "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing" (Gal 2:21). And the law was put in place to actually increase sin, but thankfully God's grace abounds even more (Rom 5:20) so that we would recognize the need for God's strength. So, we who are Christian "have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." (Rom 6:18)

In other words, this means, for Christians the benefit we reap 'leads to holiness' (Rom 6:22). Thus, Christians will do God's will through God's supernatural grace that empowers the believer to do his good works (Eph 2:8-10). And according to Christ, failure to bear fruit means to be cut off from Him (John 15:1-6). Calvinists would also argue that those who are cut off from Christ never had him to begin with.

Hope this makes some more sense...

-Jason

 

[Hoonbaba]

Hoonbaba,

Are you a Calvinist. Don' see many of thos amoung Catholicicsm...

I wouldn't exactly say Calvinist, but I do believe in predestination. Catholicism actually does have a position on predestination, in many ways there's things in common, but obviously differences. Here's a book by a Catholic on predestination.

God bless!

-Jason

 

[InquisitorKind]

I suppose one can argue that 'faith' in God is a work...one must consciously believe, which requires mental activity

Faith is a gift (Ephesians 2:8). If faith was a work, it would be the only work that justifies before God.

I might be wrong, but here's how I see the difference between works of righteousness and works of the law: It has to do with grace or the lack of it.

How do your Scriptural references address the question I asked earlier? Why would any type of works be excluded from works of the law? Would you argue that works of righteousnes do not fall under the category of works done in obedience to God? How do you make that distinction?

With the impartation of the Holy Spirit, we do these 'good works' as mentioned in Eph 2:10. So, Christ's death and the Holy Spirit's work enables us to actually keep the law which God laid out in the old testament.

Nothing you've cited supports this idea. Who is there that can keep the Old Testament law perfectly, even with the Holy Spirit's assistance? If they can't keep it perfectly, then they have failed it at every point (James 2:10).

~Matt

 

[Breetai]

HE IS RISEN!!!

(Bulldog, you're omnipresent tonight!)

 

[Hoonbaba]

You repeatedly make this distinction throughout your post but give no Scriptural basis for taking such a course of action.

Now that I look back at it, I think I actually did.

Why would "works of righteousness" be distinguished from works of the law? Why would any works be excluded at all?

I made it very clear that any work we do on our own apart from God is useless....in fact the law exists so that man would realize the need for God's grace. With the holy Spirit, we have a 'ministry that brings righteousness' (2 Cor 3:8), unlike the letter that kills, or the ministry that condemns (2 Cor 3:6-9).

I referred to this ealier, and the distinction is that works of the law are the works that are done apart from God's grace. The works we are to do is a result of the Holy Spirit's ministry.

I don't see your point about excluding works. I don't remember saying that they're excluded. The point I'm making is that works without the holy spirit isn't the same with the holy spirit living in us.

Who is there that can keep the Old Testament law perfectly, even with the Holy Spirit's assistance?

Christ: Heb 4:15 - For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin.

Since Christ was fully man and God, to say Christ resisted temptation due to his godliness, would suggest a heretical position on the 2 natures of Christ. But that's a different story.

The point I'm trying to make is that with the Holy Spirit, we can please God and potentially fulfill the entire law.....not that we will perfectly, but God (specifically the Holy Spirit) says, "I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."(Heb 10:15-16) which means we can do God's will.

-Jason

 

[InquisitorKind]

I referred to this ealier, and the distinction is that works of the law are the works that are done apart from God's grace.

You're still not explaining why works of the law would not include works done in God's grace.

I don't see your point about excluding works. I don't remember saying that they're excluded. The point I'm making is that works without the holy spirit isn't the same with the holy spirit living in us.

Yes, they are different. But why does that difference equate to a difference between works of the law and works done in a state of grace?

Since Christ was fully man and God, to say Christ resisted temptation due to his godliness, would suggest a heretical position on the 2 natures of Christ. But that's a different story.

We were discussing the attempts of sinful man to obey the law, not how the second member of the Trinity obeyed it perfectly.

The point I'm trying to make is that with the Holy Spirit, we can please God and potentially fulfill the entire law.....not that we will perfectly

James 2:10 applies here again. If you can't fulfill the law perfectly, you can't fulfill it at all. Either justification is based on faith alone or whatever works done toward it must be done perfectly and to the complete satisfaction of the Holy God.

~Matt

 

[GW]

James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

James 2:22
You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;

James 2:23
and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.

James 2:24
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

James 2:25
In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

James 2:26
For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

 

[Bulldog]

James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

James 2:22
You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;

James 2:23
and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.

James 2:24
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

James 2:25
In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

James 2:26
For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Take a look at the first page of this thread to see hoe James is dealt with.

 

[GW]

Paul's warnings about "works" were aimed at the Judaizers that sought justification under the Mosaic covenant system centered in circumcision, ritual washings, feast observance, and such. That system, being without the grace of the Holy Spirit and Christ's blood, could not justify. As Paul writes to them:

Galatians 5:2-4
Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.


It is those specific works that were central to the Mosaic System that could not justify. Thus, Paul warned against them. To even engage them was to nullify Christ and fall from grace.

In contrast, Paul encouraged good works under the New Covenant system of grace. Those works, as James so clearly showed, were essential, and without them none could be justified. Abraham had them. Rahab had them. God's grace alone energizes those works, but they are necessary.

 

[GW]

Bulldog:
Take a look at the first page of this thread to see hoe James is dealt with

GW:
James is teaching on Abraham's justification, just as Paul does at Romans 4:1-16. They are giving the same teaching on Abraham's justification, which they consider the model for those under the New Covenant contract.

Paul's warning is not against all "works," but the works done under the Mosaic system for justification. Since Abraham's justification came BEFORE circumcision (Romans 4:10), then the Judaizers could not be correct in considering as essential the Mosaic circumcision requirement. Thus, they that worked within the Mosaic Law system for justification were not heirs (Rom 4:14).

Paul was railing against 1st century Judaizers that sought justification within the first law system:


Romans 4:14
For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified;

Gal 5:4
You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.


Those works done under that dispensation could not justify. In fact, they fully nullified Christ and grace. In contrast, good works done apart from the Mosaic Legal System were done in and by God's grace, and were essential. To do those works does NOT result in nullification of Christ or grace. In fact, grace makes those works possible and inevitable. Those works are the very essence and mark of the chosen ones, and the destiny of God's plans:

Titus 2:14
Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Matthew 21:43
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

 

[InquisitorKind]

James is teaching on Abraham's justification, just as Paul does at Romans 4:1-16. They are giving the same teaching on Abraham's justification, which they consider the model for those under the New Covenant contract.

This doesn't take into account what was argued about James on the first page.

Paul's warning is not against all "works," but the works done under the Mosaic system for justification.

Works of the law included such concepts as obeying God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and loving neighbors as yourself (Leviticus 19:34). There aren't any works left to exclude from this category; Paul is teaching that no works at all will justify us before God.

When Paul says that belief is what brings justification, even to a person who does not work (Romans 4:3), how can you argue that justification is then by faith and works?

You've written a lot about Galatians and how the people Paul was writing to there were seeking to be justified by the law without grace. This is in error. Paul wasn't just condemning works done without grace; he was also condemning any system that added works to the Gospel of justification through faith alone (Galatians 1:6-9, 3:3).

~Matt

 

[ByzantineDixie]

The discussion I want to get into is whether or not we have two writers on two different levels of godly thinking, in which case did man's doctrine adjust these seemingly different views into one (see my paraphrase above) to compensate?
Or Did one of these writers get it wrong? (This would be an unacceptable thing to those who believe the Bible is God-breathed and infallible)
And of course, the last 'option' is that man's wisdom which may have been inspired by God has deciphered the true meaning of both verses into the rough paraphrase I've listed above...

Robb...if we approach scripture with certain presuppositions then, yes, doctrine has to address these apparent discrepencies. If one sees Scripture as being FULLY God-breathed and inerrent...one has to reconcile what James wrote with what Paul wrote. I do not necessarily see that all doctrine is manmade--though clearly...some doctrine is because we can't all be right!

As Lutherans, we see the res of Scripture to be "salvation by grace through faith". How does James reconcile with our res? Quite simply...our salvation is secured by grace through faith alone, our doctrine of Justification. James is written to a group of believers. He is instructing believers who are already saved. What he has to say fits seemlessly into our doctrine of Sanctification.

(Interestingly enough, Lutheran doctrine can only be established using homologumena books. James is an antilogumena book so while scripture from James can be used to support doctrine, it cannot be used alone to establish doctrine. Other passages in Scripture speak to the need for works, ex. Ep 2:8 - 10)

There are vertical and horizontal acts of righteousness. In vertical righteousness...God acts, we are saved by grace through faith (justification). In horizontal righteousness...we respond (sanctification). Of course, we are given the grace to do this via the Holy Spirit. The origin of the response is not in us. Works is a fruit of our salvation.

As Christians we ought to be very comfortable doing "good works". We were created to do them. We just need to remember that the works are not ours...the Holy Spirit works through us to accomplish His purpose.

So...there is no conflict between the writers but rather a continuation of instruction.

Peace

Rose

 

[Hoonbaba]

You're still not explaining why works of the law would not include works done in God's grace.

I didn't say they wouldn't be included.

I'll clarify: The works mentioned in the ten commandments and such was what God wanted mankind to fulfill. But under the old covenant, it wasn't possible. Fortunately, with the Holy Spirit, we can actually obey God's commands. This is what 'writing the law on people's hearts' is all about (Heb 8:10).

Yes, they are different. But why does that difference equate to a difference between works of the law and works done in a state of grace?

Because apart from God, we cannot please him.

We were discussing the attempts of sinful man to obey the law, not how the second member of the Trinity obeyed it perfectly.

You didn't say sinful man when you asked the question. Here's exactly what you said:

Who is there that can keep the Old Testament law perfectly, even with the Holy Spirit's assistance? If they can't keep it perfectly, then they have failed it at every point (James 2:10).

And my answer was Christ who was fully man.

James 2:10 applies here again. If you can't fulfill the law perfectly, you can't fulfill it at all. Either justification is based on faith alone or whatever works done toward it must be done perfectly and to the complete satisfaction of the Holy God.

You seem to suggest that I'm saying that I'm somehow under the entire law all over again, but with the mere difference of having the Holy Spirit to help me fulfill the law.

This is not what I'm saying. Your premise assumes that under my interpretation, works done in the new covenant are to be done absolutely perfectly, which I completely disagree with. Scripture doesn't say that new covenant believers would have to keep the law perfectly to be justified.

Under the law, one is obligated to keep the entire law (Gal 5:3). But we are not justified by keeping the law (Gal 2:16). Those who do are alienating themselves from Christ (Gal 5:4). Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that what matters is 'faith which worketh by love' (Gal 5:6) - a living faith, where one remains in Christ (John 15:4-5)

-Jason

 

[Lotar]

Robb...if we approach scripture with certain presuppositions then, yes, doctrine has to address these apparent discrepencies. If one sees Scripture as being FULLY God-breathed and inerrent...one has to reconcile what James wrote with what Paul wrote. I do not necessarily see that all doctrine is manmade--though clearly...some doctrine is because we can't all be right!

As Lutherans, we see the res of Scripture to be "salvation by grace through faith". How does James reconcile with our res? Quite simply...our salvation is secured by grace through faith alone, our doctrine of Justification. James is written to a group of believers. He is instructing believers who are already saved. What he has to say fits seemlessly into our doctrine of Sanctification.

(Interestingly enough, Lutheran doctrine can only be established using homologumena books. James is an antilogumena book so while scripture from James can be used to support doctrine, it cannot be used alone to establish doctrine. Other passages in Scripture speak to the need for works, ex. Ep 2:8 - 10)

There are vertical and horizontal acts of righteousness. In vertical righteousness...God acts, we are saved by grace through faith (justification). In horizontal righteousness...we respond (sanctification). Of course, we are given the grace to do this via the Holy Spirit. The origin of the response is not in us. Works is a fruit of our salvation.

As Christians we ought to be very comfortable doing "good works". We were created to do them. We just need to remember that the works are not ours...the Holy Spirit works through us to accomplish His purpose.

So...there is no conflict between the writers but rather a continuation of instruction.

Peace

Rose

I tried to give you more rep, but I have to spread some around first

The differenciation of the homologoumena and the antilogoumena is why it is proper to interpret the book of James in the context of the works of Paul, instead of the other way around.

For those who don't know, when the NT canon was set, there were certian books that were universally recognised, homologoumena , and certian book to which objections were raised, antilogoumena. The antilogoumena are books like James, Revelations, 2 Peter, Hebrews etc. The homologoumena are books like the Gospels, Paul's letters, etc.

 

[InquisitorKind]

I didn't say they wouldn't be included.

Then why do you continue to hold to your position that works done in righteousness can justify us before God? That's non-sensical. If all works are to be excluded from justification before God, why continue to say that some works can justify us?

You didn't say sinful man when you asked the question.

The context of this discussion is how sinful man becomes justified before God. Why would I have to reindicate that in my questions?

And my answer was Christ who was fully man.

Since Jesus Christ was a man without sin and did not have to justify himself before God, that's a false comparision.

This is not what I'm saying. Your premise assumes that under my interpretation, works done in the new covenant are to be done absolutely perfectly, which I completely disagree with. Scripture doesn't say that new covenant believers would have to keep the law perfectly to be justified.

James doesn't make a distinction between works of the new covenant and works of the law. That's something being imposed on the text.

Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that what matters is 'faith which worketh by love' (Gal 5:6) - a living faith, where one remains in Christ (John 15:4-5)

Do you affirm or deny that justification is by faith alone?

~Matt

 

[GW]

InquisitorKind:
Do you affirm or deny that justification is by faith alone?

GW:
I know that wasn't addressed to me, but James answers for me:

James 2:24
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

[GW]

InquisitorKind:
Works of the law included such concepts as obeying God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and loving neighbors as yourself (Leviticus 19:34). There aren't any works left to exclude from this category; Paul is teaching that no works at all will justify us before God.

GW:
Wrong. Paul was saying that seeking justification by way of the Mosaic System was impossible. Abraham, who was before the Mosaic System, was justified by works (Jas 2:21) -- not being under the Mosaic Contract. Rahab, who was before the Mosaic System, was justified by works (James 2:25) -- again, not being under the Mosaic Contract. So, again, you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (Jas 2:24).



InquisitorKind:
When Paul says that belief is what brings justification, even to a person who does not work (Romans 4:3), how can you argue that justification is then by faith and works?

GW:
I can argue it because Paul is pointing out that Abraham was justified even though he lived PRIOR TO the Mosaic Covenant. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law [of Moses] (Rom 3:28). Abraham is the example of a man justified without Moses, and he was justified by works (Jas 2:21) -- but NOT by the works of the Law [of Moses].

Paul is very clear that ONLY the doers of some law will be justified (Rom 2:13). Which law system? He specifies that justification is by the law system that is "written on hearts" (Rom 2:15) -- i.e., the New Covenant law.



InquisitorKind:
You've written a lot about Galatians and how the people Paul was writing to there were seeking to be justified by the law without grace. This is in error. Paul wasn't just condemning works done without grace; he was also condemning any system that added works to the Gospel of justification through faith alone (Galatians 1:6-9, 3:3).

GW:
There is no "faith alone" teaching in the bible. The only "faith alone" teaching is mentioned by James, who writes, "you see that a man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone" (Jas 2:24).

In Galatians, Paul is writing concerning those Judaizers that believed justification was only by the Mosaic system, the one "added 430 years after Abraham" (Gal 3:17). The Judaizers were trying to keep all justified by that system (Acts 15:5). Paul makes it perfectly clear that one could not be justified under that Mosaic System, "for as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law [of Moses], to perform them'" (Gal 3:10 cf. Deut 27:26). That curse of Deut 27:26 is a curse particular to the Mosaic Contract, and that curse of was specifically removed by Christ (Gal 3:13).

 

[InquisitorKind]

Do you affirm or deny that justification is by faith alone?

I know that wasn't addressed to me, but James answers for me:

You are begging the question, and you’re ignoring what I’ve argued on the first page of this thread. Not only have I referred you to the comments on the first page about how to interpret James 2, but poster Bulldog has well. Why have you ignored what was argued there and failed to address it? My response to James 2 isn’t going to be different simply because you’re repeating an aspect of this discussion that’s already been replied to.

Works of the law included such concepts as obeying God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and loving neighbors as yourself (Leviticus 19:34). There aren't any works left to exclude from this category; Paul is teaching that no works at all will justify us before God.

Wrong. Paul was saying that seeking justification by way of the Mosaic System was impossible. Abraham, who was before the Mosaic System, was justified by works (Jas 2:21) -- not being under the Mosaic Contract. Rahab, who was before the Mosaic System, was justified by works (James 2:25) -- again, not being under the Mosaic Contract. So, again, you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (Jas 2:24).

You state that I’m “Wrong,” but then you neglect to address why any works would be excluded from the categories outlined under Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:34. Did you forget to finish your thoughts? Assuming that my argument is false and writing “Wrong” doesn’t constitute a refutation of what I’ve written.

When Paul says that belief is what brings justification, even to a person who does not work (Romans 4:3), how can you argue that justification is then by faith and works?

I can argue it because Paul is pointing out that Abraham was justified even though he lived PRIOR TO the Mosaic Covenant. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law [of Moses] (Rom 3:28). Abraham is the example of a man justified without Moses, and he was justified by works (Jas 2:21) -- but NOT by the works of the Law [of Moses].

You’re not taking into account that Paul says it is faith that justifies, and that a man who does no work at all can be justified through faith. Also, your distinction of Abraham being justified “PRIOR TO” the Mosaic Covenant is speculative and irrelevant. All believers are justified in the same way Abraham was (Romans 4:10-12, Galatians 3:5-9).

There is no "faith alone" teaching in the bible. The only "faith alone" teaching is mentioned by James, who writes, "you see that a man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone" (Jas 2:24).

Faith alone is affirmed in many passages (Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:9, 2 Timothy 1:9, Philippians 3:9, Romans 4:3, Mark 2:5, Genesis 15:6, Acts 10:44-48, etc.).

In Galatians, Paul is writing concerning those Judaizers that believed justification was only by the Mosaic system,

I quoted Galatians 3:3. The Galatians did not believe that works of the Mosaic system only were bringing justification. They were combining it with faith and it’s clear how Paul viewed this addition of works to faith to bring justification before God (Galatians 3:1). Since works of the law include every work possible, Paul is anathematizing those who add any works to the faith which justifies sinners before God.

~Matt

 

[Hoonbaba]

Then why do you continue to hold to your position that works done in righteousness can justify us before God? That's non-sensical.

Rather, these works testify of one's faith as well as the Holy Spirit's presence within the believer.

The context of this discussion is how sinful man becomes justified before God. Why would I have to reindicate that in my questions?

I misunderstood. I'm sorry.

Since Jesus Christ was a man without sin and did not have to justify himself before God, that's a false comparision.

He was fully man and he perfectly obeyed the law. It wasn't a false comparison. I was addressing the question outside of the context of what you were referring to.

James doesn't make a distinction between works of the new covenant and works of the law. That's something being imposed on the text.

But that's based on your interpretation of the text.

Do you affirm or deny that justification is by faith alone?

This really depends on how faith is defined.

As for me, the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30) suggest that those who fail to do the things that God asks of us will reap the consequences (Matt 25:30), which many would say is a reference to hell.

And when Jesus speaks of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:31-46), those who fail to simply look after the poor, needy, etc will 'go away to eternal punishment' (Matt 25:46, cf Matt 25:31).

In light of these passages, would this mean all the ex-Christians on the general apologetics forum are still justified even though they've completely walked away from Christ? John 15:1-6 seems to oppose this notion.

Additionally, the New Testament seems to depict salvation more as a future hope/expectation than a present reality (Titus 1:2, Titus 3:7, Rom 13:11, Matt 10:22, 1 Thess 5:8)

This would explain why we need to 'work out our salvation with fear and trembling' (Philippians 2:2). And it suggests justification is through a living faith, a faith where works are the evidence of one's faith.

In my view, Christians who obey God will be given based on what was done or not done (2 Cor 5:10), so those who utterly have no concern for the poor or doing even the smallest thing God asks will likely end up reaping some ugly consequences (Matthew 25) because realistically every Christian should have compassion for others and will do his will: This is evidence of faith. Again, no evidence/fruit suggests no holy spirit.

-Jason

 

[GW]

InquisitorKind:
You are begging the question, and you’re ignoring what I’ve argued on the first page of this thread.

GW:
The plain, straightforward reading of James chapter 2 renders senseless your comments on the first page. James 2:21-24 and Romans 4:1-3 are parallel. James and Paul are both giving their commentaries on Abraham's justification before God. They are doing this because Abraham's justification is the model for New Covenant justification, and it is only by a faith evidenced in works.


InquisitorKind:
My response to James 2 isn’t going to be different simply because you’re repeating an aspect of this discussion that’s already been replied to.

GW:
There's nothing to respond to. James is plain and clear.

James 2:21. 24-25
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works...a man is justified by works and not by faith alone...was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works"


InquisitorKind:
You state that I’m “Wrong,” but then you neglect to address why any works would be excluded from the categories outlined under Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:34. Did you forget to finish your thoughts? Assuming that my argument is false and writing “Wrong” doesn’t constitute a refutation of what I’ve written.

GW:
Paul's argument is that the Mosaic contract, by requiring perfect obedience under threat of a curse (Deut 27:26/Gal 3:10), actually cursed all those under that system and prevented justification. That covenant also lacked the efficacious blood of Christ and the indwelling presence of the Spirit. The contract was inadequate, and seeking to be justified under that system was damning. The curse was upon them.



InquisitorKind:
You’re not taking into account that Paul says it is faith that justifies, and that a man who does no work at all can be justified through faith.

GW:
Paul never once says "faith alone justifies." Faith alone does NOT justify (Jas 2:24). Paul affirms that only the DOERS of God's law will be justified and have eternal life (Rom 2:6-7, 13). Christ and John plainly taught a works-based faith for salvation (Mt 3:10; 7:19; 19:16-19; 25:41-46; Jn 15:2; Lk. 6:46).



InquisitorKind:
Also, your distinction of Abraham being justified “PRIOR TO” the Mosaic Covenant is speculative and irrelevant.

GW:
How is it speculative? Both Paul and James point to God's declaration of that event in Abraham's life (Rom 4:3; Jas 2:21-23). Abraham was justified, ans was so apart from--and prior to--the Law of Moses. That's the whole point. Paul is trying to show them that such is not only possible, but essential.


InquisitorKind:
Faith alone is affirmed in many passages (Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:9, 2 Timothy 1:9, Philippians 3:9, Romans 4:3, Mark 2:5, Genesis 15:6, Acts 10:44-48, etc.).

GW:
Faith is affirmed, but not "faith alone." In fact, the only place that even mentions "faith alone" reads as follows: "you see that a man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone" (Jas 2:24). James shows that any mere mental assent to God is not faith at all. Such "faith" is "dead," and is the "faith of devils" (Jas 2:19).




InquisitorKind:
The Galatians did not believe that works of the Mosaic system only were bringing justification. They were combining it with faith and it’s clear how Paul viewed this addition of works to faith to bring justification before God (Galatians 3:1).

GW:
They were saying that Christians must conform to all the customs of Moses to be saved (Acts 15:1,5)--especially circumcision. Without this, the Judaizers believed none would be justified.


InquisitorKind:
Since works of the law include every work possible, Paul is anathematizing those who add any works to the faith which justifies sinners before God.

GW:
Paul's anathema is not against all works, but the works the Judaizers said were essential to the Old contract (Acts 15:1,5) -- especially circumcision. For sure, God's judgment of men is "according to their deeds" (Rom 2:6; Matt 16:27; Rev 2:23; 20:12-13).