Romans 3:31

[Soyeong]

That's what obedience to the Decalogue is for.

Sanctification is through obedience.

Do you not understand that to exhort to obedience of the Decalogue is for the purpose of holiness/sanctification through that obedience?

So. . .can you show where Scripture specifically uses the phrase "God is sovereign" in regard to the sovereignty of God presented in every book of the Bible?

Obedience to all of God's word is for sanctification, not just the Decalogue (John 17:17). You made the claim that Paul "upheld the works of the law in the Word of God in sanctification", so I am wanting you to support your claim by showing a single instance where Paul did that. I agree that sanctification happens through obedience to the Word of God, however I disagree about the Word of God of God being inclusive of the works of the law, so if you can show where Paul superficially spoke about "works of the law" in regard to what we need to do for sanctification, then that would establish your claim and show that works of the law are part of the Word of God, however, if you can't show where Paul did that, then you should retract your claim that Paul did that.

You are when obeying the Mosaic law with faith in God excludes faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, as it does with the Orthodox Jew.
Same ole same ole. . .

All the verbiage does not confound the simple statement:
Obeying the Mosaic law with a faith in God that denies the person and work of Jesus Christ is not saving gospel faith.

Am I dealing with blindness here?

It is self-contradictory to obey the Mosaic Law with a faith in God that denies the person and work of Jesus Christ, so there is no such thing, so it is you who is trying to confound contradictory concepts. All obedience to the Mosaic Law that denies the person and work of Jesus Christ is not done with a faith in God. It is impossible to reject God's promises while having faith in God's promises.

 

[Clare73]

Obedience to all of God's word is for sanctification, not just the Decalogue (John 17:17). You made the claim that Paul "upheld the works of the Mosaic law in the Word of God in sanctification",

The works of the law in the Word of God is the Decalogue, which Paul upholds by setting it on its right basis--as the means of the righteousness of sanctification, not the righteousness of justification.

so I am wanting you to support your claim by showing a single instance where Paul did that.

Examples of Paul stating obedience to specific works of the Mosaic Law in the Word of God (Ex 20:
2-17) for the sake of sanctification (righteousness), thereby upholding the works of the Mosaic Law in the Word of God (Ex 20:2-17), were presented in post #18.

I agree that sanctification happens through obedience to the Word of God, however I disagree about the Word of God of God being inclusive of the works of the law, so if you can show where Paul superficially spoke about "works of the law" in regard to what we need to do for sanctification, then that would establish your claim and show that works of the law are part of the Word of God, however, if you can't show where Paul did that, then you should retract your claim that Paul did that.

What about you showing several examples of Paul's usage of the phrase "the law" to specifically and clearly mean "faith."

It is self-contradictory to obey the Mosaic Law with a faith in God that denies the person and work of Jesus Christ, so there is no such thing,

Tell it to the Orthodox Jew who does just that. . .

so it is you who is trying to confound contradictory concepts. All obedience to the Mosaic Law that denies the person and work of Jesus Christ is not done with a faith in God. It is impossible to reject God's promises while having faith in God's promises.

 

[Soyeong]

The works of the law in the Word of God is the Decalogue, which Paul upholds by setting it on its right basis--as the means of the righteousness of sanctification, not the righteousness of justification.

Examples of where, for the sake of sanctification (righteousness), Paul upholds the works of the Mosaic Law in the Word of God (Ex 20:2-17) were presented in post #18.

Again, in Romans 3:27-31, Paul contrasted works of the law with God's law, which is inclusive of the Decalogue, so works of the law do not refer to the Decalogue or to any part of God's law. The Decalogue is of faith, unlike works of the law, which are not of faith in God because they were not commanded by God. In Qumran Text 4QMMT, works of the law are in regard to man-made traditions. I agree that Paul upheld obedience to God's law as part of sanctification, but you need to show how works of the law are part of God's law beyond just insisting that is by showing where Paul connected "works of the law" with sanctification.

Can you show where Paul specifically and clearly uses the phrase "the law" to refer to "faith"?

In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience of faith. In Romans 1:29-32, being faithless is associated with actions that are in disobedience to God's law. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God's law. In Romans 16:25-26, Paul's Gospel and the preach of Christ was to bring about the obedience of faith. In Romans 10:5-8, Moses wrote about a righteousness based on the law that the person who obeys it will attain life by it, moreover, the righteousness that is based on faith refences Deuteronomy 30:11-16 in regard to the Mosaic law being not too difficult for us to obey and what it means to submit to Jesus as Lord. In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 with a quote from Leviticus 18:5, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same who are living in obedience to the Mosaic Law. In 2 Timothy 3:1-8, those who oppose Moses also oppose the truth, being of corrupted minds and disqualified in regard to the faith.

Tell it to the Orthodox Jew who does just that. . .

Faith in God is about using His nature as the guide for how we should live our lives and the Mosaic Law is God's instructions for how to testify about His nature, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 23:23 that justice, mercy, and faith are weightier matters of the law. Jesus is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), so he put the nature of the Father on display through his works in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is why he could say everything that he did in John 14:6-11. It is impossible to put faith in the nature of God while not putting faith in the nature of God made flesh. So there are Orthodox Jews who do put faith in the nature of God, but there are also some that don't, such as those spoken about in my previous post, and those in Matthew 23:23 who were neglecting weightier matters of the law.

 

[Clare73]

Again, in Romans 3:27-31, Paul contrasted works of the law with God's law, which is inclusive of the Decalogue, so works of the law do not refer to the Decalogue or to any part of God's law. The Decalogue is of faith, unlike works of the law, which are not of faith in God because they were not commanded by God.

There is no "God's law" in Ro 3:27-31, and no contrast of "God's law" with works of the law.
There is only "the law," which is the Decalogue, as in Ac 13:39.
There is no "Decalogue of faith" in Ro 3:27-31.
There is only "faith," by which one is justified apart from observing the law (Decalogue).
Edit: Mistaken. . .there is "law of faith" in Ro 3:27.

In Qumran Text 4QMMT, works of the law are in regard to man-made traditions.

Qumran is not the authoritative NT of the New Covenant.

I agree that Paul upheld obedience to God's law as part of sanctification,

Paul upheld obedience to the Decalogue, which is God's law (Ex 20:2-17), as part of sanctification, as previously demonstrated.

but you need to show how works of the law are part of God's law beyond just insisting that is by showing where Paul connected "works of the law" with sanctification.

The works of the law are the works of the Decalogue (Ac 13:39), which by definition are
God's law (Ex 20:2-17). . .the Decalogue is certainly not man's law.

What about you showing several examples of Paul's usage of the phrase "the law" to specifically and clearly mean "faith."

In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience of faith. In Romans 1:29-32, being faithless is associated with actions that are in disobedience to God's law. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God's law. In Romans 16:25-26, Paul's Gospel and the preach of Christ was to bring about the obedience of faith. In Romans 10:5-8, Moses wrote about a righteousness based on the law that the person who obeys it will attain life by it, moreover, the righteousness that is based on faith refences Deuteronomy 30:11-16 in regard to the Mosaic law being not too difficult for us to obey and what it means to submit to Jesus as Lord. In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 with a quote from Leviticus 18:5, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same who are living in obedience to the Mosaic Law. In 2 Timothy 3:1-8, those who oppose Moses also oppose the truth, being of corrupted minds and disqualified in regard to the faith.

None of which is the phrase "the law" specifically and clearly meaning "faith.'

Faith in God is about using His nature as the guide for how we should live our lives and the Mosaic Law is God's instructions for how to testify about His nature, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 23:23 that justice, mercy, and faith are weightier matters of the law. Jesus is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), so he put the nature of the Father on display through his works in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is why he could say everything that he did in John 14:6-11. It is impossible to put faith in the nature of God while not putting faith in the nature of God made flesh.

Faith in the (divine) nature of God made flesh is not faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin.

So there are Orthodox Jews who do put faith in the nature of God, but there are also some that don't, such as those spoken about in my previous post, and those in Matthew 23:23 who were neglecting weightier matters of the law.

Orthodox Jews strongly deny that their faith in God is faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Yours is not the gospel of Paul in the NT, it is another gospel (Gal 1:9), which is anathema! (cherem).

 

[Soyeong]

There is no "God's law" in Ro 3:27-31, and no contrast of "God's law" with works of the law.
There is only "the law," which is the Decalogue, as in Ac 13:39.
There is no "Decalogue of faith" in Ro 3:27-31.
There is only "faith," by which one is justified apart from observing the law (Decalogue).

Do you concede that Romans 3:27 contrasts a law of works with a a law of faith? If so, then which law do you think is referred to by the law of works and which do you think is referred to by the law of faith? I think that the law of works is straightforwardly works of the law, especially because Galatians 3:10-12 denies that works of the law are of faith, whereas in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Mosaic Law, so it is the law of faith. But if you disagree, then please explain why.

Qumran is not the authoritative NT of the New Covenant.

I did not cite the Qumran Text 4QQMT as being authoritative, but as being another ancient writing that uses the phrase "works of the law" that can help us to correctly interpret what Paul meant by the phrase. Any ancient Greek manuscript can help us to understand how Greek words were used, which can aid in helping to correctly translate the Bible regardless of the authority of the author of that manuscript. Even if a particular manuscript only contained false statements, then it could still help us to better understand how Greek words were used.

The works of the law are the works of the Decalogue (Ac 13:39), which by definition are
God's law (Ex 20:2-17). . .the Decalogue is certainly not man's law.

You keep claiming that works of the law are the works of the Decalogue, which I disagree with, so I keep asking you to give support for your claim, which you keep declining to do. Acts 13:39 refers to the law of Moses, which contains 600+ laws, ten of which are referred to as the Decalogue, all of which are God's law, none of which are works of the law.

None of which is the phrase "the law" specifically and clearly meaning "faith.'

You asked me where to show where Paul specifically and clearly uses the phrase "the law" to refer to "faith", which I did. You did not ask me to show where the phrase "the law" specifically and clearly means "faith", which I won't do because it doesn't mean "faith" and I have never claimed that it does.

Faith in the nature of God made flesh is not faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin.

Sin is the violation of God's nature, and Jesus is the nature of God made flesh (Hebrews 1:3), so faith in the atoning work of Jesus for the remission of sins is faith in the nature of God made flesh.

Orthodox Jews strongly deny that their faith in God is faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Orthodox Jews are free to disagree that Jesus is the nature of God made flesh, but some Orthodox Jews nevertheless have faith in the nature of God.

Yours is not the gospel of Paul in the NT, it is another gospel (Gal 1:9), which is anathema (cherem)!

I have not said anything contrary to the Gospel of Paul, so you should be more careful with jumping the gun with that.

 

[Clare73]

Do you concede that Romans 3:27 contrasts a law of works with a a law of faith?

I do not. . .I have been contesting that since post #5, as stated in its Conclusion:
because, as I pointed out in post #5, there are two kinds of "faith", which point you have never addressed, or even acknowledged:
1) faith in God demonstrated in obedience to the Mosaic Law, which denies the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin, as in the "faith" of the Orthodox Jew, and

2) faith in God as well as faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin, which is the only faith that "saves from the wrath of God" at the Judgment (Ro 5:9).

You do not acknowledge 1) because it is the axle on which your error turns.

What you present cannot be read out of (exegesis) the NT Scriptures.
What you present must be read into (eisegesis) the NT Scriptures.

God's truth is correctly arrived at only through harmonious exegesis.
Heresy is always arrived at through eisegesis.

The gospel of your eisegesis is anathema! (cherem).(Gal 1:9)

That is final.

 

[Soyeong]

I do not. . .I have been contesting that since post #5, as stated in its Conclusion:
because, as I pointed out in post #5, there are two kinds of "faith", which point you have never addressed, or even acknowledged:
1) faith in God demonstrated in obedience to the Mosaic Law, which denies the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's in, as in the "faith" of the Orthodox Jew, and

2) faith in God as well as faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin, which is the only faith that "saves from the wrath of God" at the Judgment (Ro 5:9).

You do not acknowledge 1) because it is the axle on which your error turns.

What you present cannot be read out of (exegesis) the NT Scriptures.
What you present must be read into (eisegesis) the NT Scriptures.

God's truth is correctly arrived at only through harmonious exegesis.
Heresy is always arrived at through eisegesis.

The gospel of your eisegesis is anathema! (cherem).(Gal 1:9)

That is final.

Romans 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.

Please explain why you do not concede that the above verse contrasts a law of works with a law of faith. The issue of whether or not there are two types of faith is independent from the issue of whether or not the above verse contrasts a law of works with a law of faith, so it does not serve as a reason why you do not concede what this verse plainly states. So again, do you think that works of the law are the law of works or the law of faith?

I have addressed and acknowledged your claim of there being two different types of faith multiple times, and you even told me to tell what I said to the Orthodox Jews, so I don't see how you can deny that I address and acknowledged your claim. I explained why type of faith that is in God is the same as the type of faith that is in Jesus because they are both in regard to the same nature. There is nothing in the NT that presents faith in Jesus as being a different type of faith than faith in God, but rather the NT claims that Jesus is God. Furthermore, I have also explained why a faith in God that denies faith in Jesus is not something that Orthodox Jews have.

You have given no biblical support for either your claim that there are two types of faith or claim that works of the law refers to the Decalogue, so until you do that is entirely eisegesis on your part. You insisting that something is true does not establish that it is true, and the same goes for your instance that I am anathema.

 

[Clare73]

Romans 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.

Please explain why you do not concede that the above verse contrasts a law of works with a law of faith.

Because I am dead wrong?

I concede that Ro 3:27 does state such in the Greek, though not translated exactly that way in every version of the Bible.
Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Likewise, in context, "law of works" and "law of faith" mean the principles of "works" and "faith," as used in justification, where the issue is "works" vs. "faith," and is not the "Decalogue vs. obedient faith" in God.
Therefore, I also concede that the principle, "law of works," includes more than just the Decalogue.

Neither of which, however, is the issue which makes your gospel anathema!
That issue is your use of "law of faith" to construe a "faith" by which an Orthodox Jew who vehemently denies the person and work of Jesus Christ is, nevertheless, saved by that "faith" in God which/because (it) obeys the law, and which is your erroneous meaning of the "law of faith."

This is the kind of stuff from the Judiazers which Paul had to sort out of the gospel, and to which he is referring in Gal 1:9

The issue of whether or not there are two types of faith is independent from the issue of whether or not the above verse contrasts a law of works with a law of faith, so it does not serve as a reason why you do not concede what this verse plainly states. So again, do you think that works of the law are the law of works or the law of faith?

I have addressed and acknowledged your claim of there being two different types of faith multiple times, and you even told me to tell what I said to the Orthodox Jews, so I don't see how you can deny that I address and acknowledged your claim. I explained why type of faith that is in God is the same as the type of faith that is in Jesus because they are both in regard to the same nature. There is nothing in the NT that presents faith in Jesus as being a different type of faith than faith in God, but rather the NT claims that Jesus is God. Furthermore, I have also explained why a faith in God that denies faith in Jesus is not something that Orthodox Jews have.

You have given no biblical support for either your claim that there are two types of faith or claim that works of the law refers to the Decalogue, so until you do that is entirely eisegesis on your part. You insisting that something is true does not establish that it is true, and the same goes for your instance that I am anathema.

 

[Soyeong]

Because I am dead wrong?

I concede that Ro 3:27 does state such in the Greek, though not translated exactly that way in every version of the Bible.
Sorry for my misunderstanding.

Likewise, in context, "law of works" and "law of faith" mean the principles of "works" and "faith," as used in justification, where the issue is "works" vs. "faith," and is not the "Decalogue vs. obedient faith" in God.
Therefore, I also concede that the principle, "law of works," includes more than just the Decalogue.

Based on what the Bible says, what reason do you have to conclude that the phrase "works of the law" refers to the Decalogue instead of mana-made traditions? And which other laws do you think that works of the law include in addition to the Decalogue? Which laws do you think are referred to by the law of faith? Do you agree that the law that is not of faith in Galatians 3:10-12 is not referring to the same as the law that our faith upholds in Romans 3:31?

Neither of which

, however, is the issue which makes your gospel anathema!
That issue is your use of "law of faith" to construe a "faith" by which an Orthodox Jew who vehemently denies the person and work of Jesus Christ is, nevertheless, saved by that "faith" in God which/because
it obeys the law, which is your erroneous meaning of the "law of faith."

The people who lived before the cross were saved through faith in the promised Redeemer in the same means as we are, so the question arises: can someone still still be saved through faith in the promised Redeemer if they live in a way that bears the fruit of that belief while wrongly denying that Jesus is that Redeemer. In other words, can a person's obedience to the Mosaic Law through faith testify that they have faith in Jesus more loudly than their words deny that they do? I think so, and that this is the case for all Orthodox Jews who have faith. Someone can't both have faith in the promised Redeemer and not have faith in him, so if you say that an Orthodox Jew has faith, then that means that their actions speak louder than their words, while to give weight to their words is to deny that they have faith in God. However, not all obedience to the Mosaic Law expresses faith in the promised Redeemer, so there are same Orthodox Jews who do not have faith in God while denying the promised Redeemer.

This is the kind of stuff from the Judiazers that Paul had to sort out of the gospel, and to which he is referring in Gal 1:9

I completely agree with Paul's stance against the Judaizers and have never suggested that we need to become circumcised in order to earn our salvation. Paul's problem in Galatians was not with those who were teaching Gentiles how to obey the Mosaic Law as through obedience to God were somehow a negative thing, but rather his problem was with those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey man-made works of the law in order to become saved.

 

[Clare73]

Based on what the Bible says, what reason do you have to conclude that the
phrase "works of the law" refers to the Decalogue instead of mana-made traditions?

Because "works of the law" refer to the actual practice of the Law, and the only Law practiced in the NT was the Decalogue, for the sacrifices, ceremonies and regulations had been abolished (Eph 2:15).

And
1) which other laws do you think that "works of the law" include in addition to the Decalogue?
2) Which laws do you think are referred to by the law of faith?
3) Do you agree that the law that is not of faith in Galatians 3:10-12 is not referring to the same as the law that our faith upholds in Romans 3:31?

See post #28 for the principle of law (based on deeds) and the principle of faith (based on faith) used in Ro 3:27-31.

1) There is no "works of the law" in Ro 3:27-31.
Edit: Mistaken. . ."works of the law" is in Ro 3:27.

There is the "law of works," which is the principle of works (based on works), which includes all "religious" work they did to please God; i.e., the entire Mosaic law--moral, sacrificial, ceremonial, etc.

Edit: And "works of the law" is the practice of the principle--the doing of deeds, which in the NT did not include the sacrifices, ceremonies and regulations, only the Decalogue.

The context (3:20-31) of 3:27 is
righteousness (justification) through the principle (v.27) of faith (based on faith),
as opposed to righteousness (justification) through the principle of works (based on deeds).
Paul's point in that context is that NT opposition to righteousness (justification) by the principle of works does not nullify the Decalogue, for the principle of works is involved in NT sanctification through obedience.

Rather, opposition to righteousness (justification) by the principle of works upholds/establishes the right use in the NT of Mosaic law, not as a means of righteousness (justification), but as a means of sanctification.
So the principle that our NT faith upholds is the principle of law, as codified in the Decalogue (it is not the ""law (principle) of faith").
"The law that our NT faith upholds," places on its right footing, in Ro 3:31 is the Decalogue.

2) The "law" of faith refers to the principle of faith (based on faith) which, in the context of righteousness (justification --3:21, 22, 26, 28 30), excludes all works of the law--moral, sacrificial, ceremonial, regulatory, etc.--from the principle of "faith," as it relates to righteousness (justification).

3) "The law that is not of faith" (Gal 3:10-12) in that context is the principle of law (based on deeds) which is not the principle of faith (based on faith), and the Word of God states (Hab 2:4) that the righteous will live (rebirth in justification) by (the principle of) faith (based on faith), not by (the principle of) works (based on deeds).

"The law that is not of faith" in Gal 3:10-12 is the principle of law (based on deeds), which includes the entire Mosaic law--moral, sacrificial, ceremonial, regulatory, etc.

"The law that our NT faith upholds" in Ro 3:31 is the Decalogue, set on its right basis as the NT means of sanctification, but not NT means of justification.

They are not the same:
(Gal 3:10-12) = the principle of all law (based on deeds),
(Ro 3:31) = the code of a particular law (Mosaic).

The people who lived before the cross were saved through faith in the promised Redeemer in the same means as we are, so the question arises: can someone still still be saved through faith in the promised Redeemer if they live in a way that bears the fruit of that belief while wrongly denying that Jesus is that Redeemer.

No, because the gospel faith which saves is trust in the work of that Redeemer, Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sin.
In the absence of that personal trust, there is no saving faith.

In other words, can a person's obedience to the Mosaic Law through faith testify that they have faith in Jesus more loudly than their words deny that they do?

No, because it is everywhere made clear in the NT that the gospel which saves is trust in the work of that Redeemer, Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sin.
If you get it wrong about the Redeemer and do not trust in Jesus Christ, the NT makes clear there is no saving faith.

That is why unbelieving Jews have been cut off from the one olive tree (the people of God) in Ro 11:15-23, and will not be brought back in until they come to personal faith and trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin.

I think so, and that this is the case for all Orthodox Jews who have faith.

Jesus does not. . .and that is what he personally revealed to Paul in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-5).
What you think is precisely a counterfeit gospel, which Paul everywhere rejects and calls anathema!

Someone can't both have faith in the promised Redeemer and not have faith in him,

And there can be no faith in the Redeemer without actually having faith in the person and work of the Redeemer, Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sin.

That is double-speak.

so if you say that an Orthodox Jew has faith, then that means that their actions speak louder than their words,

Non-sequitur.
Does my brother's trust in my mother translate into trust in me?
No, it does not. . .and trust in God does not translate into trust in the atoning work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin.

Double-speak again.

while to give weight to their words is to deny that they have faith in God

Actually, it is to deny only a personal saving faith and trust in the atoning work of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin.

However, not all obedience to the Mosaic Law expresses faith in the promised Redeemer, so there are same Orthodox Jews who do not have faith in God while denying the promised Redeemer.

Actually, according to the Word of God in the NT, no Orthodox Jew has faith in Jesus Christ, because their doctrine denies the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The thing which I don't understand about all this is that you acknowledge that faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin is the only faith that saves, and then you dance around trying to grant the benefits of that faith apart from the only faith that has them.

What's that all about. . .are you in that group?

 

[Soyeong]

1) There is no "works of the law" in Ro 3:27-31.

Romans 3:27-28 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

I conceded that position also in post #28.See post #28 for the principle of law (practice, deeds) and the principle of faith (conviction, trust) used in Ro 3:27-31.

There is the "law of works," which is the principle of works (practice, deeds), which includes any and every "religious" work they did to please God; i.e., the entire Mosaic law--moral, sacrificial, ceremonial, etc., all of it.

The context (3:20-31) of 3:27 is righteousness (justification) through the principle (v.27) of faith, (trust in Christ) as opposed to righteousness (justification) through the principle of works (deeds).
Paul's point in that context is that opposition to righteousness (justification) by the principle of works does not nullify the Mosaic law, for the principle of works is involved in sanctification through obedience.

"The law that our NT faith upholds" in Ro 3:31 is the Decalogue, set on its right basis as a means of sanctification, but not means of justification.

The Mosaic Law contains 613 laws, 10 of which are known as the Decalogue, but it seems you are thinking that Romans 3:27 is contrasting them as separate bodies of law. However, in Romans 3:31, there is nothing about the first use of Greek word "nomos" that specifies that it is referring to all of the Mosaic Law except the Decalogue and nothing about the second use of "nomos" that specifies that it is referring to only referring to the Decalogue. In is saying that our faith does not overthrow the law, but rather our faith upholds it, so it seems clear to me that both uses are referring to the same body of law, namely the Mosaic Law, which includes the Decalogue. However, you are interpreting the first use of "nomos" in Romans 3:31 as saying that our faith does not nullify the Mosaic Law, while you are interpreting the second use of "nomos" as saying that our faith upholds the Decalogue.

The content of our faith in Christ is in regard to trusting him to rightly guide us in doing good works, which is why he said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Mosaic Law (Matthew 23:23). God is trustworthy, therefore all of the laws that God has ever given are trustworthy (Psalms 19:7, Nehemiah 9:13), and a law that isn't trustworthy can't come from a God who is trustworthy, so to put our faith in the Mosaic Law is to put our faith in the Lawgiver, while to deny that the Mosaic Law is of faith is to deny that the Lawgiver is faithful, so "works of the law" should not be interpreted as referring to the Mosaic Law. The same faith by which we are justified also that leads us to obey God, which is why Paul said that only doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified (Romans 2:13), but denied that we earn our justification by being a doer of the law (Romans 4:4-5). In James 2:21-26, it speaks about Abraham being justified by his works, which is only insofar as his works were an expression of his faith, not in regard to earning his justification. Likewise, while our obedience to the Mosaic Law is the means of our sanctification, our obedience does not earn our sanctification, but rather the same faith by which we are sanctified is also expressed as obedience.

3) "The law that is not of faith" (Gal 3:10-12) in that context is the principle of the law (practice, deeds) which is not the principle of faith (trust in Christ), and the Word of God states (Hab 2:4) that the righteous will live (rebirth in justification) by (the principle) of faith (trust), not by (the principle of) works (deeds).

"The law that is not of faith" in Gal 3:10-12 is the principle of law (practice, deeds), which includes the entire Mosaic law--moral, sacrifical, ceremonial, etc.

In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 with a quote from Leviticus 18:5, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as those who are living in obedience to the Mosaic Law. Likewise, in Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is the Mosaic Law, so the righteous living by faith does not refer to a manner of living that is not in obedience to the Mosaic Law. When you say that God's laws other than the Decalogue are not the principle of faith in Christ, you are essentially saying that Christ can't be trusted to rightly guide us when he taught us to obey those laws, such as with the greatest two commandments.

No, because the gospel faith which saves is trust in the work of that Redeemer, Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sin.
In the absence of that personal trust, there is no saving faith.
No, because it is everywhere made clear in the NT that the gospel which saves is trust in the work of that Redeemer, Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sin.
If you get it wrong about the Redeemer and do not trust in Jesus Christ, the NT makes clear there is no saving faith.

Do you agree that people who were born before the cross were saved? For example, all of the examples of saving faith listed in Hebrews 11 are of people who lived before the cross. The only way to become saved is through faith in the work of the Redeemer for the remission of sin, so this must have been the type of faith that the people listed in Hebrews 11 had before they had an opinion about whether Jesus was the identity of that Redeemer. Jesus is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), so those people put their personal faith in Jesus by expressing his nature through their actions regardless of whether they recognized that it was his nature that they were expressing.

That is why unbelieving Jews have been cut off from the one olive tree (the people of God) in Ro 11:15-23, and will not be brought back in until they come to personal faith and trust in the work of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin.Jesus does not. . .and that is what he personally revealed to Paul in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-5).
What you think is precisely a counterfeit gospel, which Paul everywhere rejects and calls anathema!
And you can't have faith in the Redeemer without actually having faith in the person and work of the Redeemer, Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sin.
Does my brother's trust in my mother translate into trust in me?
No, it does not. . .and trust in God does not translate into trust in the atoning work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin.
Actually, it denies only a personal saving faith and trust in the atoning work of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin.
Actually, according to the Word of God in the NT, no Orthodox Jew has faith in Jesus Christ, because their faith denies the person and work of Jesus Christ.

I agree that the believing Jews have been cut off from the one olive true, which is why I do not consider those Jews to have faith in God, yet you keep insisting that Jews can have faith in God while being unbelieving. Jesus is God, so faith in God can't be something other than faith in Jesus, and if you deny that Orthodox Jews have faith in Jesus, then you should also deny that they have faith in God. However, Paul never stopped identifying as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), so he was an Orthodox Jew who had faith in Jesus.

The thing which I don't understand about all this is that you acknowledge that faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin is the

only faith that saves, and then you dance around trying to grant the benefits of that faith apart from the only faith that has them.

What's that all about. . .are you in that group?

I am not an Orthodox Jew. Abraham was saved through faith in the promised Redeemer and he is the father of our faith. He was born long before any of the books of the Bible were written, so there are a lot that he did not know about the details of the life Jesus, yet he still live in a way that expressed faith in him. There were others in the OT who were of the faith of Abraham who were saved, so do not see why Orthodox Jews who live in a way that expressed the faith of Abraham should be excluded from being saved, though I agree that believing Jews who did not have the faith of Abraham were not saved.

 

[Clare73]

Romans 3:27-28 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Right again. . .

"Law of works" is the principle of works (based on deeds).

"Works of the law" are the deeds themselves.
One is in general, the other is in specificity of the same thing, works,

which difference does not alter, but fits right into, the meaning of my response in post #30.

The print of your text is too weak to read.

Suffice it to say, in what system of logic can you reject the fulfillment of the Promise without rejecting the Promise itself?

In addition, your contrived notion, "You can't have trust in Bill without having trust in his son" as
applied to Christ in "You can't have faith in God without having faith in Jesus Christ" is not only a
non-sequitur, but totally contrary to most of the NT.

Is what we are prosecuting here the same unbelief of OT Israel whom God cut off?

And I say again: the thing which I don't understand about all this is that you acknowledge that faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin is the only faith that saves, and then you try to negotiate a way to grant the benefits of that faith apart from the only faith that has them.

Go figure. . .

There is nothing more for me to say to you on the subject, I have presented the NT revelation regarding it. . .it's up to you, as it was to OT Israel, to decide what you will do with it.

Kind regards.

 

[Clare73]

The Mosaic Law contains 613 laws, 10 of which are known as the Decalogue, but it seems you are thinking that Romans 3:27 is contrasting them as separate bodies of law. However, in Romans 3:31, there is nothing about the first use of Greek work "nomos" that specifies that it is referring to all of the Mosaic Law except the Decalogue and nothing about the second use of "nomos" that specifies that it is referring to only referring to the Decalogue.

Soyeong, I've decided to address your responses in the above post #31, on the chance that it will actually help clarify the NT revelation of Ro 3:27-31, which you so egregiously misappropriate. . .to the point of it being anathema! (cherem)

There is a tremendous amount of material to digest here, so take lots of time to mull it over until you absorb it.

First of all. . .distinctions matter in understanding things which may appear to be the same but actually are different. . .for example:
"live" = has a heartbeat, state of living. . ."live" = to continue in life
Yes, those who are live continue to live, but the words do not have exactly the same meaning.

It's the same way with Paul's use of the word "law" in Ro 3:27-31.
He is using it two ways:
"The law of works"--is a principle. . .like the law of gravity--"what goes up must come down."
"Works of the law"--is practice of the principle, actual works, deeds. . .like the works/deeds of gravity--apples falling from the tree, snow falling from the clouds, etc.

In Ro 3:27, Paul is referring to two different principles: law and faith
Law of works -- principle by which men are not saved; i.e., based on deeds
Law of faith -- principle by which men are saved; i.e., based on faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ

In Ro 3:31 Paul is referring to both principle and practice, where
the principle of NT faith (justification based on faith) does not nullify
the practice of NT law (Decalogue), but rather upholds its proper use in sanctification.

Keep in mind that the Mosaic laws of sacrifices, ceremonies and regulations of the Old Covenant were temporary, being added (Gal 4:19) to the Abrahamic Covenant until the time of the New Covenant,
when they were then abolished (Eph 2:15) on the cross,
the Old Covenant made obsolete (Heb 8:13), and
the priesthood and the law changed (Heb 7:12).
All that remains of the Mosaic law in the New Covenant is the Decalogue (Ro 13:8-10)
which the NT believer is not free to violate.

It is saying that our faith does not overthrow the law, but rather our faith upholds it, so it seems clear to me that both uses are referring to the same body of law, namely the Mosaic Law, which includes the Decalogue. However, you are interpreting the first use of "nomos" in Romans 3:31 as saying that our faith does not nullify the Mosaic Law, while you are interpreting the second use of "nomos" as saying that our faith upholds the Decalogue.

Remember, I missed "works of the law" in Ro 3:27.
As shown above, "works of the law" refers to practice, to doing.

In v. 31, Paul's first use of "nomos" is stating that the principle of faith (based on faith)
does not nullify the practice of the Mosaic law ("nomos") in sanctification.

Paul's second use of "nomos" (law) refers to practice, because that is how we (NT believers) uphold the Mosaic law in the NT.
But what Mosaic law do we practice in the NT? It's not the sacrifices, ceremonies and regulations which have been abolished (Eph 2:15), rather it is the Decalogue (Ro 13:8-10).
Therefore, the law "we (NT believers) uphold" in Ro 3:31 is the Decalogue, not the whole Mosaic code.

The content of our faith in Christ is in regard to trusting him to rightly guide us in doing good works, which is why he said that faith is one of the weightier matter of the Mosaic Law (Matthew 23:23).

You're trying to rewrite the NT.
In light of the revelation Jesus personally gave to Paul in the third heaven (2Co:12:1-5),
"the faith which is the weightier matter of the Mosaic law" is NT faith, the content of which is
faith and trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin. . .it's not about "guiding us in doing good works."

God is trustworthy, therefore all of the laws that God has ever given are trustworthy (Psalms 19:7, Nehemiah 9:13), and a law that isn't trustworthy can't come from a God who is trustworthy, so to put our faith in the Mosaic Law is to put our faith in the Lawgiver, while to deny that the Mosaic Law is of faith is to deny that the Lawgiver is faithful,

so "works of the law" should not be interpreted as referring to the Mosaic Law. The same faith by which we are justified also that leads us to obey God, which is why Paul said that only doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified (Romans 2:13), but denied that we earn our justification by being a doer of the law (Romans 4:4-5).

As stated, and for the reasons stated above, the only "works of the law" in the NT are the works of the Decalogue.

Only "doers of the Mosaic law will be justified". . . because to be made righteous by the Law required perfect practice of it, therefore,
"all who rely on observing the law are under a curse," that of Dt 27:26 (Gal 3:10-11). None were made righteous by law-keeping (Ro 3:20;
Gal 3:11). Righteousness/justification is only by faith and trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin.

In James 2:21-26, it speaks about Abraham being justified by his works, which is only insofar as his works were an expression of his faith, not in regard to earning his justification. Likewise, while our obedience to the Mosaic Law is the means of our sanctification, our obedience does not earn our sanctification, but rather the same faith by which we are sanctified is also expressed as obedience.

Obedience is a means of growing in holiness:

Ro 6:16 - obedience leads to righteousness, which leads to holiness (Ro 6:19, 22).

In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 with a quote from Leviticus 18:5, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as those who are living in obedience to the Mosaic law.

righteous who are living by faith = those who are living in obedience to Mosaic law

is not the same as
righteous by faith = righteousness by obedience to the Mosaic law,

any more than
those who like water are the same as those who like wine

is the same as
water = wine.

Likewise, in Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is the Mosaic Law, so the righteous living by faith does not refer to a manner of living that is not in obedience to the Mosaic Law. When you say that God's laws other than the Decalogue are not the principle of faith in Christ, you are essentially saying that Christ can't be trusted to rightly guide us when he taught us to obey those laws, such as with the greatest two commandments.

Do you agree that people who were born before the cross were saved? For example, all of the examples of saving faith listed in Hebrews 11 are of people who lived before the cross. The only way to become saved is through faith in the work of the Redeemer for the remission of sin, so this must have been the type of faith that the people listed in Hebrews 11 had

There was no work of the Redeemer, because there was no Redeemer, at the time of those in Heb 11.
The faith which saved them was their faith in the Promise (Messiah)--Ge 12:3, 15:4-5.
That Promise is no more because it has been fulfilled, and now righteousness is by faith and trust in the work of the One who fulfilled the Promise, Jesus Christ.

before they had an opinion about whether Jesus was the identity of that Redeemer. Jesus is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), so those people put their personal faith in Jesus by expressing his nature through their actions regardless of whether they recognized that it was his nature that they were expressing.
I agree that the believing Jews have been cut off from the one olive true, which is why I do not consider those Jews to have faith in God, yet you keep insisting that Jews can have faith in God while being unbelieving.

Jesus is God, so faith in God can't be something other than faith in Jesus, and if you deny that Orthodox Jews have faith in Jesus, then you should also deny that they have faith in God. However, Paul never stopped identifying as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), so he was an Orthodox Jew who had faith in Jesus.

What part of "faith in God cannot be faith in Jesus when you deny Jesus and his atoning work on the cross for the remission of your sin"
do you not understand?

And you don't see the difference between Paul the Pharisee's faith,
who preached the gospel of Jesus Christ,
and the Orthodox Jew's faith, who denies the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Is this willful blindness?

I am not an Orthodox Jew. Abraham was saved through faith in the promised Redeemer and he is the father of our faith. He was born long before any of the books of the Bible were written, so there are a lot that he did not know about the details of the life Jesus, yet he still live in a way that expressed faith in him.

Because Abraham was not saved by living (deeds) in a way that expressed faith in God, Abraham was saved by believing the Promise of God (Messiah, Jesus Christ)--Ge 15:4-5.

There were others in the OT who were of the faith of Abraham who were saved, so
do not see why Orthodox Jews who live in a way that expressed the faith of Abraham should be excluded from being saved,

Because it is not about how you live (your deeds), it's about what you believe.

though I agree that believing Jews who did not have the faith of Abraham were not saved.

Then what faith did they have if it weren't the faith of Abraham?
Is there any other kind?

Orthodox Jews who do not have Abraham's faith in the Promise, Jesus Christ, likewise do not have the faith of Abraham.