Faith versus Works

[Guest shiloh357]

where do you get Faith Vs. Works out of this?

"Faith Vs. Works" is a contradictory statement according to James 2.

can't have faith vs. works because they work together.

---

so what's the real question here?

Here is what I see, your above-interpretation notwithstanding.

"...no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law..."

vs.

"...it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous..."

the problem is that you are avoiding the issue of context. As EricH pointed out, the two verses are addressing different issues, and that has to be taken into account. anyone take two verses and rip them out of away from their discussion and line them up and make the Bible appear to contradict.

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

(Romans 2:12-13) If you follow the line the of thought, what Paul is doing in this epistle is he is addressing an imaginary Jewish audience in order to make a point to his Gentile readership. Paul is correcting the teachings of the Jewish leadership that Jewish pedigree in itself had salvific value and that merely hearing the law and engaging in mentall assent to its precepts was sufficient for salvation.

Paul's point is that even IF justification were to come through the Law (which it doesn't), it would come though the doing of the law, and not the hearing of it. Paul teaches that no man can be saved by external privileges.

So, then the other verses you quote:

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

(Romans 3:20)

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

(Romans 3:28)

Are really a continuation of the same line of thought. After establishing in chapter two that the Gentiles are not at a disadvantage due to not having the Torah, and that the external deference to the Torah by Jews does not bring them any advantage where salvation is concerned, Paul continues to make his case that justification for both Jews and Gentiles are the same. They must ALL be justified by faith.

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

(Romans 3:9-18)

Paul teaches that all men are equal in their guilt before God, all men are born into sin; likewise, all men find salvation the same way.

Miriam-Webster's definition of "observe" is:

1 : to conform one's action or practice to (as a law, rite, or condition) : comply with

M-W's definition of "obey" is:

1 : to follow the commands or guidance of

2 : to conform to or comply with

Therefore, we can reconstruct the verses to be:

"...no one will be declared righteous in his sight by [complying with] the law..."

vs.

"...it is those who [comply with] the law who will be declared righteous..."

This is a blatant contradiction.

It is only a "contradiction" because you are failing to recognize that Paul is addressing two different issues within the same line of thought. Paul is developing an arguement. Even simple literary criticism can see that obvious fact. You are using a very immature line of logic that requires you to both divorce the statements in question from the literary context and ignore the intent of the author. Both prove that yoa are using a very dishonest approach to which no intelligent or thinking person should respond.

[sylvan3]

where do you get Faith Vs. Works out of this?

"Faith Vs. Works" is a contradictory statement according to James 2.

can't have faith vs. works because they work together.

---

so what's the real question here?

Here is what I see, your above-interpretation notwithstanding.

"...no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law..."

vs.

"...it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous..."

the problem is that you are avoiding the issue of context. As EricH pointed out, the two verses are addressing different issues, and that has to be taken into account. anyone take two verses and rip them out of away from their discussion and line them up and make the Bible appear to contradict.

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

(Romans 2:12-13) If you follow the line the of thought, what Paul is doing in this epistle is he is addressing an imaginary Jewish audience in order to make a point to his Gentile readership. Paul is correcting the teachings of the Jewish leadership that Jewish pedigree in itself had salvific value and that merely hearing the law and engaging in mentall assent to its precepts was sufficient for salvation.

Paul's point is that even IF justification were to come through the Law (which it doesn't), it would come though the doing of the law, and not the hearing of it. Paul teaches that no man can be saved by external privileges.

So, then the other verses you quote:

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

(Romans 3:20)

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

(Romans 3:28)

Are really a continuation of the same line of thought. After establishing in chapter two that the Gentiles are not at a disadvantage due to not having the Torah, and that the external deference to the Torah by Jews does not bring them any advantage where salvation is concerned, Paul continues to make his case that justification for both Jews and Gentiles are the same. They must ALL be justified by faith.

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

(Romans 3:9-18)

Paul teaches that all men are equal in their guilt before God, all men are born into sin; likewise, all men find salvation the same way.

Miriam-Webster's definition of "observe" is:

1 : to conform one's action or practice to (as a law, rite, or condition) : comply with

M-W's definition of "obey" is:

1 : to follow the commands or guidance of

2 : to conform to or comply with

Therefore, we can reconstruct the verses to be:

"...no one will be declared righteous in his sight by [complying with] the law..."

vs.

"...it is those who [comply with] the law who will be declared righteous..."

This is a blatant contradiction.

It is only a "contradiction" because you are failing to recognize that Paul is addressing two different issues within the same line of thought. Paul is developing an arguement. Even simple literary criticism can see that obvious fact. You are using a very immature line of logic that requires you to both divorce the statements in question from the literary context and ignore the intent of the author. Both prove that yoa are using a very dishonest and childish approach to which no intelligent or thinking person should respond. I will not grace your dishonest methods with a response. When you come up with somehting that is not a complete waste of time and intelligence to respond to, let me know.

Once again, you and many of your cohorts are not content with merely displaying what you might think is an acceptable rebuttal to my contention. Unfortunately, it is quite necessary for you to engage in copious negative comments as a tactic to attempt to destroy the character of the person with whom you disagree. This is blatantly obvious.

Here are your words:

"immature", "dishonest" (twice), "childish approach to which no intelligent or thinking person should respond",

"complete waste of time and intelligence".

Here is my infraction for which you inveigh:

I take two verses from the Bible. These verses say, in one instance, that one is declared righteous by complying with the law. In the other instance it states that no one is declared righteous by complying with the law. That's what it says.

There is nothing dishonest or childish about me pointing this out. However, there IS something childish about your need for going beyond what you may consider a rational explanation and to go negative.

I maintain that your need to do this reveals a real weak spot in your argument.

[gekko]

Come as you are before God and he will come in!

oh wow. that's as much a heretical unbiblical cliche as "if you ask Jesus into your heart he will defenitaly come in!"

stay away from it. its not biblical.

God will not indwell a wicked person.

---

oh. and will you people please stop quoting one person after the other? its wasting space, bandwidth, and reading time. sweet - thanks.

Edited July 17, 2006 by gekko

[Guest shiloh357]

where do you get Faith Vs. Works out of this?

"Faith Vs. Works" is a contradictory statement according to James 2.

can't have faith vs. works because they work together.

---

so what's the real question here?

Here is what I see, your above-interpretation notwithstanding.

"...no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law..."

vs.

"...it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous..."

the problem is that you are avoiding the issue of context. As EricH pointed out, the two verses are addressing different issues, and that has to be taken into account. anyone take two verses and rip them out of away from their discussion and line them up and make the Bible appear to contradict.

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

(Romans 2:12-13) If you follow the line the of thought, what Paul is doing in this epistle is he is addressing an imaginary Jewish audience in order to make a point to his Gentile readership. Paul is correcting the teachings of the Jewish leadership that Jewish pedigree in itself had salvific value and that merely hearing the law and engaging in mentall assent to its precepts was sufficient for salvation.

Paul's point is that even IF justification were to come through the Law (which it doesn't), it would come though the doing of the law, and not the hearing of it. Paul teaches that no man can be saved by external privileges.

So, then the other verses you quote:

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

(Romans 3:20)

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

(Romans 3:28)

Are really a continuation of the same line of thought. After establishing in chapter two that the Gentiles are not at a disadvantage due to not having the Torah, and that the external deference to the Torah by Jews does not bring them any advantage where salvation is concerned, Paul continues to make his case that justification for both Jews and Gentiles are the same. They must ALL be justified by faith.

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

(Romans 3:9-18)

Paul teaches that all men are equal in their guilt before God, all men are born into sin; likewise, all men find salvation the same way.

Miriam-Webster's definition of "observe" is:

1 : to conform one's action or practice to (as a law, rite, or condition) : comply with

M-W's definition of "obey" is:

1 : to follow the commands or guidance of

2 : to conform to or comply with

Therefore, we can reconstruct the verses to be:

"...no one will be declared righteous in his sight by [complying with] the law..."

vs.

"...it is those who [comply with] the law who will be declared righteous..."

This is a blatant contradiction.

It is only a "contradiction" because you are failing to recognize that Paul is addressing two different issues within the same line of thought. Paul is developing an arguement. Even simple literary criticism can see that obvious fact. You are using a very immature line of logic that requires you to both divorce the statements in question from the literary context and ignore the intent of the author. Both prove that yoa are using a very dishonest and childish approach to which no intelligent or thinking person should respond. I will not grace your dishonest methods with a response. When you come up with somehting that is not a complete waste of time and intelligence to respond to, let me know.

Once again, you and many of your cohorts are not content with merely displaying what you might think is an acceptable rebuttal to my contention. Unfortunately, it is quite necessary for you to engage in copious negative comments as a tactic to attempt to destroy the character of the person with whom you disagree. This is blatantly obvious.

Here are your words:

"immature", "dishonest" (twice), "childish approach to which no intelligent or thinking person should respond",

"complete waste of time and intelligence".

Here is my infraction for which you inveigh:

I take two verses from the Bible. These verses say, in one instance, that one is declared righteous by complying with the law. In the other instance it states that no one is declared righteous by complying with the law. That's what it says.

There is nothing dishonest or childish about me pointing this out. However, there IS something childish about your need for going beyond what you may consider a rational explanation and to go negative.

I maintain that your need to do this reveals a real weak spot in your argument.

It proves what I said about week or so ago. It demonstrates the very reason why any meaningful explanation of the Bibile is a waste of time with people like you. I provided a reasonable explanation as two why no contradiction exists. I demonstrated that by allowing the words to remain within their natural context. no contradiction exists. The problem is that the only way you can maintain a "contradiction" is to ignore intelligent literary examiniation of the complete text. So, by ignoring the obvious fact that the two phrases are addressing separate issues, and thus removing the possibility of contradiction, you simply try to keep the focus on the indiviual phrases.

I could do the same thing with any book and create contradictions and cast disparagements on any subject if I employed the dishonest tactics you apply here with the Bible. You want to take inidvidual phrases and sentences by themselves while disregarding the surrounding text, and disregarding the intent of the author. THAT demonstrates the weakness of your position, not mine. And yes, it is dishonest on your part. That is why there is no point in wasting time or intellignece on a person like you who demonstrates no honesty or integrity or ANY postive strength of character, for that matter when it comes to the Bible. Your purpose is to run down the Bible at any cost even if it means ignoring commonly accepted literay analysis. Frankly, you proved what I said about you a week ago. Thank you for proving me right.

[sylvan3]

I could do the same thing with any book and create contradictions and cast disparagements on any subject if I employed the dishonest tactics you apply here with the Bible. You want to take inidvidual phrases and sentences by themselves while disregarding the surrounding text, and disregarding the intent of the author. THAT demonstrates the weakness of your position, not mine. And yes, it is dishonest on your part. That is why there is no point in wasting time or intellignece on a person like you who demonstrates no honesty or integrity or ANY postive strength of character, for that matter when it comes to the Bible. Your purpose is to run down the Bible at any cost even if it means ignoring commonly accepted literay analysis. Frankly, you proved what I said about you a week ago. Thank you for proving me right.

You provide a tortuous explanation that, for the sake of argument, may or may not be accurate.

There are three possibilities for interpretation of your explanations, one being that a person agrees, one being that a person flat-out disagrees, and the other being that the reader finds what you say incomprehensible. In the case of the latter two, your conclusion immediately goes negative with accusations immaturity, dishonesty, and a lack of strength of character.

Therefore, the true test of character for you is whether or not someone agrees with you. Instead of merely pointing out differences which should suffice as an explanation, you must go into negative mode to attempt to belittle the person. It is not enough for you just to say, "I disagree, and those are my reasons for it."

Even if you are right--and I am not saying that you are--you lose because of the methods that you employ. This is the case with many of your counterparts who support your cause. It does a tremendous disservice to your cause and represents it badly.

[Guest shiloh357]

You provide a tortuous explanation that, for the sake of argument, may or may not be accurate.

Obviously, you simply lack the discipline to do any meaningful research to see if the literary analysis holds up, and yet you want your opinions treated with intellectual validity. When you are willing to do some intelligent literary analysis, then we might have something to talk about. Until then there is no point in wasting intelligence or time on your pitfiful little rants about "contradictions." You are not competent to correctly present a "contradiction."

Instead of merely pointing out differences which should suffice as an explanation, you must go into negative mode to attempt to belittle the person.

You are a hypocrite. We have patiently sat by, while you call us "delusional," and "insane" for believing in God, and then you whine when your literary analysis skills (or lack thereof) are challenged. You can while and pout all you want, but you have continuously thrown barbs and insults at us for weeks now, and now you want to complain when the truth is exposed about your silly, complaints about the Bible.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh I re-read the thread and you still haven't shown that "observe the law" and "obey the law" have two different meaings. That's where the contradiction is. I checked on the vocabulary and indeed the meaning is the same. I don't see how the context changes the meaning in this case.

Because observe and obey do not have two different meanings. That is not the issue. The issue that Sylvan is raising is that one part says that we are saved by our observance of the law, the other verse says we are not. The problem is that they are addressing two different issues within the same line of thought, and I explained that thoroughly.

The problem I have with Sylvan can be illustrated like this:

Suppose I write a letter to a friend and I mention apple pie. In one sentence I state that I love apple pie when it first comes out of the oven. In another sentence several lines later, I mention that that I hate apple pie if it does not have enough apples in the filling.

Along comes someone like Sylvan who decides that he sees an "obvious" contradiction. He separates "I hate apple pie" and "I love apple pie" from the rest of the letter and ignores the surrounding context and attempts to make it appear that I am trying to say that I both hate and love apple pie and this cannot be, since this is a contradiction.

It is the same with the Scriptures he thinks contradict each other. There is more information availabe between the two verses that he quotes, and that information is sufficient to clear up any possibility of a contradiction. He desparately avoids meaningful, or thoughtful literary analysis, because it would expose his silly bogus accusation of an alleged contradiction for what it is. He abandons intelligence and integrity in this unwarranted attack on the Bible.

[sylvan3]

Shiloh I re-read the thread and you still haven't shown that "observe the law" and "obey the law" have two different meaings. That's where the contradiction is. I checked on the vocabulary and indeed the meaning is the same. I don't see how the context changes the meaning in this case.

Because observe and obey do not have two different meanings. That is not the issue. The issue that Sylvan is raising is that one part says that we are saved by our observance of the law, the other verse says we are not. The problem is that they are addressing two different issues within the same line of thought, and I explained that thoroughly.

The problem I have with Sylvan can be illustrated like this:

Suppose I write a letter to a friend and I mention apple pie. In one sentence I state that I love apple pie when it first comes out of the oven. In another sentence several lines later, I mention that that I hate apple pie if it does not have enough apples in the filling.

Along comes someone like Sylvan who decides that he sees an "obvious" contradiction. He separates "I hate apple pie" and "I love apple pie" from the rest of the letter and ignores the surrounding context and attempts to make it appear that I am trying to say that I both hate and love apple pie and this cannot be, since this is a contradiction.

It is the same with the Scriptures he thinks contradict each other. There is more information availabe between the two verses that he quotes, and that information is sufficient to clear up any possibility of a contradiction. He desparately avoids meaningful, or thoughtful literary analysis, because it would expose his silly bogus accusation of an alleged contradiction for what it is. He abandons intelligence and integrity in this unwarranted attack on the Bible.

I can't agree at all with your analogy regarding the apple pie. Most certainly in that example it is pulling things out of context. The Biblical verses in question are not nearly that clear cut in terms of demonstrating a violation of meaning because of pulling things out of context.

Would this be a contradiction?

"No one who eats apple pie will be declared eligible for the raffle."

vs.

"Those who eat apple pie will be declared eligible for the raffle."

That is much more semantically analogous with what was stated regarding the verses in question.

Once again, however, it seems necessary for you to embellish your point by using negatives in an attempt to denigrate the character of your opponent. You say, "silly bogus accusation" and "abandons intelligence and integrity". I am nonplussed by this tactic. It seems as though presenting your point is not enough--you have to get that extra dig in. Possibly, you feel that this drives your point better. I do not agree.

[sylvan3]

Because observe and obey do not have two different meanings. That is not the issue.

This sentence left me completely clueless until I finally figured out that I was mixing your posts with Gekko's:

they have totally different meanings alltogether.

Sorry, you have made your point very clearly and I have nothing to object to what you said. Quoting out of context can of course be the cause of the inconsistency Sylvan denounced. Please keep discussing and don't mind me, I made a big mistake Peace!

I am not sure if you are saying that the inconsistency that I denounced is the result of quoting out of context. If so, please explain. I would like to hear another explanation why context is an issue here.

[sylvan3]

I am not sure if you are saying that the inconsistency that I denounced is the result of quoting out of context. If so, please explain. I would like to hear another explanation why context is an issue here.

I realized I was asking Shiloh to justify the claim another poster made and pulled out of the discussion apologizing and saying that I don't intend to attack Shiloh's actual position, which is that you're quoting out of context. I didn't mean to say that Shiloh is right or that you are right because at the moment both of your explanations are simple enough to be considered potentially correct and I don't have anything to add to the discussion that you (Sylvan) haven't already said. To summarize, the "Quoting out of context can of course be the cause of the inconsistency Sylvan denounced" statement meant exactly what it said, that it could be the right position and I don't intend to attack it. If it reads differently from how I read it please consider it a case of bad English because I really wasn't implying anything. Peace!

I appreciate the clarification....thanks!