Well yes, but that doesn’t mean the phrase “works of the law” is exclusive to ceremonial laws. In Romans 3:20 Paul says we can’t be justified by works of the law because through the law comes knowledge of sin, and in Romans 7 he cites coveting, a moral law, as a commandment that brought him knowledge of sin. The ritual legalism of the 1st century Jews is the occasion for Paul’s writing, not the entire point.
The law is the law. All of it. No one has not broken the 10 commandments in spirit and truth. This is why all men need Jesus. And which is why it is written that Jesus fulfilled the Law and nailed it to the cross. And then Hebrews tells us that with the death of the testator is the end of it and that with a changing of the priesthood comes a changing of the law. The law and the prophets hang on this: love God with your whole self and love your neighbor as yourself. Do unto others... Eating bacon and other OT laws doesnt have anything to do with love. They didnt understand them. No one is justified by works of the law.
The definition of "works of the law" in Romans and the rest of the NT seems to be the most pivotal issue to distinguish the protestant vs Roman views of justification. In so many apologetics videos the definition of works of the law is assumed without discussion.
Not sure where the interpretation of ceremonial vs moral works comes from. I haven’t seen that intended by the authors of the New Testament unless I am mistaken. Thoughts?
When a Catholic is confronted with Romans 3:28 which says "a man is justified by faith APART from works of the law" they go on and say that "works of the law" are only the ceremonial works, and not any work, therefore there can still be different general works that are required to be done by man's freewill for justification. Thats how they would respond, but I think the reasons for why works of the law is not only about the ceremonial law are good enough, especially seeing that "law" has a very broad meaning in the New Testament
Jesus makes it clear in the gospels to keep the commandments and the parable of the goats and sheep is that people will be judged by what they do nothing about faith.
A quick question on Rom 2:12-16. When Paul says that the Gentiles "by nature do what the law requires" and then in v15 quotes Jer 31, saying that "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts", is Paul speaking of this in a "Post-Jesus" sense? That is, that the Gentiles are judged based on the working of God in their hearts after Jesus and the Holy Spirit have come?
I agree that St. Paul was thinking of Jeremiah 31:33 when writing Romans 2 about the law being written on people's hearts. Christianity is the new covenant that was prophesied by Jeremiah 31:31-34.
In Romans 2:14, St. Paul mentioned the gentiles who do by nature the deeds of the law, and in verse 13 that the doers of the law shall be justified. Since St. Paul also taught that all humanity is under the power of sin in Romans 3:9 and 8:8, it seems to me that these gentiles must be regenerated Christians with circumcised hearts. Romans 2:27 teaches that such regenerated Christians will judge those who strive according to works of the law, as such works manifest covetousness in one's heart (as explained later in Romans 7). That is how these gentiles are saved, and this is a lesson for all Christians as to the saving faith that is apart from the deeds of the law. 1 John 3 (KJV) gives this litmus test for salvation: 14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. How can someone love by doing works? Belief that one loves through doing works seems very Pelagian to me. Ray Kidder Anglican
Hey Mr Kidder Peace be with you you ask How can someone love by doing works? Belief that one loves through doing works seems very Pelagian to me. *Jesus says* He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. (John 14:21-24) *response* I am not sure how you love someone by doing work but Jesus suggests you can't love him without doing it. St James says Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17) God bless you
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Rom 2:14 does not use this term “works of the law”
Rom 2:27 also does not use this term “ works of the law”. I think your confusing doing the law and “works of the law “ which clearly to paul, he distinguishes the two. Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law.
@@indo3052 This is from Romans 13 (NKJV): 8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. This is how such Gentiles mentioned in Romans 2 are doers of the law. Through Christianity, their hearts are circumcised and they fulfill what St. Paul taught here in chapter 13. They do not follow the ceremonial and dietary aspects of the law of Moses, as such laws are outside of the scope of loving one’s neighbor as yourself.
@@raykidder906 im a torah observant believer. Paul cannot contradict jesus. Jesus was asked twice what must we do to have eternal life. Both times he replied to keep the torah
What do you think of the passage in First Clement Chapter 30 and it’s relation on how to read Clement on this issue? It seems to me that Saint Clement’s soteriology is quite odd and not really classifiable under either the Catholic or Lutheran systems. For example, later on he appeals to the cause of non imputation being love, but he still believes the forgiveness involved here is non imputation rather than a movement from injustice to justice. Asking for your thoughts as someone who is trying to find a singular figure who seems to believe in a largely Protestant (I understand that label is controversial within Lutheranism but I identify with it) view on salvation. Unfortunately, as of now, it appears as though that isn’t quite viable. However, perhaps this is something I should likely not bet on finding an answer on, as the specific concerns were not the same. The McGrath style explanation about the concept of justification being misunderstood doesn’t seem to apply to these Pre-Augustinian theologians which is why it is concerning. Thanks in advance and God bless you, Cameron
St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:21 'I say nothing of what has gone before, that you have outraged Him, Him that had done you no wrong, Him that had done you good, that He exacted not justice, that He is first to beseech, though first outraged; let none of these things be set down at present. Ought ye not in justice to be reconciled for this one thing only that He has done to you now?' And what has He done? Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you. For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He has both well achieved mighty things, and besides, has suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? Him that knew no sin, he says, Him that was righteousness itself , He made sin, that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. For cursed is he that hangs on a tree. Galatians 3:13 For to die thus was far greater than to die; and this he also elsewhere implying, says, Becoming obedient unto death, yea the death of the cross. Philippians 2:8 For this thing carried with it not only punishment, but also disgrace. Reflect therefore how great things He bestowed on you. For a great thing indeed it were for even a sinner to die for any one whatever; but when He who undergoes this both is righteous and dies for sinners; and not dies only, but even as one cursed; and not as cursed [dies] only, but thereby freely bestows upon us those great goods which we never looked for; (for he says, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him;) what words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things? 'For the righteous,' says he, 'He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.' Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit, but the quality itself. For he said not made [Him] a sinner, but sin; not, 'Him that had not sinned' only, but that had not even known sin; that we also might become, he did not say 'righteous,' but, righteousness, and, the righteousness of God. For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is the righteousness of God.
@@lermadanielI enjoy quoting Chrysostom, but although he makes some very Protestant-like points, he seems to be quite inconsistent with himself. For instance, in Homily 31 on the Gospel of John, commenting on John 3:36, he writes, “Is it then enough, says one, to believe in the Son, that one may have eternal life? By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, Not every one that says unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation. Therefore when He says, This is life eternal, that they may know You the only true God, let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation. Since though he has said here, He that believes in the Son has eternal life, and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: He that believes not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him;) yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this. Therefore he did not say, This by itself is eternal life, nor, He that does but believe in the Son has eternal life, but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing does contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment.” Funnily, in reply to him, I would quote his own words elsewhere: “For if you believe the Faith, why do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? Why do you enslave yourself by subjection to the Law? Have you no confidence in what you believe? This is a mark of an unsound and unbelieving mind. For one who is faithful does not doubt, but such an one evidently doubts.” (Chrysostom, Homily 3 on Titus, verse 14)
@@florida8953 Matthew 25 my man. He will judge you according to His law. And the consequences of that perfect judgment isn’t a walk in the park, but damnation.
Galations 2 gives us a great clue. He rebukes peter for treating uncircumcised differently and paul says “ works of the law” nobody is justified
ruclips.net/video/czG0IjKcer8/видео.html
Well yes, but that doesn’t mean the phrase “works of the law” is exclusive to ceremonial laws. In Romans 3:20 Paul says we can’t be justified by works of the law because through the law comes knowledge of sin, and in Romans 7 he cites coveting, a moral law, as a commandment that brought him knowledge of sin. The ritual legalism of the 1st century Jews is the occasion for Paul’s writing, not the entire point.
@@daylightsober6138 yes. Works of the law is talmud. Manmade laws. Not gods law. Compare rom 2:13 to 3:28
The law is the law. All of it. No one has not broken the 10 commandments in spirit and truth. This is why all men need Jesus. And which is why it is written that Jesus fulfilled the Law and nailed it to the cross. And then Hebrews tells us that with the death of the testator is the end of it and that with a changing of the priesthood comes a changing of the law. The law and the prophets hang on this: love God with your whole self and love your neighbor as yourself. Do unto others... Eating bacon and other OT laws doesnt have anything to do with love. They didnt understand them. No one is justified by works of the law.
The definition of "works of the law" in Romans and the rest of the NT seems to be the most pivotal issue to distinguish the protestant vs Roman views of justification.
In so many apologetics videos the definition of works of the law is assumed without discussion.
It actually doesn't matter what it means.
It can’t refer to all works. Unless you are saying we aren’t saved by God’s work and grace in us
Not sure where the interpretation of ceremonial vs moral works comes from. I haven’t seen that intended by the authors of the New Testament unless I am mistaken. Thoughts?
Just the Roman Catholics wanting to add to the gospel.
When a Catholic is confronted with Romans 3:28 which says "a man is justified by faith APART from works of the law" they go on and say that "works of the law" are only the ceremonial works, and not any work, therefore there can still be different general works that are required to be done by man's freewill for justification. Thats how they would respond, but I think the reasons for why works of the law is not only about the ceremonial law are good enough, especially seeing that "law" has a very broad meaning in the New Testament
Jesus makes it clear in the gospels to keep the commandments and the parable of the goats and sheep is that people will be judged by what they do nothing about faith.
@@elliot7205 judgement is for hell and punishment. faith is for heaven and rewards
Ummm ... no. 4QMMT. Good lord.
You wrote a book for your Master's thesis! :O
I truely enjoy your videos. Peace
A quick question on Rom 2:12-16.
When Paul says that the Gentiles "by nature do what the law requires" and then in v15 quotes Jer 31, saying that "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts", is Paul speaking of this in a "Post-Jesus" sense? That is, that the Gentiles are judged based on the working of God in their hearts after Jesus and the Holy Spirit have come?
I don't think he is quoting Jeremiah in that verse.
I agree that St. Paul was thinking of Jeremiah 31:33 when writing Romans 2 about the law being written on people's hearts. Christianity is the new covenant that was prophesied by Jeremiah 31:31-34.
conscience is instinctively knowing what is right. everyone is born with it, tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Thank you 🙏🏼 more videos like this please
ruclips.net/video/czG0IjKcer8/видео.html
the mosaic law applied to life in the full.
@michaelstaggs1880 what d0es paul say about following mosaic law today? he condemns it.
@michaelstaggs1880 we fulfill the law by faith, not legalism. by want, not requirement
@michaelstaggs1880 the law of grace, not mosaic law
In Romans 2:14, St. Paul mentioned the gentiles who do by nature the deeds of the law, and in verse 13 that the doers of the law shall be justified. Since St. Paul also taught that all humanity is under the power of sin in Romans 3:9 and 8:8, it seems to me that these gentiles must be regenerated Christians with circumcised hearts. Romans 2:27 teaches that such regenerated Christians will judge those who strive according to works of the law, as such works manifest covetousness in one's heart (as explained later in Romans 7). That is how these gentiles are saved, and this is a lesson for all Christians as to the saving faith that is apart from the deeds of the law.
1 John 3 (KJV) gives this litmus test for salvation:
14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
How can someone love by doing works?
Belief that one loves through doing works seems very Pelagian to me.
Ray Kidder
Anglican
Hey Mr Kidder
Peace be with you
you ask
How can someone love by doing works?
Belief that one loves through doing works seems very Pelagian to me.
*Jesus says*
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. (John 14:21-24)
*response*
I am not sure how you love someone by doing work but Jesus suggests you can't love him without doing it.
St James says
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4:17)
God bless you
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:14 does not use this term “works of the law”
Rom 2:27 also does not use this term “ works of the law”.
I think your confusing doing the law and “works of the law “ which clearly to paul, he distinguishes the two.
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law.
@@indo3052 This is from Romans 13 (NKJV):
8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
This is how such Gentiles mentioned in Romans 2 are doers of the law. Through Christianity, their hearts are circumcised and they fulfill what St. Paul taught here in chapter 13. They do not follow the ceremonial and dietary aspects of the law of Moses, as such laws are outside of the scope of loving one’s neighbor as yourself.
@@raykidder906 im a torah observant believer. Paul cannot contradict jesus. Jesus was asked twice what must we do to have eternal life. Both times he replied to keep the torah
What do you think of the passage in First Clement Chapter 30 and it’s relation on how to read Clement on this issue? It seems to me that Saint Clement’s soteriology is quite odd and not really classifiable under either the Catholic or Lutheran systems. For example, later on he appeals to the cause of non imputation being love, but he still believes the forgiveness involved here is non imputation rather than a movement from injustice to justice. Asking for your thoughts as someone who is trying to find a singular figure who seems to believe in a largely Protestant (I understand that label is controversial within Lutheranism but I identify with it) view on salvation. Unfortunately, as of now, it appears as though that isn’t quite viable. However, perhaps this is something I should likely not bet on finding an answer on, as the specific concerns were not the same. The McGrath style explanation about the concept of justification being misunderstood doesn’t seem to apply to these Pre-Augustinian theologians which is why it is concerning.
Thanks in advance and God bless you,
Cameron
St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:21
'I say nothing of what has gone before, that you have outraged Him, Him that had done you no wrong, Him that had done you good, that He exacted not justice, that He is first to beseech, though first outraged; let none of these things be set down at present. Ought ye not in justice to be reconciled for this one thing only that He has done to you now?' And what has He done? Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you. For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He has both well achieved mighty things, and besides, has suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? Him that knew no sin, he says, Him that was righteousness itself , He made sin, that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. For cursed is he that hangs on a tree. Galatians 3:13 For to die thus was far greater than to die; and this he also elsewhere implying, says, Becoming obedient unto death, yea the death of the cross. Philippians 2:8 For this thing carried with it not only punishment, but also disgrace. Reflect therefore how great things He bestowed on you. For a great thing indeed it were for even a sinner to die for any one whatever; but when He who undergoes this both is righteous and dies for sinners; and not dies only, but even as one cursed; and not as cursed [dies] only, but thereby freely bestows upon us those great goods which we never looked for; (for he says, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him;) what words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things? 'For the righteous,' says he, 'He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.' Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit, but the quality itself. For he said not made [Him] a sinner, but sin; not, 'Him that had not sinned' only, but that had not even known sin; that we also might become, he did not say 'righteous,' but, righteousness, and, the righteousness of God. For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is the righteousness of God.
ruclips.net/video/czG0IjKcer8/видео.html
@@lermadanielI enjoy quoting Chrysostom, but although he makes some very Protestant-like points, he seems to be quite inconsistent with himself. For instance, in Homily 31 on the Gospel of John, commenting on John 3:36, he writes,
“Is it then enough, says one, to believe in the Son, that one may have eternal life? By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, Not every one that says unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation. Therefore when He says, This is life eternal, that they may know You the only true God, let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation. Since though he has said here, He that believes in the Son has eternal life, and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: He that believes not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him;) yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this. Therefore he did not say, This by itself is eternal life, nor, He that does but believe in the Son has eternal life, but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing does contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment.”
Funnily, in reply to him, I would quote his own words elsewhere:
“For if you believe the Faith, why do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? Why do you enslave yourself by subjection to the Law? Have you no confidence in what you believe? This is a mark of an unsound and unbelieving mind. For one who is faithful does not doubt, but such an one evidently doubts.” (Chrysostom, Homily 3 on Titus, verse 14)
Im really shocked that you havent considered Paul talking about the laws of Christ by which he and every one else will be judged.
ruclips.net/video/czG0IjKcer8/видео.html
Judged, sure. Just not condemned for anyone in Christ.
@@florida8953 Matthew 25 my man. He will judge you according to His law. And the consequences of that perfect judgment isn’t a walk in the park, but damnation.
@@EricAlHarb Yep. That’s law. Thanks be to Jesus Christ who fulfilled it all. Romans 8:1 my man.
@@florida8953 you realize that Romans 8:1 is conditional right?