February 21, 2010

  • Question 234 - The Meaning of Works of the Law, Part 3

    Dr. Sungenis,

     

    Thanks again for your time.  There are 3 things I wish to clear up about your last e-mail.

     

    First of all, you mentioned that faith was prescribed in the Mosaic Law.  You may be right, but I'd like to check that out for myself.  Can you sight some references?

     

    R. Sungenis: According to the commentary of the personages that occupied this time of history, faith was a primary element in their relationship with God. See Hebrews 11:23-31. The same faith that Noah and Abraham had (Hebrews 11:1-19), is attributed to Moses. There are many more such passages too numerous to list.

     

    Cliff: Also, you said there was a contradiction in the point of view I was expressing.  To clarify, the point of view was that when a person first believes the gospel and trusts in Christ, there and then, without any works of any kind, that person is right in the sight of God.  However, at some point in the future, at the last day, he will be judged by God according to his works.  At that point, due to the works the Spirit has produced in his life, he will be, in some sense, justified by his works.  Do you still see a contradiction in that?  If so, where?

     

    R. Sungenis: Yes, there remains a contradiction.

     

    First of all, you haven’t demonstrated that faith works separately from works in procuring justification. You have merely assumed that position.

     

    Second, if works can be judged and send someone to hell, why is your faith not judged on the same basis?

     

    Third, you say that “he will be judged by God according to his works” but that is not the issue. The disagreement concerns the result of that judgment. You are claiming that the judgment of works determines whether the person goes to heaven or hell. If that is the case, then his faith didn’t really justify him, otherwise his faith would make a judgment based on works superfluous. Your view seems to be that faith only gets one in the door, but immediately after walking through that door, his justification is now based on his works until he dies. In essence, your view of justification is works-based, not faith-based, since faith is eliminated as the only basis as soon as he walks through the door.

     

    You can’t cover over this anomaly by then saying “in some sense” he is justified by works, since there is only ONE TRUE sense that a person is justified. By using the qualifier “in some sense” you are showing that you see the contradiction and thus you are seeking some way to lessen the power of the judgment of works to actually justify the person. The upshot is this. If you want to believe in “faith alone” as that which justifies, then you cannot have a judgment of works that also justifies. Either faith is alone or it is not alone. You cannot have it both ways. If faith is not alone in justification, then you are on the Catholic side.

     

    Cliff: Finally, if I understood you correctly, you mentioned that "works of the law" excluded in Rom 3:28 must refer only to works in which people try to obligate God and that it does not refer to any other works.  As evidence to support this, you said that otherwise there would be contradiction in Scripture (which I don't see as I mentioned under point 2) and that Rom 4:4 speaks about grace and debt.  I don't honestly see how Rom 4:4 can be taken to imply that "works of the law" in 3:28 cannot refer to any works done under whatever motivation as long as they are according to something commanded in the Law of Moses.  I agree that we can infer from this passage that we don't earn salvation by putting God in debt, but I don't see how we can infer that this means that when Paul says "works of the law" he must be referring only to works done with a motivation to get God in debt.  Perhaps you can explain more what you are seeing in that passage that I'm not. 

     

    Wishing you well.

    Cliff

     

    R. Sungenis: I think you misunderstood me. I said that “works of the law” of Romans 3:28 referred to ANY work a man does to acquire justification. I think I even put “ANY” in capital letters to emphasize that point.

     

    What I then said was, since Scripture also says in various places that works are, indeed, required for justification (e.g., Romans 2:13; James 2:21-24), then this means that the “works of the law” in Romans 3-4 which cannot justify must be viewed differently from the works of Romans 3:28. The context tells us what the different view is. The difference is that the Jews were abusing the requirement to do works by claiming that when they worked God then owed them salvation. But if one wants to base his relationship to God on contract, then God will require that one fulfill the contract to the letter, and if one doesn’t do so, he will be condemned (see Galatians 3:10-11). The correct way would have been to do their works as Abraham and Moses did them, that is, by truly loving God and then doing work to please him, and without thinking in their heart that God was required to bless them for their work, especially since they were both sinners. When God sees this sincere belief and work, he blesses out of his good will. He never blesses because he owes someone, for God doesn’t owe anything to anyone (see Romans 11:35). Hence, we can never come to God on the basis that he owes us something. We must always come on the basis that we are sinners in need of repentance, and that anything we do for God can never demand payment. Salvation cannot be made into a business contract. It is a free gift from a personal God whom we have personally pleased with our faith and works.