This does not explain the context. Why can you not walk me through the context as you see it?
Because to do so tacitly accepts your premise.
The verse means what it says. All anyone has to do is read it. It isn't written in code. It isn't hard to understand or to follow Paul's point. Paul didn't use any big words that any normal 3rd grade child wouldn't be able to fully understand. It's just written in plain, easy to understand language that only requires that it be read to be understood.
I agree Paul's is making a point by using Abraham as an example but I suggest it's not the point you see.
I do not need your help to read and understand it. If you think it means something other than what it flatly states then you're the one with the reading comprehension problem, not me.
More importantly, the passages is so clear that the only reason anyone might think it means something other than what it plainly states is if they bring their doctrine to it and allow their doctrine to dictate the meaning of scripture rather than allowing scripture to do the dictating.
The context is by faith apart from works of the law He is laying the ground work for his Abraham example. The works he is talking about is works"of the law".
Stupidity.
How many centuries was circumcision instituted before the Law was given to Moses? It's something like 430 years I think. (Galatians 3:17)
Further, the first covenant God made with Abraham was in Genesis 15 where it states bluntly, "And he [Abraham] believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness." There was no action Abraham had taken at that point and in the next few verses where God literally "cut a deal" with him, Abraham wasn't even conscious!
Abraham was declared rigteous, not because he obeyed but because he believed - period.
He is not talking about just ANY works but works of the law of Moses.
So says your doctrine. Not that it would matter anyway because there is no list of dos and don'ts that would be superior to the law. Guess where we learn that from - it might be the Apostle Paul! (Gal. 3:21)
You want to pretend that the law of Moses was simply replaced with a superior law! It wasn't! The Law of Christ is not some set of rules that we must obey in order to be saved! That's so completely wrong that's it's nearly blasphemous! If that were the case then why didn't God just give the Law of Christ to Moses to begin with and save His Son from a gruesomely painful execution, not to mention separation from the Father?!
Abraham was not under them that's why he says 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works Again he laid the ground work before calling the law of Moses a law of works. in 3:27 By what kind of law? By a law of works? That is the context.
The Jews were relying on being circumcised and having the law. 2:17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God
Paul's point is Abraham was found righteous outside of circumcision and the law. 4:10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
Those are the works he is talking about.
Abraham was unconscious when God made His covenant with Abraham and prior to that Abraham had done nothing at all other than simply believe it when God said that he would have an heir from his own body.
The law was centuries away and there were no works involved of any sort, other than the work of God Himself. No command to obey, no nothing other than "And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness."
Up to chapter 11 Paul is explaining to the Jews they are not under law.
7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
That is the context.
And it does nothing but prove MY DOCTRINE!!!!!!
Which of course you will disagree with and think it proves yours!
That's precisely the reason your way of doing doctrine is entirely useless and a total waste of time in any discussion of this sort.
What you legalists think is context, is nothing at all but a rationalization of your preconceived doctrine. What you want is to think that you play some role in your salvation beyond merely accepting it as a free gift and you will turn anything upside down and backwards in order to prevent yourself from SOUNDING like your condoning sin so that grace may abound. - A point I made in my last post which you completely ignored.
If you won't walk me through how you see the context, go ahead and put me on ignore.
It has been my years long policy to instantly put anyone on my PERMANENT ignore list if they ever dare me to do so.
You'll be my first and probably only exception because I don't think that you're trying to be a jerk.
Don't push it again or will indeed find yourself discussing this and anything else with anyone else other than me.
I'll probably just quit because you are the main one I valued talking to.
Instead of quitting why don't you try to understand why I'm saying what I'm saying?
Have you EVER encountered ANYONE - EVER - that was able to discuss this topic at this level with you who openly refused to discuss the context?
I'm here to tell you that your way of doing doctrine is useless. Well, not useless but very nearly so. It's great for teaching someone else YOUR doctrine but it's entirely useless for giving someone the tools needed to read the bible and learn doctrine for themselves. All your way of doing things accomplishes is perpetuating your own doctrine. It does NOT prove your doctrine is right nor can it because the premises upon which it is built is your doctrine! The proof of this is that those who disagree with do exactly the same sort of thing you do but end up with conflicting conclusions and you can bang heads together until everyone is bloody and half conscious and neither side will have moved an inch toward being convinced away from what they believed before the head-butting started. If this website is anything, it is proof of that!
There is a superior way that you haven't come within a mile of seeing yet.
Clete
