Does Romans Teach Justification by Faith apart from Works?

Рет қаралды 4,385

Күн бұрын

store.catholicp...
In this short video, Gary Michuta describes the debate he had with Jeff Kliewer over the topic of Justification by Faith apart from Works in the book of Romans. The full recording of which can be found at store.catholicproductions.com/gary-michuta/.

Пікірлер: 21

@rodrigofernandes5242 10 ай бұрын

Thank you very much for this video, Gary. That short video was one of the clearest and objectives about the subject of justification.

@pete3397 4 ай бұрын

Short answer: Yes, it does. That does not mean that we are not called to do good works and that good works are required of believers, it just means that justification is not our work, but is the work entirely of Jesus Christ.

@DirectHitsLLC 9 жыл бұрын

I agree with Jeff that the rebuttal did not refute Paul's teaching to the Romans that salvation is by faith and not works. The Catholic scholar merely suggested that the law was only for the jews which is true but not very relative to the point that was made concerning Paul's letter to the Romans that their works would not save them. The letter was written to the Romans. If he was only concerned with Jewish law then why write to the Romans. Its very clear that he was teaching salvation by faith to gentile and jew alike. He simply mentioned works like Jewish laws to further his point not exclude gentiles.

@3leon306 3 жыл бұрын

Um, no. Your position makes no sense when you consider Romans itself that makes demands on behavior and even begins and ends Romans with the phrase “obedience of faith” ...

@soteriology400 3 ай бұрын

The initial point of salvation is not based on works at all (John 3:8). The works we do afterwards simply results in rewards (1 Corinthians 3:15).

@Hopmeister96 3 ай бұрын

Don’t Romans 2:21-23 and Romans 3:10-18 demonstrate that Paul is talking about more than ceremonies here? It seems plain in these passages leading up to Romans 3:28 that Paul is thinking about the moral aspect of the law, too. I don’t see anything in the text that would indicate that Paul for some reason has shifted his focus to only the ceremonial law all of a sudden when he gets to verse 28. I am open to understanding why I might be wrong.

@Baptist289 2 ай бұрын

Why did Paul condemn people who rely on circumcision or ceremonial law? Because they added into salvation.

@Midwestern1121 2 ай бұрын

When Paul speaks of “faith apart from works of the law”, he is not speaking of faith apart from a tangible incarnate love. That is to say that he is not drawing a cleavage between faith and the spirit of the Law which is love for God and neighbor, but rather, he is only differentiating between faith and the letter of the Law. It is absurd to take Paul as essentially saying: “Man is saved by Faith apart from charity”, especially given the fact that he clearly elevates charity as the greatest of all (1 Cor 13:13). That is to say that faith is operative, it’s incarnational, it’s not just a conceptual or mental construct of intellectual assent. Such a perversion of genuine faith is textbook Gnosticism. No, real faith has an operative moral dimension to it, it “works” through love, and according to the Apostle Paul, that’s all that matters (Gal 5:6). A true faith works through Love. Faith without love is not faith, faith without works is dead.

@joshnelson3344 7 ай бұрын

Wouldn’t the 10 commandments also be considered as part of the “works of the law”?

@pkmr5284 3 ай бұрын

I can't believe James 2:26 was not mentioned in this video.

@jeffkliewer7077 9 жыл бұрын

Hi Gary, Thanks for the kind remarks about me personally. I also enjoyed getting to know you and your family. Please know that I respect and appreciate you, especially for being willing to travel so far to talk about the book of Romans. That said, I don’t think that your assessment of the debate accords with what took place, at least from my perspective. In your Catholic Productions video, you seem to say that I left your Romans 3:28-29 question unanswered in our debate. You call it "a one verse take down". But the truth is that at 1:17:30 of our debate, you ask me about Romans 3:28 and following. I respond by pointing out that Paul is focusing on Jews every bit as much as Gentiles. I proceed to read the entire section from 3:28-31. I then establish the tie with Romans 2:1 and following, showing that it gives no advantage to the Jew for simply having the Law. I continued with the following, which directly answered your question and is available to objective viewers to determine if in fact you delivered "a one verse take down". I say, “It’s a pressing concern for Paul to show that Jews are not justified by the Law. That is a part of it. That’s why in the thesis, he says “to the Jew first and also to the Greek”. The thesis again is chapter 1, verses 16 and 17. So Paul will come back to making that argument. He’s trying to convince Jews to believe in Jesus and not trust in the works of the Law. But that, and I keep bringing this up, that is in no way Paul’s entire argument. In fact it fits within his argument. So, if you wanted to find out how 28-31 of chapter three fits in, you need to begin in 3:21 where he makes the change to talk about justification by faith and culminates then in verse 27. Which comes first: the works of the Law or the law of works? Well, what comes first: Chapter 3, verse 27 or chapter 3 verse 28? 27 comes first and so the larger principle here is “where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by a law of faith”. So the larger problem here is that NO WORK CAN GET YOU THERE, and that also includes Jews. Your works of the Law cannot get you there. And that I believe is Paul’s argument.” Gary, you then had the chance to challenge any exegesis that I had offered, but your rebuttal to my answer to your question did not seem to refute my exegesis at all. So, I’m sorry, but I do not think it is fair to characterize the debate as hinging on my inability to answer your Romans 3:28-29 question. In the end, it is up to the viewers to determine if you "took me down". And if it be at the "one verse" (Romans 3:29), let them watch it happen beginning at 1:17:30 of our debate, available on youtube by searching for our names. Secondly, in this your Catholic Productions video, you compare OUR agreed upon debate thesis to Martin Luther’s mistranslation of Romans 3:28. You say Jeff "had to alter the sacred text". Again, I do not think this is fair. First, when I called you, I was throwing out ideas about debating Roman Catholicism in general. You (I think wisely) suggested we narrow the topic down upon Romans, and unless my memory is completely failing, I seem to remember jotting down the debate idea that you threw out. Second, if the wording of the thesis did come from me, which I honestly do not know whether or not it did, who is to say that it is a deliberate shortening of Romans 3:28 so as to obfuscate the meaning of THAT verse? As you will notice from my Introduction, I cite 4 witnesses in Romans, none of which are Romans 3:28! 1. The nun (from nuni in 3:21) is an argument from the flow of the text. 2. The pope (Father Abraham) stresses “the man who does not work” in Romans 4:5, using Abraham, who came long before the works of the Law (Ceremonial or including the Moral). 3. The prophet (David) establishes my argument without reference to works of the Law, so I argue heavily from Romans 4:6. 4. The priest (Paul from 15:16) argues from silence with regard to Sacraments which Trent says are required for justification, giving anathema to those who differ with Trent. So, for you to say that the wording of the thesis (which in no way claims to be any kind of translation of Romans 3:28) exposed an error of mine, like unto a translation error by Luther, feels like a jab below the belt. Your criticism doesn’t speak at all to the 4 points I made to establish the thesis, but rather paints me as a careless handler of the text. I did not by any means frame the thesis to obfuscate the meaning of Romans 3:28. Rather we agreed upon a thesis that cuts to the heart of issue about which you and I disagree. So, I’m not angry or asking for an apology or anything. But I ask, just in the interest of fairness, please allow these written remarks to remain in the comments section of your video. This then can be yet another exchange within a larger debate that began in earnest almost 500 years ago and continues even to this day. I respect you and value your friendship, and if it is God’s will, maybe we can continue this all-important conversation in the future at another debate. Sincerely, Jeff

@adamhovey407 4 жыл бұрын

I've noticed, you focus a lot on Romans 3, but you ignore other chapters in Romans, do you know why? Because of this fun thing called confirmation bias, you've already come to the conclusion that Romans teaches justification by faith alone, it does no such thing, if it did Paul would not have stressed the importance of living a moral life. I just wrote an entire tract a few days ago, against the idea that we are saved by faith alone, trust me I know what I'm talking about, even looked up what it said in Greek. I used Protestant sources at that.

@Christ__is__King 3 жыл бұрын

@@adamhovey407 where can I find the tract you wrote on this subject? Thanks.

@docemeveritatum8550 4 жыл бұрын

Well done and much appreciated.

@dominiccanis406 4 жыл бұрын

Agree!

@allenmorgan4309 8 жыл бұрын

I agree completely. I have read the New Testament a lot and it is hard for me to understand how that anyone that is familiar with the writings of St. Paul can believe that our actions do not matter as far as salvation is concerned. He plainly states that if we live according to the desires of the flesh that we will die. From my understanding when Paul mentions the Law he is usually referring to the Torah. The revelation of Jesus Christ opened the door to all people both Jew and Gentiles. St. Paul teaches that the requirements of the Law were fulfilled in Christ. It was all of the ceremonial aspects of the Jewish religion that pointed to the coming of the Messiah which Christ fulfilled. Now we have died to the Law both the ceremonial aspects and to the condemnation that the Law brings because we have all sinned and stand condemned before God and Jesus Christ was the propitiation, the atoning sacrifice for our sins therefore the curse, the condemnation, of the Law was removed through His blood sacrifice. What is required of us as Christians is to believe in Christ's atoning sacrifice, His death burial and resurrection, and to follow His example in obedience to God which include being baptized, recieving communion, and living our life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles. If we do this, overcoming our sinnful nature, we are guranteed salvation; eternal life. That is the faith, that is the promise. I do not understand why there is so much confusion about it in the world. It is plainly recorded in the pages of the New Testament. I was confused for many years because churches would teach things that are contrary to the bible and I would get confused. In frustration I left church altogether. I have drifted in and out of many churches. All along I have not given up trying to overcome my carnal desires and attachments. I still don't know what to think of all of the conflicting arguments of the different churches.