I can get what you mean of faith that its system that it relied on was inadequate. I don’t take as relying on a system or what. Faith is not anything like that. It wasn’t in the time of Abraham, it wasn’t in the time of Moses, it wasn’t in the time of Christ.
Can I have your comment on this?
That the salvation of God was and is by grace through faith.
Sure. My claim is that faith operates in OT and NT through the systems that God has put in place in those respective times. In the OT the Law was in place. In the NT the Law is not in place.
The OT and NT are indeed "systems" through which faith operated. To say the "Law is not of faith" is not to say the Law did not operate through faith. It is only saying that the Law doesn't complete what faith was meant to complete, namely eternal life.
Paul defines "Faith" in lesser and greater senses, as I've been saying. He speaks of faith that operated under the Law, and of faith that Abraham operated in the OT period before the Law. Clearly, this is faith in a sense lesser than in the NT sense of faith having achieve eternal life through Christ.
But Paul also speaks of "faith coming" through Christ. This brings about eternal life for those who put their faith in him. In this sense, "faith has not yet come." Paul is defining "faith" in a unique way that is different from how he applied it to OT saints. You should recognize this, whether you agree with my overall argument that Paul uses "shortcuts" or not.
Again, "Faith," for Paul, is a short term for "faith that leads, through Christ, to eternal life." It is faith that is not short-circuited by the prohibitions and by the condemnation of the Law. Faith is not discouraged, nor disrupted, by the Law any longer once Christ has arrived and has provided his atonement for sins. In this sense, for Paul, "faith has arrived." It was not that faith did not exist prior to Christ, but only that using this greater definition of "faith," Faith, with a capital "F," has arrived.
The Law was a system that operated by faith but which could not complete faith. Faith for what? Faith, in context, was for the purpose of bringing about Israel's eternal promise, through the covenants that God provided.
The Law, as a system, could not provide that, and faith fell short of its goal. But in the NT, faith found its objective through Christ. Eternal life could be had through him. Faith arrived at its zenith through Christ, but not through the Law.
Well, we just repeat ourselves here. I already know your stand on that, that Paul really meant to say there that the law is not of faith in Christ. On the other hand I take that as Paul meaning to say exactly what is written, that the law is not of faith which in a positive tone is that the law is of works.
Yes, you simply reject my proposition that Paul uses "Faith" as an abbreviation, or shortcut, for "faith, by Christ, for eternal life." That's okay. You have to decide for yourself.
....I don’t agree that faith obtains a measure of justification.
Yes, I find often that brothers and sisters are leery of letting me speak my own words in place of the literal rendering of the Scriptures, and I understand that. Unfortunately, the literal rendering often requires explanation, in my experience.
But you have to have confidence within yourself--otherwise, it seems you're compromising the word of God. The only way to have confidence in what *I say* is to understand my argument, and see if it truly explains what Paul is saying.
This is the nature of language. The more arguments and theology built up around a particular biblical statement, the more difficult it is to extract in context what is being said.
I am just trying to show that law, faith, and word of God are not the same and are distinct from each other. They may be interrelated but they are distinct matters.
Tong
R1764
Well, yes, different words have different applications. You might say the Law is not the word of God anymore in the sense that the covenant undergirding the Law is no longer relevant. On the other hand, you can also say the Law was the word of God given to Israel. It's all about context.