Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 5
Paul’s “three different kinds of works” distinction (works of the Law; godly works before initial salvation; godly works after initial salvation) is central to the argument—how does that framework clarify what Paul can and cannot be denying in Romans 4:2, and what common Christian conversations does it expose as confused?
Another way to ask: How does Paul’s idea of different kinds of works (works of the Law, good works before salvation, good works after salvation) help explain what he is and isn’t denying in Romans 4:2? What common church debates does this show are mixed up?

Direct Answer The transcript’s framework clarifies that Romans 4:2 cannot be read as denying the value of all works, especially post-salvation godly works, because Paul already taught those matter for “ultimate salvation.” It exposes confusion when Christians lump together circumcision and rituals with genuine obedience and fruit.

Support from Transcript:

  • The teacher distinguishes three categories: “Works of the Law… circumcision, animal sacrifices, and dietary regulations,” plus “godly works done before” and “after our initial salvation.”
  • He says Romans 2 “explicitly stated that our ultimate salvation depends upon our fruit or godly works after our initial salvation.”
  • Therefore Paul “can hardly be saying in chapter 4 that these bring us no glory before God.”
  • Jesus commands good works that “glorify your Father” (Matt 5:16), showing such works are not treated as negative.
  • Conclusion: in Rom 4:2 Paul “must be speaking about either the works of the law or… works done before our initial salvation.”
Discussion Follow-ups In your experience, do Christians use “works” as a single bucket word? How would church conversations change if people routinely asked, “Which kind of works do you mean?”

Jumpstarter 5 of 10
Back Questions Next