Romans 4:5 and the JST

[aaronshaf]

In the English Standard Version, Romans 4:4-5 reads:

"Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness..."

Feel free to read it in any major English translation.

Apparently, Joseph Smith didn't like the idea of identifying grace with a sort of welfare system (as though it was freely given to the ungodly). In the JST it reads that we should trust him who justifies "not" the ungodly.

So here's the question: Why on earth did Smith do this? It hardly seems warranted, as Paul just labored in Romans 1-3 to show all men are ungodly (that being the very reason justification must be "by faith apart form works" (3:28). Really, read all three chapters leading up to 4:5. It flows really well. Smith's alteration seems to throw a wrench in the works.

In reality, justification of the ungodly by faith "apart from works" seems to be the whole point of Paul in the passage:

4:1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

Further reading:

http://www.aomin.org/Rom45.html

[All-American]

As long as we're rolling our brains around, I'll see your Major English translation and raise you in the original.

τῷ δὲ ἐργαζομένῳ ὁ μισθὸς οὐ λογίζεται κατὰ χάριν ἀλλὰ κατὰ ὀφείλημα: τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ, πιστεύοντι δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ, λογίζεται ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ εἰς δικαιοσύνην.

I could go through and explain every word to you if I felt like it. Suffice it to say, your erudition doesn't scare any of us-- we've seen it all before and more.

[bluegoose]

And I'll see your Hebrew and raise you a Russian and a Japanese:

Теперь до одно работает, его зарплаты не подсчитаны как подарок а как его должный. И до одно не работает а верит в ем оправдывает ungodly, его вера подсчитано как righteousness
働くかだれが今1 つに、彼の賃金はギフトとして彼の賦課金として数えられない。そして1 つに働かないが、不信心の正当化する彼を信じるかだれが、彼の信頼は正義として数えられる
So take that.

[aaronshaf]

Looking at the Greek just makes things worse: It shows how Smith got it absolutely wrong, and how he turned the passage upside down.

"Paul purposefully uses the exact same participial phrase in the two verses, only in verse five he uses the direct negation thereof. So it is plainly his intent to provide a black and white contrast between the two individuals presented in each verse. And why is this important? Because we find in these verses the clearest explication of what it means to work and, in contrast to that, to believe, in all of Paul's writings. The effort he puts into making that contrast as strong as possible answers many of the attempts by modern men to insert some kind of meritorious works into the doctrine of justification." - James White

[Sleeping in EQ]

If you read up on what the JST is and isn't you'd know that what you are pointing out is irrelevant.

Nevertheless, it's good to see that you're still engaging in circular reasoning, which is to say, no reasoning at all.

1. You believe "A"
2. You cite a scripture as the "reason" you believe "A"
3. All you've done is restate "A"

Are you able to get beyond this sort of proof texting nonsense?

[All-American]

That is insufficient rebuttal. You want me to believe that Joseph Smith's translation is wrong? Let me assure you, you are about five arguments behind on the game. First, don't bother giving me English-- not translation, not citation. Show me why the Greek can't be translated into what Joseph Smith gave. Once you've done that, THEN show me why Joseph Smith had no prophetic authority to correct the text if it gave an incorrect doctrine with a correct translation.

You are WAY behind on this game. Again, we've heard every argument you are giving us on the JST and we've long since arrived at conclusions that resolve any quasi-dillema you give us. Move along, please.

[Archaea]

Here is the German:

Dem aber, der mit Werken umgeht, wird der Lohn nicht aus Gnade zugerechnet, sondern aus Pflicht. b 5Dem aber, der nicht mit Werken umgeht, glaubt aber an den, der die Gottlosen gerecht macht, cdem wird sein Glaube gerechnet zur Gerechtigkeit.

a: Gal 3,6 b: Kap 11,6 c: Kap 3,26

6Wie ja auch David den Menschen seligpreist, dem Gott zurechnet die Gerechtigkeit ohne Zutun der Werke (Psalm 32,1-2):

[ute4ever]

Judas Priest, are you serious? Joseph Smith's divine restoration of that passage has been proven incorrect by the personal opinion of one James White, and thereafter sustained by all of the slackers who hope for an easier pathway to eternity?

Shocking.

[MikeWaters]

I will see your Greek, Hebrew, Russian, Japanese, and German and raise you with the king of languages: latin.

Ownay otay ethay oneway owhay orksway, ishay agesway areway
otnay ountedcay asway away iftgay utbay asway ishay ueday.
Andway otay ethay oneway owhay oesday otnay orkway utbay
elievesbay inway imhay owhay ustifiesjay ethay ungodlyway, ishay
aithfay isway ountedcay asway ighteousnessray

[bluegoose]

I think you mean pig latin, no?