Is Baptism a Requirement for Salvation?

[arrow1]

daniel1212

No, I would say the confusion is between initial salvation and abiding in Christ and remaining saved.

I would totally agree with you that we are saved by Grace alone, and by the blood of Jesus alone. The question is, how is one placed into the body of Christ (into the body of believers). No amount of good works or works of the law can put one "into Christ".

That being said, once we are saved, then by God's grace & the faith He gives us, we are now God's workmanship, created unto 'good' works that we should "walk" in them. Eph 2:10

(As for regeneration preceding justification)
I must haved missed that one, I don't recall where that was posted?

More of the confusion is that people from the Faith Alone side of the fence consider baptism to be a work, so it makes it difficult to refute their arguments when in a way we are not even speaking the same language.

For example, you just quoted Titus 3:5 above. I see that it plainly says God saved us, not because of works, but by His mercy, He saved us through the laver of regeneration(water baptism) and the renewal of the HS.


The attempt to make a distinction between "works of the law" versus "works of faith"

Above, you quoted Acts 15:7-9, well take a look at verses 5&6 just before. Again, they are making the distinction of obeying the law of Moses vs faith in Jesus.

[Cheshire Cat]

Arrow1,

Thank you for your more intensive reply. I found it a helpful explanation of your views. But your soteriology still seems mistaken to me. Your first concern is that Paul did not employ the specific word “alone” in his treatment of faith and justification. This, however, is a false expectation and, in fact, is a double-edged sword that can be used against your own understanding of baptismal regeneration were it in fact accepted. That it is a false expectation is clear just by virtue of the fact that the modality of certain expressions, claims, propositions, and concepts contain limitations, even singularly explicit limitations, without the need to actively construct limitations through the use of such qualifiers as “only.” For example, if I request someone’s services to have, say, some cabinets painted red, I need just specify that “I want the cabinets painted red,” even though it could equally be said that I want the cabinets painted red “only.” Why is the qualifier “only” redundant in such a case? Because were the painter to use blue paint, or yellow, or green, or purple, or any other color other than red he would by definition not use what was stipulated (red). Similarly when Paul states in one place that we are saved through faith not of works, and in yet another place demonstrates using the example of Abraham and circumcision that we are justified by faith without undergoing any additional acts which may otherwise be said to justify (even if the additional acts are conditional upon having faith first), Paul is inherently limiting justification (as understood as the point one initially receives salvation) to faith alone.

But as I said, even were we to accept the requirement for the word “only” to designate the sufficient and necessary condition for when someone receives salvation, baptismal regeneration itself fails to be vindicated. For precisely which verse is it that tells us baptism “alone” is the point of justification? Perhaps, someone may then wish to argue, we ought to extend our understanding of justification outward to include some other ubiquitous work, like prayer, or communion, or worship in the assembly, or fellowship with the saints...? Why stop with baptism? You see, if I’m to take seriously the baptismal regenerationist’s appeal to Paul’s nonuse of “only” in relation to justification by faith, then he or she would have to show how the following is not logical: If water baptism does not need the word “only” associated with it and salvation in order to designate it as the sufficient and necessary condition for salvation, then neither does faith; alternatively, if justification by faith alone does need the qualifier “alone” to express faith as the necessary and sufficient condition for salvation, then so does water baptism.

You cite James as evidence that justification does not come by “faith alone.” I do not think your solution is viable, however. Harmonizing James and Paul, requires understanding two things: James and Paul are addressing different issues, and are using a couple of different senses of justification in the process. Paul is responding to legalism; James is combating a form of antinomianism. James is looking at justification and works with salvation in hindsight, while Paul is looking at justification and works with salvation considered in foresight. Consequently, it helps knowing the socio-cultural concept of totality James is speaking from, which saw any genuine disposition or position as naturally working itself out (pardon the pun) in tangible ways. We westerners still hold to such a notion in many ways when it comes to love and works, however we may perceive faith and works. You can find a discussion of this and the relevant scholarship here. The sense of justification that captures James’ focus is primarily that in which a judge would render a person righteous based upon some tangible evidence. This is clear when in verse 21 of chapter 2 James speaks of Abraham being deemed righteous due to his offering of Isaac, while nevertheless acknowledging the justification spoken of in Genesis 15.6 (v. 23). Furthermore the clarification (“you see”) of verse 21 in 22 shows that James is speaking about faith ultimately resulting in works. There is no claim here that Genesis 15.6 was not true when it was spoken, rather the idea is that it was proven true by what occurred in Genesis 22. What is said in verse 24 must be handled with care because the sacramentalist and baptismal regenerationist arguments rely upon spurious grammatical foundation: the modification of a substantive by an adverb (alone -> faith). More likely is that it modifies that implied verb “justified” so that James is saying that a man is justified by works and not only by faith. More grammatically sound, it is also consistent with what we have said about Paul and James speaking of a couple of different senses of justification.

Finally, it still seems to me that Moo’s remarks quoted previously answer your continued desire to see Paul’s ideas of justification against works refer only to those that that are inappropriately performed for justification.

[arrow1]

First of all, there are different aspects of salvation.

I can say that I am saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved on the day of Judgement. Paul speaks of salvation in different tenses, past, present, and future.

Jesus said, he who endures to the end will be saved.

Peter said, baptism now saves you.

Paul said, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

Your thought that Paul argued Abraham was justified by faith without having to do any "additional works" like circumcision
Gen 15, is true, but was not he also justified in Gen 12 when he obeyed and went to Canaan(see also Heb 11:8) and then again when he offered his son Isaac.

Our discussion in this thread however, is really about initial salvation and is baptism required.

I never made the assertion that baptism alone is the necessary and all sufficient condition for salvation. Faith, belief, repentance & baptism are all necessary.

The last thing Jesus said before he went back to heaven was "go make disciples, baptizing them". The first four words out of Peter's mouth at his pentecost sermon when answering his audience were "repent and be baptized".
The word faith is not even mentioned in the entire sermon Peter gave. If faith alone was the number one, all important, all encompassing aspect of the new birth, surely Peter would have made that crystal clear in his first sermon.


If baptism is just a symbol that represents something, what exactly is the verse that says that? I cannot seem to find it.


I guess one question I would like to ask is this. I assume you believe in following the Bible Alone. If that is true, and the Bible is our only example, accordiing to scripture in every single conversion story, without exception, baptism immediately follows saving faith.
But in your personal life as a Christian, isn't it true that in every conversion you have either witnessed or heard of, that water baptism followed a few days, or a week or a month or sometimes a year later. So on that, why is it you do not follow the Bible Alone?

[arrow1]

(cheshire cat said)
Furthermore the clarification (“you see”) of verse 21 in 22 shows that James is speaking about faith ultimately resulting in works.

Exactly the point! No one is arguing that first someone performs a bunch of good works, and then through faith and baptism they get saved. We are simply saying, you are saved by Grace Alone through the blood of Jesus alone. But once saved, if there is no evidence of good works in that persons life, are they still saved?

I hope you would admit that they are not. So, ultimately you need faith and works to be saved, don't you?

[arrow1]

(Chris D)
It was argued at my blog that in The Shepherd of Hermas we find evidence that water baptism leads to regeneration. I have discovered that this is a false claim, one made by those baptismal regenerists who in a desperate search for early evidence of their view do not actually read the work cited.


You are quite mistaken and have not interpreted Hermas correctly.

SIMILTUDE 9

88. He therefore filled up the spaces of those stones, and commanded the place about the tower to be (cleansed).
89. Then those virgins took brooms of twigs and (cleansed) all the place around and took away all the rubbish, and (threw water on). When this was done, the place became delightful, and the tower beauteous.

151. It was necessary, he said, for them to (ascend by water) so they might be at rest. For they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by laying aside the mortality of their former life.
152. Even though they were dead, they were nevertheless sealed with the seal of the Son of God, and so entered into the kingdom of God.
153. For before a man receives the name of the Son of God, he is ordained to death; (but when he receives that seal), he is freed from death and assigned to life.
154. (Now that seal is the water of baptism) into which men go down under the obligation to death, but come up appointed to life.
155. For that reason, to those also was this seal preached, and they made use of it so they might enter the kingdom of God.

165. But first, Sir, I said, seeing these mountains are so different, show me how have they conformed into the building of this tower, and been brought to one color, and are no less bright than those that came out of the deep?
166. Because, he replied, all the nations which are under heaven have heard and believed in the same one name of the Son of God by whom they are called.
167. (So having received his seal), they have all been made partakers of the same understanding and knowledge; and their faith and charity have been the same, and they have carried the spirits of these virgins together with his name.

Clearly he associates water baptism with recieving the seal of appointment unto life. All the stones in the tower were washed with water by the virgins and made clean and made the whole tower beautiful.

[Chris D]

(Chris D)
It was argued at my blog that in The Shepherd of Hermas we find evidence that water baptism leads to regeneration. I have discovered that this is a false claim, one made by those baptismal regenerists who in a desperate search for early evidence of their view do not actually read the work cited.


You are quite mistaken and have not interpreted Hermas correctly.

SIMILTUDE 9

88. He therefore filled up the spaces of those stones, and commanded the place about the tower to be (cleansed).
89. Then those virgins took brooms of twigs and (cleansed) all the place around and took away all the rubbish, and (threw water on). When this was done, the place became delightful, and the tower beauteous.

151. It was necessary, he said, for them to (ascend by water) so they might be at rest. For they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by laying aside the mortality of their former life.
152. Even though they were dead, they were nevertheless sealed with the seal of the Son of God, and so entered into the kingdom of God.
153. For before a man receives the name of the Son of God, he is ordained to death; (but when he receives that seal), he is freed from death and assigned to life.
154. (Now that seal is the water of baptism) into which men go down under the obligation to death, but come up appointed to life.
155. For that reason, to those also was this seal preached, and they made use of it so they might enter the kingdom of God.

165. But first, Sir, I said, seeing these mountains are so different, show me how have they conformed into the building of this tower, and been brought to one color, and are no less bright than those that came out of the deep?
166. Because, he replied, all the nations which are under heaven have heard and believed in the same one name of the Son of God by whom they are called.
167. (So having received his seal), they have all been made partakers of the same understanding and knowledge; and their faith and charity have been the same, and they have carried the spirits of these virgins together with his name.

Clearly he associates water baptism with recieving the seal of appointment unto life. All the stones in the tower were washed with water by the virgins and made clean and made the whole tower beautiful.

I encourage you to read the passage in its context. After the forty stones, the remaining stones from the mountains are not placed into, or brought up out of, the water. Plain and simple.

[Cheshire Cat]

Arrow 1,

I don’t know that you are understanding the argument I’ve advanced. From the beginning I have argued for an incorporational understanding of the role of faith, salvation, and baptism (cf. post #5), that is within the missionary context of Acts and the New Testament. That certain texts reflect this context has not been debated — by me at any rate. So pointing to them demonstrates nothing by itself.

What has been under discussion, as far as my involvement is concerned anyway, is if an ex opere operato of salvation and baptism can be inferred from this fact. And it cannot. Paul’s remarks that I have previously discussed at length demonstrate just the opposite of such an idea. The qualification of 1 Peter’s author about how “baptism saves” demonstrates the same — salvation not by the rite itself, but the appeal within. This absence of an ex opere operato understanding of the rite and salvation is precisely what allows one to say that in the case and context where one experiences faith outside the confines of baptism, it is enough for salvation then and there. Although anyone who has received salvation will likewise want to undergo baptism as contingencies permit, they need not wait to experience the rite to feel as though they have been placed into Christ’s body. Is it necessary what follows this initial reception of salvation be followed by works, be it baptism, prayer, evangelism, and so forth? Yes, but this issue of sanctification, or keeping/maintaining this salvation, is another question, the answer of which is in part determined by one’s overarching soteriology (i.e. Calvinism, Arminianism, etc.) — a whole ‘nother discussion that is beyond the purview of this discussion. The debate is whether baptism is a prerequisite for salvation.

Regarding Abraham’s justification, this is the second time you have implied that he required works to receive the justification spoken about in Gen. 15.6, and it is the second time I shall answer your misunderstanding: Justification is a covenant concept, and before Genesis 15 the Abrahamic covenant had not been established. Surely we can admit that the hypothetical question whether or not Abraham would have required works to be considered justified by God had the covenant been established before Gen. 15, say Gen. 12 instead, is going to be answered by how we already answer the question. Either way, it is pure speculation. What isn’t speculation is that when the covenant was in fact being established in Genesis 15 is when Abraham was declared righteous, having done no works of that covenant, namely circumcision.

You then say,

I never made the assertion that baptism alone is the necessary and all sufficient condition for salvation. Faith, belief, repentance & baptism are all necessary.

Assuming you say this in response to my point against the need for faith to be qualified by the word “only” or “alone,” then you have merely evaded the point. My point is not that you think baptism by itself accomplishes anything (i.e. that it is not accompanied by repentance), I already know you don’t believe this. The point is that if a qualifier needs to be used of faith to establish that it is the sufficient and necessary condition for salvation such that nothing else could be said to have the same properties, then the same applies to water baptism.

You then write in response to my exegesis on James,

Exactly the point! No one is arguing that first someone performs a bunch of good works, and then through faith and baptism they get saved. We are simply saying, you are saved by Grace Alone through the blood of Jesus alone. But once saved, if there is no evidence of good works in that persons life, are they still saved?

As I understand it you have said quite a bit more than this; namely, you have defended the notion originally rebutted by the OP: baptism is a prerequisite for salvation. The exegesis I have highlighted gives no support for such an idea, in James or elsewhere.

Finally, you ask,

I assume you believe in following the Bible Alone. If that is true, and the Bible is our only example, accordiing to scripture in every single conversion story, without exception, baptism immediately follows saving faith.
But in your personal life as a Christian, isn't it true that in every conversion you have either witnessed or heard of, that water baptism followed a few days, or a week or a month or sometimes a year later. So on that, why is it you do not follow the Bible Alone?

No dispute here about the authority of Scripture. And the matter of conformity to the early church is an issue in itself. In short, I will just say that most of us in the Christianized West do not live in the missionary context of Acts. For many (most?) of us, I think, committal does not seize us upon the words of some missionary making an alter call, where faith and baptism can be telescoped into one event. Rather, if we grow up within some Christian tradition (and we are not baptized) conversion can be a very slow and/or long process, so that saying precisely where and when real faith fully blossoms is hard to pin down with reference to when baptism in fact occurs. Consequently, exact conformity to early church practice is harder to come by and perhaps is simply unattainable if only because the our contexts are helplessly different.

[Chris D]

I encourage you to read the passage in its context. After the forty stones, the remaining stones from the mountains are not placed into, or brought up out of, the water. Plain and simple.

If you read the passage in question in its context, you'll come across this chapter:

"Explain to me a little further, sir," I said. "What is it that you desire?" he asked. "Why, sir," I said, "did these stones ascend out of the pit, and be applied to the building of the tower, after having borne these spirits? "They were obliged," he answered, "to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God. Accordingly, those also who fell asleep received the seal of the Son of God. For," he continued, "before a man bears the name of the Son of God s he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God." "Why, sir," I asked, "did the forty stones also ascend with them out of the pit, having already received the seal?" "Because," he said, "these apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after falling asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached it not only to those who were asleep, but themselves also gave them the seal of the preaching. Accordingly they descended with them into the water, and again ascended. [But these descended alive and rose up again alive; whereas they who had previously fallen asleep descended dead, but rose up again alive. ] By these, then, were they quickened and made to know the name of the Son of God. For this reason also did they ascend with them, and were fitted along with them into the building of the tower, and, untouched by the chisel, were built in along with them. For they slept in righteousness and in great purity, but only they had not this seal. You have accordingly the explanation of these also."

You see, the author asks why the forty stones, representing the apostles and teachers, descended into the water having already received the seal. The Shepherd explains that it was so the generations of righteous before Christ, having "slept in righteousness and great purity [but having lacked] this seal," would also receive "the seal of the preaching [of faith of the Son of God." The "seal," then, is faith in Christ--a seal the forty already bore before descending into the water--and the forty descend into water--death--in order to preach the Son to the dead. The author continues to inquire:

"I understand, sir," I replied. "Now, sir," I continued, "explain to me, with respect to the mountains, why their forms are various and diverse."

"Listen," he said: "these mountains are the twelve tribes, which inhabit the whole world. The Son of God, accordingly, was preached unto them by the apostles." "But why are the mountains of various kinds, some having one form, and others another? Explain that to me, sir." "Listen," he answered: "these twelve tribes that inhabit the whole world are twelve nations. And they vary in prudence and understanding. As numerous, then, as are the varieties of the mountains which you saw, are also the diversities of mind and understanding among these nations. And I will explain to you the actions of each one." "First, sir," I said, "explain this: why, when the mountains are so diverse, their stones, when placed in the building, became one colour, shining like those also that had ascended out of the pit." "Because," he said, "all the nations that dwell under heaven were called by hearing and believing upon the name of the Son of God. Having, therefore, received the seal, they had one understanding and one mind; and their faith became one, and their love one, and with the name they bore also the spirits of the virgins. On this account the building of the tower became of one colour, bright as the sun. But after they had entered into the same place, and became one body, certain of these defiled themselves, and were expelled from the race of the righteous, and became again what they were before, or rather worse."

You see, the author contrasts the stones from the mountains with those "that had ascended out of the pit" (which is the water). These stones from the mountain, "hearing and believing upon the name of the Son of God," therefore receive the seal--which we saw earlier is faith in the Son of God, preached by the fallen apostles already having bore that seal to those who had died before Christ and thus lacked the seal. The seal is not water baptism; after all, the dead before Christ could not be water baptized in death! The seal is faith in the Son of God, and the reason the stones from the mountains do not descend into the water and rise out of it is because only the apostles needed to, in order to preach the seal of faith to the righteous fallen.

[arrow1]

154. (Now that seal is the water of baptism) into which men go down under the obligation to death, but come up appointed to life.

167. (So having received his seal), they have all been made partakers of the same understanding and knowledge

in 154 & 167 are they not talking of the same seal?

You said the seal is not water baptism, yet in 154 he says exactly the opposite.


(The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God)
Isn't the above paragraph which you highlight in blue, say that the seal is the water, and that this seal(water) was preached that they might enter the kingdom of God.
To me it sounds like they preached water baptism to gain heaven,
at least in that verse!


You said the dead before Christ can't be baptized dead.
(Could he possibly be referring to a form of purgatory, that way the dead before Christ could be baptized.) I am just guessing on that!


It is my understanding that the reason the tower is built above the water is to symbolize that the Church is built upon the waters of baptism. Jesus is the gate, and the virgins(the holy spirit) are to bring the stones through the gate and then place in the tower(the Church) There is an awful lot of symolism in this vision. But doesn't it say the seal was preached to the mountains? If water baptism is the seal, then were not the mountains baptized somewhere along the way?

[MichaelB]

(to Michael D & Chesire cat_



Did the apostle Paul teach justification by faith alone? If so, why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase "faith alone" anywhere in his New Testament writings? St. Paul used the word faith over two hundred times in the New Testament, but not once did he couple it with the words "alone" or "only." What would have stopped him from such an important addition if the solitude of faith in regard to justification was at the forefront of his mind?

This is just too rich. Have you ever read the book of Romans? How about chapter 4?

Romans 4:1-8
What then shall we say was gained by [1] Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 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, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”


So, you have faith and works. If you remove the works, what remains? FAITH ALONE.

[Chris D]

154. (Now that seal is the water of baptism) into which men go down under the obligation to death, but come up appointed to life.

This is a bit dishonest. The text does not say "the water of baptism," it says "the seal is the water." Just be careful.

167. (So having received his seal), they have all been made partakers of the same understanding and knowledge

in 154 & 167 are they not talking of the same seal?

You said the seal is not water baptism, yet in 154 he says exactly the opposite.


(The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God)
Isn't the above paragraph which you highlight in blue, say that the seal is the water, and that this seal(water) was preached that they might enter the kingdom of God.
To me it sounds like they preached water baptism to gain heaven,
at least in that verse!


You said the dead before Christ can't be baptized dead.
(Could he possibly be referring to a form of purgatory, that way the dead before Christ could be baptized.) I am just guessing on that!


It is my understanding that the reason the tower is built above the water is to symbolize that the Church is built upon the waters of baptism. Jesus is the gate, and the virgins(the holy spirit) are to bring the stones through the gate and then place in the tower(the Church) There is an awful lot of symolism in this vision. But doesn't it say the seal was preached to the mountains? If water baptism is the seal, then were not the mountains baptized somewhere along the way?

Water baptism cannot be the seal. Look what the text says: "'Wherefore, Sir,' say I, 'did the forty stones also come up with them from the deep, though they had already received the seal?'...Therefore they went down with them into the water, and came up again. But these went down alive [and again came up alive]; whereas the others that had fallen asleep before them went down dead and came up alive." Do you see? The forty stones are already alive before going down into the water, and hence, as the author's question indicates, they already bore the seal. The water here cannot be water baptism.

Besides, as the vision records, "And after these came up other forty stones. and these all were put into the building of the tower. So four rows were made in the foundations of the tower. And (the stones) ceased coming up from the deep." The stones from the mountains do not go into the water.

[arrow1]

chris d

As to verse 154 of the Shepherd, I simply found an English translation and copied it word for word, so if the full phrase "water baptism" should not be there, I was unaware.

So in your opinion, if the tower is the church, Jesus is the gate, the virgins represent the HS, what is the deep water at the foot of the tower represent?

[Chris D]

chris d

As to verse 154 of the Shepherd, I simply found an English translation and copied it word for word, so if the full phrase "water baptism" should not be there, I was unaware.

So in your opinion, if the tower is the church, Jesus is the gate, the virgins represent the HS, what is the deep water at the foot of the tower represent?

I have no clue, and don't really care all that much, since it is not Scripture and thus not authoritative. Still, what is clear is that only the first four generations of stones come up from the water, the last generation of which goes down having already been given the seal, which they then preach to the previous generations of righteous dead. The rest of the stones from the mountains--both those which are subsequently removed, and those that remain in the tower--never go down into the water, since only the apostles are said to have preached the seal to those who died before the time of Christ.

[arrow1]

response to MichaelB

I suppose part of my query into why you never see the word alone attached to the word faith, is because so often in these debates, 100 verses are quoted where the word faith is present and not the word baptism, implying its lack of importance or the idea of faith alone is what is meant, which really proves nothing either pro or con.
Many of these quotes are often unfair, for example Acts 16:31. Well, we really don't know if baptism was mentioned or not, because in verse 32 the phrase "spoke the word of the Lord" may or may not have. My thinking is that it must have logically, or why else would the Jailer have been baptized "immediately".

As to Romans 4:6, if taken in context, notice how in verses 9-12 the word circumcised(or un) is used 9 times. Then in verse 13 he says it was not through LAW that he was declared righteous, and goes on to use word law again 3 more times. So clearly he is contrasting faith and the Jewish law, so "works" in context of chapter 4 is obvioulsy referring to works of the law specifically.

[MichaelB]

response to MichaelB

I suppose part of my query into why you never see the word alone attached to the word faith, is because so often in these debates, 100 verses are quoted where the word faith is present and not the word baptism, implying its lack of importance or the idea of faith alone is what is meant, which really proves nothing either pro or con.
Many of these quotes are often unfair, for example Acts 16:31. Well, we really don't know if baptism was mentioned or not, because in verse 32 the phrase "spoke the word of the Lord" may or may not have. My thinking is that it must have logically, or why else would the Jailer have been baptized "immediately".

As to Romans 4:6, if taken in context, notice how in verses 9-12 the word circumcised(or un) is used 9 times. Then in verse 13 he says it was not through LAW that he was declared righteous, and goes on to use word law again 3 more times. So clearly he is contrasting faith and the Jewish law, so "works" in context of chapter 4 is obvioulsy referring to works of the law specifically.

Listen carefully Terry:

I find it frustrating when I take the time to respond to your assertions and you fail to either take the time to read them or you just flatly ignore them. Now take the opportunity now to read what I actually say so that you might put aside arguments that have long since been refuted.

Paul utilizes Abraham for his example of what it means to be justified before God. Note that Abraham's justification occured prior to the establishment/delivery of the Mosaic law. His justification occured before his faith was tested on the mountain. His justification was by faith apart from not just works of the Law, but any works whatsoever. Furthermore, the Apostle includes Gentiles into the dialogue in the last portion of chapter 3 (Rom 3:28-30). Gentiles were never under the Mosaic Law. Therefore, because of Paul's inclusion of the Gentiles, the Mosaic Law cannot be in view in Romans 4:1-8. Thirdly, Paul wrote with conviction under the divine revelation and inspiration of God Almighty. If he did not write the phrase "works of the Law" and instead utilized only the word "works" repeatedly, that is indeed what he meant.

Therefore, your argument is hereby refuted. The bankruptcy of your position must be acknowledged for what it is; another gospel.