That's because Abraham didn't live under the law of works(Mosaic Law)--rather, Abraham lived under the gospel of Jesus Christ--the same gospel Paul was attempting to bring to the Jews--and they rejected, in lieu of the Mosaic Law. Yet--all the time running to "father Abraham" to claim their elite status. I thought Paul's point here was genius, but much misunderstood by the critics.
David lived under the works Paul referred to:
1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,"-----(Mosaic law)
So--if the critics here want to use Romans4 as scripture to justify faith alone theology--could they please explain to us the preceding verses found in Romans2?
Romans 2:5-11---King James Version
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good,to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
For me--if Paul's reasoning is used to promote faith alone theology in Romans 4--then Romans 2 is false. There is a fly in the soup, when Romans4 is used as the critics here claim.
And it doesn't end there:
1 Corinthians 7:19---King James Version
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Paul--dividing the works of the law--from the gospel.
Anyone care to explain that?