Defining "the law" as used in New Testament

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Because the law written on the conscience only condemns or approves of your actions but does not CHANGE YOUR HEART to desire to do what is right!

HP: Agreed, but one should also note that even the heathen in some cases can do what is right.....however due to the fact that all have sinned no amount of proper behavior will atone for even the least of sins. Remember, according to Scripture, even the heathen can do the things contained in the law, again at least in ‘some’ measure.

DW: The New Covenant writes it upon your heart - MEANING - God gives you a heart for Him and His will that will respond to conscience correctly.

HP: Here is the rub. In one breath you seem to say man can do what the law requires yet in the next breath imply God has to do something to the heart for the conscience to respond correctly. Can the heathen who know not God do the things contained in the law or not? Consider the first commandment and then others such as ‘thou shalt not kill.”

DW: The law written on the conscience is sufficient to condemn but not to save. It is sufficient to demonstrate right and wrong in principle in regard to all ten commandments but not sufficient to give you a heart to seek God or obey His commandments.

HP: Before we progress to some of the issues you raise here, we first need to establish just what man even sinful is capable of doing. Can sinful man do the things contained in the law or not, even as a heathen? Do even the heathen possess the needed abilities to follow the law in at least some measure or do they have to wait around for God to regenerate them, granting them the ability to respond?

 

[Dr. Walter]

the lost person has no ability to do right in God's sight at all. So his best attempts to obey his conscience come short at least in motive. Hence, there is no measure at all. Paul speaking of the unregenerate - "there is none that doeth righteousness, no, NOT ONE."

Just because he is given light does not mean he obeys it. So there is no "rub."

God's standard of right permits Jesus to say, "There is none good but one and that is God."

HP: Agreed, but one should also note that even the heathen in some cases can do what is right.....however due to the fact that all have sinned no amount of proper behavior will atone for even the least of sins. Remember, according to Scripture, even the heathen can do the things contained in the law, again at least in ‘some’ measure.


HP: Here is the rub. In one breath you seem to say man can do what the law requires yet in the next breath imply God has to do something to the heart for the conscience to respond correctly. Can the heathen who know not God do the things contained in the law or not? Consider the first commandment and then others such as ‘thou shalt not kill.”


HP: Before we progress to some of the issues you raise here, we first need to establish just what man even sinful is capable of doing. Can sinful man do the things contained in the law or not, even as a heathen? Do even the heathen possess the needed abilities to follow the law in at least some measure or do they have to wait around for God to regenerate them, granting them the ability to respond?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: the lost person has no ability to do right in God's sight at all.....

HP: Is obedience to the law right? Ro 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Paul is dealing with two misperceptions in this context. The first is that lost people can escape judgement if they are better than other lost people. This is the thinking of some gentiles (vv. 1-5) and this is the mindset of the lost Jew (vv. 17-27).

The second misperception is that of the lost Jew in regard to the lost gentile. He believed his advantage over the gentile was that he had the law (vv. 17-20) and his obedience to the law would provide escape from judgement. However, Paul informs him that the gentile is just as good as the Jew if he keeps the law that God gives him. However, the reality of both misperceptions is that neither can and neither do and that is the precise conclusion that Paul draws concerning both in Romans 3:9-21.

So, if the Gentile keeps the law God gives him, he is better than the Jew who has God's law but does not keep it. But neither do.

HP: Is obedience to the law right? Ro 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

 

[Dr. Walter]

BTW this is the same argument further drawn out and applied to circumcision at the end of this chapter. The Jew's outward circumcision is no good if he does not keep the law. Therefore the Jew's circumcision does not make him any better than the Gentile as both are equally law breakers. However, IF the gentile obeys the law then his obedience would be counted as though he were circumcised.

Paul is not saying that either obey the law but he is demonstrating that the unregenerate Jew is no better than the unregenerate Gentile as both sin against the light they are given. If the Jew obeyed the law he would be more righteous than the unregenerate Gentile. However, if the gentile obeyed the law he has been given he would be more righteous than the circumcised law keeping Jew.

Paul is dealing with two misperceptions in this context. The first is that lost people can escape judgement if they are better than other lost people. This is the thinking of some gentiles (vv. 1-5) and this is the mindset of the lost Jew (vv. 17-27).

The second misperception is that of the lost Jew in regard to the lost gentile. He believed his advantage over the gentile was that he had the law (vv. 17-20) and his obedience to the law would provide escape from judgement. However, Paul informs him that the gentile is just as good as the Jew if he keeps the law that God gives him. However, the reality of both misperceptions is that neither can and neither do and that is the precise conclusion that Paul draws concerning both in Romans 3:9-21.

So, if the Gentile keeps the law God gives him, he is better than the Jew who has God's law but does not keep it. But neither do.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: So, if the Gentile keeps the law God gives him, he is better than the Jew who has God's law but does not keep it. But neither do.

HP: So the Scripture is in reality, according to you, untrue or misleading,due to the fact that the heathen do not, yea cannot, do the things contained in the law, correct?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Look at the context my friend. Read Romans 2:1-5 and note that in verse 1 he is describing someone who does not think they are as bad as those described in Romans 1:18-32 and thus they beleive they can "escape" the judgement based upon their perceived BETTERNESS or good works.

Read Romans 2:17-24 and you will see that the Jew wrongly wrongly thought they (1) kept the law; and (2) they had an advantage over the gentile because they had the law.

Any conclusion that you draw which is different or contradictory to the conclusion Paul draws in Romans 3:9-11 is wrong and that is precisely the kind of conclusion you are trying to draw. Look at Romans 3:9.

He argues down the same line with Romans 3:25-29 in regard to circumcision. The Jew thought they were better than the gentile because they kept the law of circumcision but Paul informs them that it profts them nothing if they don't keep the whole law as James points out to fail in ONE POINT is to fail ALL POINTS, therefore to keep the law is to keep ALL POINTS and fail in not "ONE POINT."

In contrast, he argues that if the Gentile obeys the law (all points just as required by the Jew) given him then he is regarded by God as circumcised without being outwardly circumcised. In reality neither the Jew or the gentile keep either law but violate it as keeping it requires keeping all points by the Gentile as much as by the Jew.

Again, if you interpret these verses to contradict Paul's own conclusion in Romans 3:9 then it is obvious who is wrong and it is not Paul.

HP: So the Scripture is in reality, according to you, untrue or misleading,due to the fact that the heathen do not, yea cannot, do the things contained in the law, correct?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: In contrast, he argues that if the Gentile obeys the law given him then he is regarded by God as circumcised without being outwardly circumcised. Not that the gentile does keep the law he is given but he simply refuting the Jewish argument of advantage over the Gentile.

HP: So, you are suggesting that Paul argues a truth from a impossibility? Again, you are avoiding the issue you contradict yourself in. Paul did not say, ‘if it was ‘possible’ for them to obey they could.’ He said “they DO” at least in a sense.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: He argues down the same line with Romans 3:25-29 in regard to circumcision.

HP: The heathen were not circumcised so that portion of the law to the Jews could not be the object of the portion of Scripture we are discussing. The portion we are addressing is the part of the law Scripture via Paul and the Holy Spirit say the heathen WERE doing, not failing to do or impossible for them to do.

 

[Dr. Walter]

What you are missing is Paul's demand that they must keep the law as according to the laws demands. This is true of the law written on conscience of gentiles as is true of the law given to Jews. That is the condition.

To violate the law in "one point" disqualifies a person from "keeping" the law according to its demands.

This is true of the law written on the conscience of the gentile. If the gentile violates one point of that law he is judged a sinner and therefore has come short and fallen under its condemnation and will be judged as a sinner before God.

PARTIAL law keeping by either Jew or Gentile is not KEEPING THE LAW according to the demands of the law.

Paul is not arguing that either can, but if the gentile did, then it would be regarded equal to observing the Jewish law.

Paul is not considering here whether any actually can or do keep the law as he reserves that conclusion for Romans 3:9-21. Here he is only arguing with both that they are EQUAL at the judgement seat "according to works" if they observe the law given to them but that the Gentile is BETTER at the judgement seat if they observe the natural law given to them but the Jew does not obey the law given to him. hence, the law provides no advantage over the gentile at the judgement seat "according to works" if they don't keep it.

HP: So, you are suggesting that Paul argues a truth from a impossibility? Again, you are avoiding the issue you contradict yourself in. Paul did not say, ‘if it was ‘possible’ for them to obey they could.’ He said “they DO” at least in a sense.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Yes sir it is. Circumcision was the first step in law keeping for a jew. They prided themselves OVER the gentiles becuase they were circumcised and the gentiles were not and therefore were unclean.

Paul's argument is the same. Circumcision does not profit the Jew if he does not KEEP ALL THE REST OF THE LAW for to sin in "one point" is to violate all points.

If the Gentile can keep natural law in ALL POINTS without coming under its condemnation then God would consider them as circumcised.

Paul is not arguing that either one can really keep either law IN ALL POINTS and thus be justified as righeous by that law instead of sinners by that law. He is simply leveling the playing ground between Jews and gentiles "according to works" before the judgement seat.

Their misconceptions that either can fulfill either law they are under by their works will be exposed by the law's righteous standard on judgement day. Paul concludes none will pass that standard for either law in Romans 3:9-21

HP: The heathen were not circumcised so that portion of the law to the Jews could not be the object of the portion of Scripture we are discussing. The portion we are addressing is the part of the law Scripture via Paul and the Holy Spirit say the heathen WERE doing, not failing to do or impossible for them to do.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Yes sir it is. Circumcision was the first step in law keeping for a jew. They prided themselves OVER the gentiles becuase they were circumcised and the gentiles were not and therefore were unclean.

HP: Can we stay focused for a minute? Can we stay focused on the truth of an argument before jumping to its every application, including circumcision? Once again, the Scriptures state that the heathen do the things in the law. It does not say that the heathen do everything the law demands nor does it state they do not do or it is impossible for them to do the things in the law. Circumcision is NOT the focus directly in the first portion of Romans 2 for the heathen are not circumcised. Tell us Dr., what things did they do right concerning the law, or are you back to implying the Scriptures use a falsehood to illustrate truth, or that doing things in the law are not right?

 

[Dr. Walter]

What you don't understand is that this context points out that both the gentiles and the Jews have a MISCONCEPTION of the respective law's they have been given and you hold to the very same misconception.

In Romans 2:1-5 Paul addresses those who had been listening to the digressive sinful condition described by Paul of the gentiles in Romans 1:21-32 and declares they had a misconception - wrong thinking about themselves based upon a misconception of the law. This is clearly stated in verse 3:

And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

They looked at how bad those people had been described and concluded they were NOT AS BAD and so condemned them with Paul. However, on the basis of thinking they were NOT AS BAD they wrongly believed they could "escape" judgement by the Law (written on conscience OR written on stone) because they conceived the law as a RELATIVE standard of righteousness rather than an ABSOLUTE standard of righteousness. They really believed that if they only violated one to ten points for example, that they were BETTER than those who violated eleven or more points. They really though that the law which judges them was based upon a RELATIVE and moving scale of righteousness.

The Jews believed this as well (vv. 11, 17-24). It is this double misconception that Paul is addressing in chapter two. By the way, that double misconception is precisely the foundation of all YOUR arguments as well.

However, God's law, rather written upon conscience or written upon stone condemns you as a sinner to death if you violate but "ONE" point (James 2:10) and that is precisely why Paul's conclusion in Romans 3:9-21 is EXACTLY OPPOSITE of your conclusion.

This is precisely why Paul begins the description of the judgement in verses 5-10 with the words "RIGHTEOUS judgement" at the close of verse 5" and emphasizes that eternal life is not given to those who "do not obey truth" and that it is not the hearer of the law that is justified but the doer of the law (v. 11) as defined by the ABSOLUTE STANDARD of the Law.

Hence, Paul is not saying that ANYONE will obey the law, either law, but only what the consequences are if the law is obeyed and disobeyed. The Gentile who obeys the law of conscience will be justified just as the jew who obeys the written law will be justified but neither will be justified if they don't obey it ACCORDING TO ITS STANDARD not by their misconception of that standard.

It is only by a MISCONCEPTION of that standard, thinking the law's standard is RELATIVE can they possibly think what Paul attributes to them in verse 3 as grounds to perceive themselves better than other sinners and thus to "escape" the judgement. This is exactly the same misconception that is at the basis of all your arguments as well.

HP: Can we stay focused for a minute? Can we stay focused on the truth of an argument before jumping to its every application, including circumcision? Once again, the Scriptures state that the heathen do the things in the law. It does not say that the heathen do everything the law demands nor does it state they do not do or it is impossible for them to do the things in the law. Circumcision is NOT the focus directly in the first portion of Romans 2 for the heathen are not circumcised. Tell us Dr., what things did they do right concerning the law, or are you back to implying the Scriptures use a falsehood to illustrate truth, or that doing things in the law are not right?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

After that whole post, I cannot see where you have addressed the simple question I asked of you in post #72.

 

[Dr. Walter]

After that whole post, I cannot see where you have addressed the simple question I asked of you in post #72.

Perhaps you cannot "see" the answer but it is there. Let me ask you if you understood what I said and did you agree with what I said? If not, then that is why you cannot "see" what I said answers it. If you do, then I will show you why it does answer it.

HINT: Paul is addressing them according to the MISCONCEPTION that they can keep the law sufficiently to escape judgement and according to the Jewis MISCONCEPTION that the law can be kept sufficiently in order to escape judgment.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Paul points out their misconception that they believe they can keep the law sufficiently to escape judgement (v. 3; 17-24).

Therefore, on the basis of that misconception Paul argues against the Jew, who believes they are better than the gentiles, but still believe they can keep the law sufficient to be saved that in keeping with this misconception of the law, that gentiles who keep the law written on their heart would be just as righteous as Jews who keep the law written on stone and MORE RIGHTEOUS than Jews who do not keep the law written on stone.

The Jew did not believe the gentile could be saved under any circumstances except becoming a Jew and therefore at judgement BEING A JEW escapes judgement.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Paul points out their misconception that they believe they can keep the law sufficiently to escape judgemetn (v. 3; 17-24).

HP: First, you still avoid my direct questions in post #72 like the plague. Second, you are simply wrong about what you say above. The point made was not that they thought they could keep the law sufficiently to escape judgment, but rather that they judged others and did the same things themselves! Sorry, but your reading comprehension appears to be overly influenced by something other than the Word of God.

 

[Dr. Walter]

the person in verse 3 has the wrong thinking that they can escape judgement because they perceive of the standand of judgment to be a RELATIVE scale of righteousness. Thus they beleive they are sufficient BETTER than those described in chapter one and therefore sufficient righteous to escape judgement.

The Jew beleives in the same relative standard, except they believe they alone have the law and therefore gentiles cannot be saved unless they become Jews under Jewish law.

Paul argues against the Jew that the gentiles do have a law and therefore in keeping with the Jewish argument that relative law keeping saves, then the Gentile can be equally saved by law keeping without becoming a Jew as much as the Jew and not only so, but can escape judgement of the Law when the jew won't if they fail to keep the law.

This argument totally destroys the Jewish concept of salvation altogether. Thus there is no advantage before God on the basis of keeping Jewish law as the Gentile can equally escape judgement by keeping the law given to him.

Now, this whole argument (vv. 11-15; 25-29)by Paul simply assumes this MISCONCEPTION of a RELATIVE standard of judgement in verse 3 by both parties.

However, in regard to reality, Paul states that final judgement will be according to "righteousness" as perceived by God not by men and how God's law defines keeping the law not by how men do (vv. 5b-11).

 

[Dr. Walter]

I will repost here what I posted on "Romans 2:1-16" since you imagine that I am going outside the text:

And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? - Rom. 2:3

We have all agreed on this forum that Paul is addressing a hypocrit in verses 1-5.

Now, let us see what this hypocrisy is. Would you agree with me that in verse 3 above that the hypocrisy has to do with wrong thinking? "And THINKETH THOU THIS"???

Also, would it be wrong thinking toward those Paul previously described in Romans 1:22-32? "them that do such things"? What things? It has to be things they can be condemned for and the only things Paul has listed that have been condemned are those things listed in Romans 1:22-32.

Now, what is the nature of their wrong THINKING? They are joining Paul in condemning them when they are guilty of doing the very same things and yet they feel they will escape judgement while those in Romans 1:22-32 will not escape judgment but are justly condemned. "O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same"

Now, what kind of thinking can condemn others for doing those things listed in Romans 1:22-32 but feel justified they will "escape" judgement when they are guilty of doing the same things? The only kind of thinking that can come to such a conclusion is the kind that thinks COMPARATIVELY and believes they are not AS BAD. This is exactly the kind of thinking by the Jews in Romans 2:17-24. It is the kind of thinking that believes the judgement of God works on a RELATIVE scale of righteousness instead of an ABSOLUTE scale of righteousness.
This is precisely why verse 5 concludes with this description of God's coming "righteous" judgement.
All those who come before God with this kind of WRONG THINKING will be judged RIGHTEOUSLY "according to their works" and the law does not judge RELATIVELY but ABSOLUTELY and that is why it requires only violation of the law in "ONE" point to be guilty of ALL the law. This is why Jesus could say "there is none good but one and that is God."

The law of conscience will condemn you to death as a sinner if you violate it in ONE point just as much as the law of Moses will condemn you to death as a sinner if you violate but ONE point.

Now gentleman, this is precisely why your exposition and conclusion of this passage is directly OPPOSITE to Paul's conclusion in Romans 3:9-21 because you have the same misconception of those Paul is addressing in chapter 2

HP: First, you still avoid my direct questions in post #72 like the plague. Second, you are simply wrong about what you say above. The point made was not that they thought they could keep the law sufficiently to escape judgment, but rather that they judged others and did the same things themselves! Sorry, but your reading comprehension appears to be overly influenced by something other than the Word of God.

 

[Dr. Walter]

If you can join in condemning other when you are doing the same thing it is because of one of two reasons:

1. You can't see our own faults

2. You don't see yourself as bad

Either way, it is misconception of the Law of God and what it requires.

On the other hand, if you understood that the Law of God condemned to death all who sinned in "one" point that would deny thinking like #2 above. If you understood, the law is spiritual and that "ONE" wrong motive or desire condemns you to death then that would prevent you from thinking like #1 above.

Therefore, this person's self-conception in verse 3 as well as the Jews self-perception in verses 17-24 is based upon a misconception of the Law's standard of righteousness. They believe it is a SLIDING SCALE or RELATIVE and therefore does not require ABSOLUTE obedience to escape judgement or requires obedience to ALL points of the Law to be justified righteous.