Sola Scriptura

Dr Walter posted...

A truer statement has never been posted.

 

Go back to the introduction. He writes to the "saints in Rome." He writes to believers only. He does not write to Jews and Gentiles, but only to the saved. There is no need to divide them. You are the one making this distinction; not Paul.

In Romans 11, Paul discusses the role of Israel in the end times, as it relates to the topic of salvation. His subject is still soteriology. He promotes no race above another. In other epistles, especially Ephesians, he goes to great lengths to tell us of the unity we have in Christ. We are one in Christ whether Jew or Gentile.

This would go against everything that Paul taught here and elsewhere, which would make it absurd. That is not what Paul was teaching. It contradicts the plain teaching of Romans 5:1, and Paul does not contradict himself.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

 

There was not Jew and Gentile. There were only Christians. He was writing to believers. Check the intro to the epistle.

 

Paul is writing to Jewish believers and to Gentile believers. For some reason, you seem to deny the category of the Jewish believer.

There were Jewish believers in the church at Rome. Gentile ones too.

And that is precisely why the ethnic issue is important to Paul.

And why his repudiation of "justification by works of the law" is really an argument against ethnic privilege, not an argument against justification by good works.

 

No. Romans 5:1 is perfectly consistent with my assertion. Which is that Paul's denial of "justification by good works" is a denial of justification by ethnic privilege.

I have posted nothing that would justify any conclusion that I deny justification by faith in the full Pauline sense, as contrasted with a certain sense that has come to us through at least one strand of the reformation.

 

What?? The Reformation did not change any of the truths of the Bible!

 

Read the introduction to the epistle. I will repeat again: Paul is writing to Christians, the saints in Christ--not Jews; not Gentiles. There was no such thing then; as there is no such thing now. We are all one in Christ. And no one, absolutely no one, has any "ethnic privilege." No such thing exists.

 

No. While Paul does indeed talk about the future, he also clearly warns his present-day Gentile readers not to boast over the Jews since some Jews have been "cut off the olive tree":

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

I never suggested that Paul promotes one race over the other - quite the contrary, I have been arguing that Paul is denying ethnic superiority of any kind. In the above, he warns Gentiles. Elsewhere (e.g. 3:28-29) he rebukes the Jew who might see justification as for Jews only.

 

I am, of course, not denying that Paul is writing to Christians.

There were Jewish believers in the church of Rome. This is well-established historically and is also supported by the text of the letter.

There were Gentile believers in the church at Rome. This is clear from Romans 11, if not elsewhere.

 

--a much misunderstood passage written in the context of the future salvation of the Jews. Chapters 9-11 are speaking of the Jews, but the epistle is still directed to Christians. You can't understand this?

 

There may have been Ethiopian believers and Egyptian believers too. Paul doesn't address them specifically. He doesn't have to. They are all one in Christ. Egypt is oft mentioned in Scripture, and yet is not mentioned here. It doesn't matter what their background was. They are one in Christ. Can't you understand the intro:

Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Are you suggesting that the reformers could not have made any errors? That would be an interesting claim to make.

 

I have never denied 1:7. You seem to not understand that some believers at Rome were of Gentile ethnicity and some were of Jewish ethnicity.

This is historically established, even apart from the text. Here in Romans 11, Paul is clearly addressing his remarks to Gentile believers in particular. Do you really deny this?

I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

So the evidence is undeniable - Paul, at points in the letter, is indeed dealing with ethnic divisions in the church at Rome.

 

No.

This passage says what it says - that Gentiles in the church at Rome are not to disrespect Jews.

I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

A clear instruction to the actual Gentiles to whom Paul is writing.

And the understanding problem is not mine. I am fully aware, and have repeatedly stated that the epistle is indeed directed to Christians.

What you seem to not understand is that there were Christians of Jewish ethnicity and there were Christians of Gentile ethnicity.

And Paul is vitally concerned with encouraging them to get along.

Look at Galatians if you do not think that Jew - Gentile division among believers was not a problem.

 

Are you suggesting that the Reformers were the inspired writers of Scripture, or just what are you suggesting? What has the Reformation got to do with anything here? I realize the topic is sola scriptura, not sola reformera, nor is it sola ECFa. It is the writers of the books of Scripture that were guided by the Holy Spirit to write down the words that God wanted recorded. It was the words that they wrote down that were inspired. Those words that are in the original MSS are the inspired words of God, and no other. God promised to preserve them for us. We have over 5,000 MSS in existence today. God has preserved his Word in the Greek and Hebrew MSS that we have available to us today.

 

If it weren't for the REALITY of ethnicity OF THE CHRISTIAN congregation, Paul would not have written what he did write. Andre reccgnizes this, DHK seems to close his eyes for it.

But Romans 14 in my opinion illustrates dividedness within the unity of the Congregation -- a unity wherein was not only an ethnic, but a spiritual dividedness which in the end to Paul meant only one thing, pride and haughtiness based on certain religious practices based on the religious principle of works righteousness --- as I understand it, the observance of the passover (without sacrifices but with all the other rigmarole about "food and drink" retained). Practical and spiritual things this side of glorification shall never be separated or blended perfectly.

 

GE:
Here again, you should not overemphasize ethnicity, Andre. What DHK asserts applies in the case of Galatians more than in Romans. Galatians is an epistle addressed to ‘GENTILE Christian’ converts and with them in mind specifically more than any of Paul’s Epistles with the exception of Colossians which NOWHERE AND NOHOW supposes a Jewish readership.

Look at Galatians if you want an illustration of 'GENTILE' Christians who "REVERTED to (their) former dismal no-gods" of "worshipping superstitiously ('paratehreoh') days, months, seasons and years"- the 'stoicheia' TIME-NO-GODS of Greek philosophy (which came in fours, like earth, water, fire and wind were the no-god-stoicheia of matter). Galatians does not suggest a “Jew - Gentile division among believers”; it directly addresses a Gentile apostasy to PAGAN idolatry, sealed with arrogance by trying to bend the arm of God through heathen circumcision. Both abominations this day are going on in both heathen and Christian nations and countries.

 

Romans 14 does not deal with ethnic issues but rather with matters of conscience.
Is one day more holy than the other? Or are all days the same?
Let everyman be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Why do you judge your brother?

Is it wrong to eat meat offered to idols?
The person that is weak is the person that eats only vegetables.
If you think that it is wrong then don't eat it.
If you eat such meat and are doubting in your heart that it is right or wrong then it is sin.
For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

But in these matters don't push your convictions on others.
For "meat" destroy not the kingdom of God.

Obviously this has nothing to do with ethnicity. It has to do with practical problems that faced both Jews and Gentiles in the culture that they lived in. They faced them every day.
The same problems were faced by the Corinthians. You can find the same questions asked and answered in 1Corinthians.

 

Indeed. And my argument shows that it is very likely that when Paul denies "justification by works of the law", he is arguing that justification is not for Jews only, but also for Gentiles, remembering that if justification could be accomplished by works of the Law, only Jews could be justified. Paul is therefore not mounting an argument against the Jew, or anybody else for that matter, trying be justified by "good works".

Here is what Romans 3:27 really says:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law

Where does Paul talk about "good works" here? He does not. You have made an interpretation that Paul is talking about works. Now that's fine, if you can back it up with evidence. I, too, have made an interpretation. But, I have also argued for that interpretation (in the thread on Romans 3:28), showing that the contextual evidence, especially in chapter 4, shows that Paul is very likely meaning 3:27 to be read as "A man is justifiied apart from the ethnic exclusivity of doing the works of the Law"

The problem with this, of course, is Paul says the opposite of what you are suggesting in the text to which you refer. He is clearly saying that some Gentiles will indeed be justified:

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

This shows that Paul clearly believes that, contrary to what you are asserting, Paul believes that some Gentiles will indeed be justified by what they do.

Again, no competent person would write this if they believed it was impossible for the Gentile to do what Paul says the Gentile will do. This is one of the major flaws of your argument. It forces us to see Paul as describing what are only hypothetical possibilities using language that suggests that clearly suggests he is speaking about what really will happen.

And I have not forgotten that I need to argue that, despite superficial appearances, the "law" here, to the Gentile is obedient is actually not the Law of Moses.