Romans 3:28 - What is Paul Denying?

[Dr. Walter]

Paul gives only two option in regard to eliminating boasting and being a JEW is not one of the STATED options. Indeed, being a Jew is CONSEQUENTIAL not the cause of the very option that is stated and eliminated by Paul as the basis for all boasting by men, whether Jews or Gentiles. It is the "LAW OF WORKS" not THE LAW OF BEING A JEW!!! Can't you read?????

It is the law OF WORKS that IS the fundemental basis for boasting regardless of ethnic background.

The law of works in regard to the contextual subject - JUSTIFICATION - is the rule of justificaiton "ACCORDING TO YOUR WORKS." Paul elminiates this rule as grounds for justification before God because it provides basis for boasting FIRST in works. Only a fool would suggest in the context of justification that the RULE or LAW of works WHICH IS being justified "according to your works" refers to BAD works as the "works" you would boast in for justification!!!!!

You can't even see the obvious if it was stuck on your eyeballs. Only a fool would boast in EVIL works in order to be justified before God and this text has to do with what sort of works provide boasting for justification before God!!!!!!!

You want the text to say something it does not say. You want verse 27 to say:

Where is boasting then? It is excluded? by what law? The law of BEING A JEW? Nay, but of faith."

Nor does it say,

Where is boasting then? It is excluded? by what law? The law of MOSES? Nay, but of faith."

However, it does not say that. It says "the law OF WORKS." The law of Moses is one law of works but not the only law of works - it is not the only law that JUDGES a person "according to thy works." The law written on Conscience also judges a person "according to thy works." The law of Koran also judges a person "according to thy works." The laws of Hindu's jude a person "according to thy Karma [works]. Every religion in the world operates by this law - "according to thy works." This law does not exclude boasting as Paul clearly says it does not exclude boasting.

Paul is denying the law that EVERY RELIGION ON PLANET EARTH operates by and hopes to be justified by on judgement day because it provides the basis for boasting FOR ALL WORLDLY RELIGIONS including non-religous people on judgement day.

The Jew, the Gentile, the Hindu, the Muslim, the Bhudist, the Catholic, the Mormon, the Scientologist, THE BROAD WAY religions. The narrow way is restricted to the law of faith which operates by ACCEPTANCE of what is FREE and GRACIOUS and provided FOR YOU by the works of Jesus Christ as complete and sufficient for your justification before God plus and minus nothing.

No, you are again assuming a certain interpretation of what it means to do the works of the Law.

Remember - the Law of Moses was given to the Jews and the Jews only. Here in a text from Leviticus 20, God tells the people that the law functions to mark them out as distinct from the nations:

'You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you. 26 You are to be holy to me [c] because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

These food laws are part of the Law of Moses. It is easy to imagine how the Jew might come to think that he has some kind of ethnic privilege. This is what I suggest Paul is saying when he argues against "justification by works of the Law".

Again, the Jews had the Law of Moses as a distinctive code that marked them out from the "unclean" Gentiles. A person who does the "works" prescribed by the Law of Moses could easily fall into the trap of thinking that the Law of Moses marked him out as ethnically privileged in the purposes of God.

So one jumps the gun if one assumes that the essence of the boast of the Jew who does the works of the Law of Moses is fundamentally a "good works" boast - it could also be the boast of ethnic privilege - a force still powerful in today's world as it was in 1st century Palestine (if not more so).

 

[Andre]

Paul gives only two option in regard to eliminating boasting and being a JEW is not one of the STATED options.

Every reader of this text would know that it is Jews who do the works of the Law of Moses. It is clear that Paul's meaning could indeed be "you are not justified by being a Jew", if this were not otherwise so clear from material in chapter 4 as I have already argued.

And although you see "good works" here, there is no explicit reference to "good works" anywhere in this text.

So you are as "guilty" as I am in this respect.

Indeed, being a Jew is CONSEQUENTIAL not the cause of the very option that is stated and eliminated by Paul as the basis for all boasting by men, whether Jews or Gentiles. It is the "LAW OF WORKS" not THE LAW OF BEING A JEW!!! Can't you read?????

I can read perfectly well - it is you who seems to be only able to read things only through one framework of interpretation.

My interpretation works perfectly well with what Paul says here. If, as I am asserting (and actually supporting with detailed arguments) Paul is really saying "you are not justified by the ethnic eclusivity of Torah", it makes perfect sense to then say:

Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

It is the law OF WORKS that IS the fundemental basis for boasting regardless of ethnic background.

You have not actually made a case for this - where is the speciifcally scriptural evidence to support your claim that "the law of works" is a law about "good works" and not a law about ethnic exlusivity for that limited sub-set of humanity who do those works.

Paul The law of works in regard to the contextual subject - JUSTIFICATION - is the rule of justificaiton "ACCORDING TO YOUR WORKS." Paul elminiates this rule as grounds for justification before God because it provides basis for boasting FIRST in works. Only a fool would suggest in the context of justification that the RULE or LAW of works WHICH IS being justified "according to your works" refers to BAD works as the "works" you would boast in for justification!!!!!

Well only a fool would do so, based on your, unargued pre-sumption, that "good works" and not ethnic boundaries is what Paul is even talking about.

It is clear that my position coheres perfectly well with all that is stated here.

Paul You can't even see the obvious if it was stuck on your eyeballs. Only a fool would boast in EVIL works in order to be justified before God and this text has to do with what sort of works provide boasting for justification before God!!!!!!!

Again, you need to understand that a "principle (or law) of works" is not necessarily a law about good moral practice. It can also be a law that a certain people, in this case the Jews, sees as given to them as a sign that they, as a race, have been preferentially marked out for justification by God.

You seem unable to understand that I am not forced into the position of suggesting that anyone is boasting in evil works. And this is because you seem unable, or unwilling, to entertain a fundamentally different interpretation, and a legitimate one at that, as to what it really means to deny justification by "works of the Law".

Where is boasting then? It is excluded? by what law? The law of BEING A JEW? Nay, but of faith

Nor does it say,

Where is boasting then? It is excluded? by what law? The law of MOSES? Nay, but of faith."

Paul is clearly talking about the Law of Moses (by context):

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law?

The "law and the prophets" is a clear reference to the Jewish Law of Moses.

It seems decidedly odd that you seem to think that the fact that its does not "you are not justified by being Jewish" is a problem for me, when, equally, there is no mention here at all of "good works"/

Where does Paul say anything about good works here?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Look at the context that immediately precedes the statement "Where is boasting then? it is excluded." Ask yourself what has Paul just finished saying that would exclude boasting by his readers???

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


Would "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" exclude boast by "ALL" who have sinned and "ALL" who have come short or does that refer to JEWS ONLY since "sin" by definition is transgression of "the law"??????

Would "being justified FREELY" exclude boasting by ALL who have sinned and come short or only by Jews alone??????

Would "being justified freely by His GRACE" exclude boasting by ALL who have sinned and come short of the glory of God or only Jews???

Would "being justified......through the redemption that is IN Christ" exclude boasting by ALL who have sinned or only Jews?

Would "being justified.......through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus WHOM God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in HIS BLOOD" exclude boasting by "ALL" who have sinned and come short of the glory of God or only by Jews?

Would all boasting be excluded because God is "the justifier of him that believe IN Jesus" or Jews only????????

In other words, Andre, is there anything immediately presented as the grounds of justification of sinners in Romans 4:23-26 that does not exclude all boasting by ALL sinners rather than just by Jews alone????

Now ask youself what two words are being contrasted in Romans 3:27-28? Is it not the words "works" and "faith"???? Now look back into Romans 3:23-26 and see if you can find the word "works" or "deeds" even mentioned??? Notice, the only works that can be found are those of God in and through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, look back into Romans 3:23-26 and see if you can find the word "faith" or "Believe"?????

1. "through FAITH in His blood"
2. "He that BELIEVETH in Jesus"

So, just as Paul says in Romans 3:27 works are EXCLUDED from the description of the basis and method of justification by God in verses 23-26! They are EXCLUDED.

Now, ask yourself how does "faith" EXCLUDE boasting in verses 23-26????? How does "faith" justify sinners in verses 23-26?? It justifies sinners by making Christ's blood the OBJECT of faith and by making the Person and work of Christ the OBJECT of faith:

1. "through faith IN his blood"
2. "he that believeth IN Jesus"

Faith excludes all works by sinners through accepting the redemptive work and Person of Jesus Christ as the PROPITIATION/SATISFACTION of God's Just demands against sinners. Not for the jews only. Not for the gentiles only but for ALL who have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Now, lets look at this Conclusive statement again:

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

The contrast is between "works" and "faith" NOT BETWEEN "Jew" and "gentile."
The "Law of works" in regard to justification (justification has been the previous subject in verses 23-26), is "according to your works." That is the "law" of works when it comes to justification and this can be proven in Romans 2:6

Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

This is the "law of works" when it comes to justifying any man by works befor God. There is no other "law of works" for justification but this one.
It is THIS LAW that Paul repudiates as the basis for justification before God because "ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and therefore NO FLESH can be justified by "the law of works."

You cannot deny that Paul repudiates "the law of works" in verse 27! That is indisputably clear. Since "the law of works" as the basis for justification before God is repudiated, and it is, then the conclusion drawn in verse 28 is obvious:

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Now, consider the wording. This is a conclusion drawn from verse 27 which in turn is a conclusion drawn from verses 23-26. The "law of works" as a basis for justificaiton before God has been rejected, repudiated by Paul in verse 27. What is his conclusion then??????

"Therefore we conclude that A MAN" -

Does Paul say "a man" or does Paul say "a jew"?????? Which is it Andre? I have not strayed from a single literal word stated by Paul up to this point!! Not one word! But what does your interpetation require Andre??????? You cannot stick with Paul's word's can you?????

Paul does not say "JEWISH MAN" or "GENTILE man." He simply says "A MAN." What about this "MAN"????

"Therefore we conclude that a man is JUSTIFIED BY FAITH"

The law of Faith is pitted against the law of works and therefore cannot be interpreted to include the law of faith for justification. The law of works for justification is "according to thy works" but the law of faith finds justification not in ANYTHING THE SINNER DOES but "IN" the redemptive Person and Work of Jesus Christ to PROPITIATE the Justice of God FOR sinners.

If this is the POSITIVE conclusion what is the NEGATIVE and CONTRASTING conclusion?

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW"

Now, would "the law of works" in verse 27 that is also contrasted with "faith" in verse 27 and is also repudiated as the basis for justification in verse 27 be the same thing that is contrasted with faith for justification in verse 28???? YOU HAVE NO TEXTUAL GROUNDS TO DENY IT! If the "law of works" for justification before God is the law that says "according to thy works" then this is what what Paul is saying that "A MAN" is justified before God "WITHOUT."

Such a conclusion would naturally place the Jewish reader and the Gentile reader on the same BASIS with and before God as SINNERS who cannot be justfied by the "law of works" but only by the "law of faith."

Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Notice, verse 29 opens with another question - "Is he the God of the Jews only?" This is certainly what the Jews would conclude if the "law of works" were the grounds for justification before God as the Jews were the only people that God had revealed His law in any comprehensive way unto. On the basis of "the law of works" they could justly boast that they have what the Gentile does not have - the law of Moses which provides in detail what works are good and what works are bad in EVERY ASPECT of their life. However, God is the creator of the Gentile man as much as the Jewish man - so "yes, of the Gentiles also"

However, since God does not justify anyone by "the law of works" or "according to thy works" then God "shall justify the circumcsion by faith and the uncircumcision through faith" as there is no basis for justificaiton "according to thy works" becuase "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (not merely the Jews or merely the Gentile) and therefore only condemnation or boasting would come by "the law of works" and Paul repudiates both (v. 27).

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

How do we establish the law by faith??? Since faith is IN the redemptive Person and work of Jesus Christ as the PROPITIATION/SATISFACTION of God's Justice then the righteousness of the Law is satisfied by Christ FULLY and the penalty of the law is satisfied by Christ FULLY. Therefore, it is the only way to vindicate the law of God (v. 31) for "all have sinned and come short" of the law's standard for righteousness which is the very righteousness of God Himself. That is why Andre needs to trust IN Jesus for the propitiation of your sins because all who believe in justification by "the law of works" which is "according to thy works" has not trusted in Christ AT ALL because Christ does not share his glory with another. You have "come short of the glory" belonging to God -sinlessness but Christ has not come short of that glory.

I have not departed from one single word in Romans 3:23-31 but your theory has to not only depart from words used by Paul but has to repudiate Paul's whole argument against being justified "according to thy works" as that very phrase is "the law of works" spelled out in Romans 2:6.

 

[Andre]

Look at the context that immediately precedes the statement "Where is boasting then? it is excluded." Ask yourself what has Paul just finished saying that would exclude boasting by his readers???

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.


Would "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" exclude boast by "ALL" who have sinned and "ALL" who have come short or does that refer to JEWS ONLY since "sin" by definition is transgression of "the law"??????[

Would "being justified FREELY" exclude boasting by ALL who have sinned and come short or only by Jews alone??????

Would "being justified freely by His GRACE" exclude boasting by ALL who have sinned and come short of the glory of God or only Jews???

Would "being justified......through the redemption that is IN Christ" exclude boasting by ALL who have sinned or only Jews?

The problem is that the context does not really support this line of thinking. I fully understand that if Paul had simply stated that "all have sinned", then spoken of faith in Jesus as the path to justification, and then asked "where is boasting", your take on this would be perfectly reasonable. But that is not really the whole story.

What do we have in Romans 3? At the beginning we have Paul critiquing Jews (verses 1 to 8). Then Paul turns to the Gentile and declares that the Gentile is in the same boat as the Jew:

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[b]? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin

The important thing to realize, and the very thing that is so often overlooked, is that this not fundamentally an argument about the universality of human sin, although that is there as well, it is a much more pointed argument that Jew and Gentile alike are under sin. Again, this is an argument about race, about ethnicity, in relation to the question of sin. Paul is saying that Jew and Gentile alike are under sin. This is not quite the same thing as making a statement about universality of human sin with no particular reference to different ethnic groups. No, Paul has tipped his hand that he is making an ethnic argument.

Now in verse 21, Paul says that God's righteounsness is expressed in a manner that nothing to do with the Law of Moses. Now I believe you see this as a more general statement about a "principle of law", but the context simply does not support that - the reference to "the Law and the the Prophets" strongly suggest that he is making a statement about the Law of Moses:

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

Paul is saying that although the Law of Moses has some connection to what God is doing, His (God's) righteousness has been demonstrated through something else - the work of Jesus on the Cross.

So now we get to this statement:

There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

An interpretation of this statement that honours the context - and specifically the strong theme of the Jew-Gentile distinction and the Jewish specificity of the Law of Moses - is one where we have Paul saying "all, Jew and Gentile alike, have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

With this in mind, the "boast" is not a global boast of all sinners who might think they can be justified by their "good works". No, it is the boast of the Jew who might think that ethnicity is the basis for justification.

I politely suggest that my view offers an actual explanation as to why Paul is concerned with the Jew-Gentile distinction in the first part of the chapter, namely that because both Jew and Gentile are in sin, the Jew has no basis for claiming ethnic superiority. Your view, I suggest, offers no explanation as to why Paul is focused on establishing the equally fallen state of Jew and Gentile. On your theory, that Paul is concerned with denying justification by good works in general, Paul should have simply said "all human beings have sinned, therefore no one can be justified by their good deeds". But Paul has not done this - throughout this chapter -and on into chapter 4, the Jew-Gentile distinction keeps popping up.

And this is, of course, why Paul writes this immediately after declaring that justification is not achieved by works of the Law:

Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

If, as you seem to be suggesting, Paul is making an argument that has no consideration of the Jew-Gentile distinction (that is, that the "boast" is the boast of every sinner, regardless of ethnic affiliation), why does Paul say this - why does Paul emphasize that his argument sustains the view that justification does not honour ethnic boundaries?

The only sensible answer is that, indeed, Paul is arguing against a view that the Jew can boast in his ethnic privilege.

Again, I will point out that Paul has already made a statement indicating his concern with the belief of the Jew that he (the Jew) is in a privileged position) in virtue of possessing the Law of Moses:

Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God

 

[Andre]

Now ask youself what two words are being contrasted in Romans 3:27-28? Is it not the words "works" and "faith"???? Now look back into Romans 3:23-26 and see if you can find the word "works" or "deeds" even mentioned??? Notice, the only works that can be found are those of God in and through the Lord Jesus Christ.

I think this is a circular argument. The actual word "works" does not appear in vv 23-26. What we have, of course, is a description of what God has done. When you take this and characterize it is a "work", you are clearly begging the very question at issue - you presume that a "work" is a "good deed" and you therefore conclude that, in vv 23-26, we have God (through Christ) doing "works".

Well, that would be fine if you could make a case that "works" equals "good deeds or actions". Then, and only then, you could indeed say that we have God (in Christ) doing "works" in vv 23-26.

But you have not made that case. I can legitimately raise the possibility that, by "works", Paul is intending to the refer to the practices of the Law of Moses as they function to ethnically mark out the Jew from the Gentile.

And, it shoud be said, I have not only identified this possibilty, I have argued for it (in the first 5 or so posts of this thead). If this is what Paul means by "works", then we would not say that vv 23-26 places God in the position of doing any such works.

And I suspect that this causes problems for the rest of your argument.

Let me add, though, that I do appreciate this dialogue - it enables each of two respective positions to be critically challenged. Hopefully this will drive us both towards Paul's real intent.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The problem is that the context does not really support this line of thinking. I fully understand that if Paul had simply stated that "all have sinned", then spoken of faith in Jesus as the path to justification, and then asked "where is boasting", your take on this would be perfectly reasonable. But that is not really the whole story.

There are only two classes of people on planet earth and the words "for there is no difference for all" means "for there is no difference between Jew and Gentile for ALL MANKIND" has sinned.

What do we have in Romans 3? At the beginning we have Paul critiquing Jews (verses 1 to 8). Then Paul turns to the Gentile and declares that the Gentile is in the same boat as the Jew:

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[b]? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin

Your exposition is not true above. The critique of jews begins in Romans 2:17 and ends in Rom. 3:8. In Romans 3:9 he does NOT return to the Gentiles as you suggest but returns to BOTH as a conclusion of the WHOLE exposition beginning with Romans 1:18 to Romans 3:8 including BOTH Jews and Gentiles. What He continues to say from Romans 3:10-31 is applicable to BOTH Jews and Gentiles. The description of sin and condemnation in Romans 3:10-23 is applicable to BOTH Jews and Gentiles. The redemption described in Romans 3:24-26 is applicable to BOTH Jews and Gentiles.

My exposition of the contrast between works and faith in Romans 3:23-28 you completely ignorned because it completely destroys your whole interpretation. The use of "a man" in Romans 3:28 conclusion destroys your interpretation.

Paul is saying that Jew and Gentile alike are under sin. This is not quite the same thing as making a statement about universality of human sin with no particular reference to different ethnic groups. No, Paul has tipped his hand that he is making an ethnic argument.

The whole human race is made up of two groups in Jews and Gentiles. Paul says "there is no difference" but Andre says Paul is making a difference of ethnicity!!!! I will take Paul over Andre any day of the week. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE for "ALL" have sinned. The word "all" following the words "THERE IS NO DIFFERNCE" means in the clearest sense "ALL MANKIND WITHOUT DISTINCTION" have sinned.

Now in verse 21, Paul says that God's righteounsness is expressed in a manner that nothing to do with the Law of Moses. Now I believe you see this as a more general statement about a "principle of law", but the context simply does not support that - the reference to "the Law and the the Prophets" strongly suggest that he is making a statement about the Law of Moses:

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

Paul is saying that although the Law of Moses has some connection to what God is doing, His (God's) righteousness has been demonstrated through something else - the work of Jesus on the Cross.

You are wresting verse 21 from its context. Verses 10-20 are a UNIVERSAL condemnation upon BOTH JEW AND GENTILE and verse 9 proves this is so as it introduces the universality of sin that dominates both Jews and Gentiles which is ALL MANKIND:

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Verse 9 says that Paul has already proved that the Jew is no better than than the gentile in regard to SIN. The words "as it is written" introduces FURTHER EVIDENCE to prove that the Gentile with the Jew is "UNDER SIN." What he goes on to quote and apply to both Jews and Gentiles in Romans 3:10-18 is the CONDEMNATION OF SIN UNDER THE LAW. Note the words "UNDER sin" in verse 9 is continued to be proven by verses 10-18 by quoting the Law of God that describes and condemns sin because only those "UNDER law" are "UNDER sin" as Romans 3:19-20 declares of both Jews and Gentiles.

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Verse 19 refers to the scriptures quote in verses 10-18 as "the law saith" in application to both Jews and Gentiles and that is precisely why Paul uses only UNIVERSAL terms in verses 19-20

1. "every mouth"
2. "all the world"
3. "no flesh"

These UNIVERSALS cannot possibly be restricted to just the Jewish race nor will the preceding context allow that as verses 19-20 is the conclusion of the further evidence offered by Paul to prove that the Gentiles along with the Jews are "UNDER SIN." Where there is no LAW there is no sin (Rom. 5:14; 1 Jn. 4:6) to be "UNDER SIN" is to be "UNDER LAW" as there is no sin for those not "UNDER LAW."

Verses 21-23 now follows to demonstrate that IN ADDITION to the "law and the prophets" God's righteousness is now made manifest in the Person and work of Jesus Christ for those "UNDER SIN" due to being "UNDER LAW" because "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE." The words "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE" continues the theme introduced in Romans 3:9 and further demonstrated in verses 10-21 by quotations from "the law." You say Paul is making a difference but Paul says "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE" in regard to being "UNDER SIN" and "UNDER LAW" and therefore there is no difference in justification by faith from the condemnation from sin under law through the righteousness of God manifested in the Person and work of Christ:

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

With this in mind, the "boast" is not a global boast of all sinners who might think they can be justified by their "good works". No, it is the boast of the Jew who might think that ethnicity is the basis for justification.

This is an absurdly rediculous conclusion that defies every word in the preceding context from verse 9. Romans 3:22-23 says "FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE" and you call Paul a liar and say Paul is making a difference. Paul says "for ALL have sinned" denying ethnic diversity but claiming UNIVERSAL condemnation "under sin" and you are claiming the very opposite.

Verses 24-26 is the provision of God for justification of SINNERS that excludes all works BY SINNERS and includes only faith in the object of God's provision thus elminating ALL BOASTING by ALL would be justified by faith.

Andre, you don't care what the scriptures say. You will wrest them to say what you want. Your interpetation is absurd and contradictory to this whole context of UNIVERSAL terms of condemnation, UNVERISAL terms of redemption UNIVERSAL denial of boasting.

You could not deal with my last post item by item but instead avoided the whole post by coming back with this reinterpretation and reassertion of your false doctrine. Paul nails the coffin shut upon your heresy with precision by his use of UNIVERSALS - "for there is NO DIFFERENCE" "all" and "a man"

You response is obvious distortion simply to wiggle out of the precise language of Paul. I dare you to go back to my previous post and deal with it section by section, argument by argument.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I think this is a circular argument. The actual word "works" does not appear in vv 23-26. What we have, of course, is a description of what God has done. When you take this and characterize it is a "work", you are clearly begging the very question at issue - you presume that a "work" is a "good deed" and you therefore conclude that, in vv 23-26, we have God (through Christ) doing "works".

Well, that would be fine if you could make a case that "works" equals "good deeds or actions". Then, and only then, you could indeed say that we have God (in Christ) doing "works" in vv 23-26.

.

The word "work" translates the Greek term "ergos" and refers to what a person does. What a person does is consistently classified from Genesis to Revelation only under two alternative descriptives "good" and "bad."

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why you don't have enough common sense to realize that justification before God "by works" would never be attained by "bad" works?????????????????????????????????????????????? The only other alternative is "good" works!!! No one in their right mind would conclude that sinners would come before God and argue for justfication by "bad" works. Yet you claim this is a presumptuos conclusion on my part when it is the ONLY REASONABLE alternative as all works that are not "good" are "bad."

You admit that Romans 3:24-26 describes what God has done but then balk at me describing it as good or righteous works of God. Has God ever done UNRIGHTEOUS works?????????????????? You are throwing common sense out the window in this discussion.

The very contrast is between "works" and "faith in Romans 3:27-28 not between Jew and Gentile. The subject is justification before God. The word "works" throughout scriptures is ALWAYS classified under only two alternative headings "good" and "bad." Are you going to suggest that in the context of justification before God based on "works" that Paul is suggesting that BAD works will justify "a man"????????????? Would you come before God and attempt to justify yourself by BAD works????????

The reason you are ejecting all common sense is because your position will not fit this context and that is the extreme you are forced to go to in order to avoid the obvious condemnation of your interpetations.

If this is what Paul means by "works", then we would not say that vv 23-26 places God in the position of doing any such works.

You simply ignore the fact that verse 27 is Paul's reaction to what you admit that God has done for the universal need of mankind in verses 23-26! The universal need is clearly stated between Romans 3:9-23 where both Jews and Gentiles are referred to in UNIVERSAL terms (under sin, the whole world, no flesh, for there is no difference, for all have sinned). You are forcing Paul to make a difference between Jews and gentles when Paul says "For there is NO DIFFERENCE for ALL...."

Verse 27 is Paul's challenge to what God has provided in Romans 3:24-26 for the universal problem stated in Romans 3:9-23. Paul's challenge is "where is boasting then" in regard to what God has provided "freely" by "grace" for justification of sinners in Romans 3:24-26.

Verse 27 is a denial that "the law of works" which is the law that states "according to thy works" (Rom. 2:6) has anything to do with that provision by God for justification in Romans 3:24-26.

Verse 27 is the assertion that only "the law...of faith" has anything to do with the provision by God for justification in Romans 3:24-26. The law of faith destroys all boasting in justification by sinners as faith denies any kind of personal actions to be justified but merely receives what God has provided "freely" and by "grace."

Therefore, it is not the Jew that is in view in Romans 3:27-28 but "a man" (v. 28). This is the anarthous construction and emphasizes what characterizes "man" not what characterizes a Jew.

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

When Paul continues to ask another question "Is He a God of the Gentiles also" that is to confirm that "a man" is characteristic of ALL MANKIND which is inclusive of Gentiles as Gentiles by characterization are "MANKIND" and God is the Creator of all mankind and as Paul has proven by the use of UNIVERSAL terms that ALL MANKIND has sinned "FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE" and just as there is no difference in regard to sin THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in regard to justification by faith:

Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

The phrase "Seeing it is one God" confirms that He is the creator of all MANKIND - FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE in regard to characterization as "a man" between the Jew and gentile. There is no difference in regard to sin and there is no difference in regard to justification by faith for both WITHOUT WORKS as sinners have no works that can justify them as only the works of Christ can justify sinners before God.

Finally, verse 31, the only possible way that THE LAW can be vindicated is justification by faith as it is the object of faith - the righteous life and substitutionary death of Christ that PROPITIATES/SATISFIES the Laws FULL demands proving again that the "law of works" or "according to thy works" cannot vindicate the law but only receive the condemnation and wrath of the law.

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.


Verse 31 is your waterloo! Faith here is same Faith from verse 24-30 - justification by faith. It is the faith that justifies the Gentile in verse 30 as well as the same faith that justifies the Jew in verse 30. Therefore, the faith that justifies the GENTILE in verse 30 is the faith that vindicates "THE LAW" in verse 31. Paul says that faith does not do away with the Law but yet the faith that justifies the GENTILE vindicates "the law" rather than does away with it. Andre, what is "the law" that faith which justifies the GENTILE does not make "void" but "establishes"?

FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE

1. The Jew and Gentile are under sin - v. 9
2. The Jew and Gentile are proven sinners under the law - vv. 10-20
3. The Jew and Gentile are sinners - v. 23
4. The Jew and Gentile have the same provision for justification - vv. 24-26
5. The Jew and Gentile have no basis for boasting in that provision - v. 27
6. The Jew and Gentile are not justified by "the law of works" - vv. 27-28
7. The Jew and Gentile are justified by faith alone - vv. 28-30
8. The Jew and Gentile do not make void "the law" but "establish" the law EQUALLY under justification by faith.

And I suspect that this causes problems for the rest of your argument.

Let me add, though, that I do appreciate this dialogue - it enables each of two respective positions to be critically challenged. Hopefully this will drive us both towards Paul's real intent.

As you can see it cause no problems for my argument but rather support it. I do have you to thank for making the truth of justification by faith without works much more vividly clarified in my own mind through this discussion.

 

[Andre]

There are only two classes of people on planet earth and the words "for there is no difference for all" means "for there is no difference between Jew and Gentile for ALL MANKIND" has sinned.

This does not explain why Paul chose to express his argument in terms of Jews and Gentiles and not, say, men and women.

It is clear if one pays attention to the details of the argument in chapter 3 and 4 that Paul is making a specifially ethnic argument. Again, from chapter 4, we have this:

Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

This alone, should seal the deal even though the other evidence is quite compelling. What is the thing that has been credited to Abraham here? Answer: the very righteous status apart from "works" that you think is a righteous status apart from good works.

Paul is clearly concerned with saying that Abraham was awarded his justified state before he received the ethnically distinctive mark of circumcision. Is circumcision a moral act? Is it a good work? No and no - it is the clear marker that sets the Jew apart as distinct from the Gentile.

And to emphasize that Abraham was justified prior to receiving this mark is precisely the thing you would expect Paul to write if he were denying that Abraham's justification was not received in virtue of being a Jew.

And it is entirely irrelevant to an argument that Abraham was justified by good works.

That is the problem with the "traditional" reformed take on this whole matter - it leave key texts as dangling and irrelevant. And that is a clear sign that something is amiss in the exegesis.

 

[Dr. Walter]

This does not explain why Paul chose to express his argument in terms of Jews and Gentiles and not, say, men and women.

If Paul had said "men and women" that would be a GENDER difference but Paul says "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE." Paul uses the anarthous construction of "a man" in verse 28 which is designed grammatically to emphasize what characterizes "MAN" not what characterizes a Jew or a Gentile as that would make a difference but Paul's point is "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE."

You are arguing the very REVERSE of what Paul is arguing. You are arguing for a DIFFERENCE whether ethnic or gender and Paul is arguing that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

The denial of difference is based upon the UNIVERSALITITY of "sin" from Romans 1:18-3:9. Romans 3:9-18 continues to argue that THERE IS NO DIFFERNCE when it comes to sin "for ALL HUMANITY has sinned".

The denial of difference under sin and under law - vv. 19-20

The denial of difference in regard to righteousness provided in Christ - vv. 21-22

The denial of difference in regard to sin - vv. 22-23

The denial of difference in regard to the SAME provision for sin in verses 24-26 which is by faith.

The denial of difference in regard to any grounds for boasting according to works - vv. 27-28

The denial of difference in regard to the Same God - v. 29

The denial of difference in regard to the same basis for justification - v. 30

The denial of difference in regard to the same "law" being vindicated by the same justification by faith - v. 31.

It is clear if one pays attention to the detials of the argument in chapters 3 and 4 that Paul is denying there is any difference between Jews and Gentiles in regard to law, sin, provision of salvation, grounds for boasting in works, God, justification by faith or vindication of the same law by faith or the character of justifying faith in Romans 4.

Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

This alone, should seal the deal even though the other evidence is quite compelling. What is the thing that has been credited to Abraham here? Answer: the very righteous status apart from "works" that you think is a righteous status apart from good works.

This should seal the deal because Abraham is a GENTILE who served OTHER GODS before there was a Jewish race. The Old Testament scriptures make it clear that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all GENTILES and "SYRIAN" by ethnicity where as the Jewish nation began with the change of name from Jacob to "Israel" and the nation of "Israel" began with the twelve children of Jacob.

Ge 25:20 And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padanaram, the sister to Laban the Syrian.

De 26:5 And thou shalt speak and say before the LORD thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous:

Jos 24:2 And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all married into their own SYRIAN family. Abraham sought a wife from his SYRIAN family for Isaac. Jacob married a woman from his UNCLE who was a SYRIAN.

Abraham was a SYRIAN by ethnicity thus a GENTILE and no Jew came into existence until after God changed the name of Jacob to "Israel" and the children of Israel became the nation of Israel.

In Romans 4, Paul takes us back BEFORE Abraham was justfied by faith (Rom. 4:1) as a GENTILE Syrian.

If that does not seal it against your interpretation NOTHING WILL.

Paul is clearly concerned with saying that Abraham was awarded his justified state before he received the ethnically distinctive mark of circumcision. Is circumcision a moral act? Is it a good work? No and no - it is the clear marker that sets the Jew apart as distinct from the Gentile.

And to emphasize that Abraham was justified prior to receiving this mark is precisely the thing you would expect Paul to write if he were denying that Abraham's justification was not received in virtue of being a Jew.

And it is entirely irrelevant to an argument that Abraham was justified by good works.

That is the problem with the "traditional" reformed take on this whole matter - it leave key texts as dangling and irrelevant. And that is a clear sign that something is amiss in the exegesis.[/QUOTE]

 

[Andre]

Your exposition is not true above. The critique of jews begins in Romans 2:17 and ends in Rom. 3:8.

Agreed, but this only strengthens the case that a Jew-Gentile distinction is being drawn.,

In Romans 3:9 he does NOT return to the Gentiles as you suggest but returns to BOTH as a conclusion of the WHOLE exposition beginning with Romans 1:18 to Romans 3:8 including BOTH Jews and Gentiles.

Again, the point is that Paul is addressing the Jew and Gentile in turn, showing that he is indeed concerned with issue of perceived ethnic differences. This is manifestly clear from this statement:

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[b]? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin

Paul is not simply saying that all humans have sinned - he is saying something more particular - that neither the Jew nor the Gentile can claim to be any less sinful than the other.

The redemption described in Romans 3:24-26 is applicable to BOTH Jews and Gentiles.

I have never denied this. But this does not change the fact that Paul is not simply making a declaration of the universality of sin - he is making the point that neither the Jew nor the Gentile can claim to be any less sinful than the other. Language like "are we any better", or material in Romans 2 about how the Jew might brag make this clear.

Again the mark of unsound exegesis - glossing over details, in this case the Jew-Gentile distinction and how Paul is addressing it as a matter of "ethnic pride".

My exposition of the contrast between works and faith in Romans 3:23-28 you completely ignorned because it completely destroys your whole interpretation.

I did not ignore it, I showed that that it is a circular argument, assuming the very thing it should be trying to prove.

The use of "a man" in Romans 3:28 conclusion destroys your interpretation.

Of course it does no such thing. Again, you simply assume a global context when the 1st century reader in the church at Rome would know only too well that it is only the Jew who can be justified by the works of the Law of Moses.

And Paul is clearly talking about the works of the Law of Moses here, as should be clear from this:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too?

 

[Andre]

The whole human race is made up of two groups in Jews and Gentiles. Paul says "there is no difference" but Andre says Paul is making a difference of ethnicity!!!! I will take Paul over Andre any day of the week. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE for "ALL" have sinned. The word "all" following the words "THERE IS NO DIFFERNCE" means in the clearest sense "ALL MANKIND WITHOUT DISTINCTION" have sinned.

No, Paul did not need to bring in the Jew - Gentile distinction. The fact that Jews and Gentiles together make up all humanity is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that Paul has indeed introduced the matter of this particular ethnic distinction and repeatedly returns to it through the chapter.

If Paul were simply using "Jew + Gentile" as a way to refer to all of humanity, then why didn't he do so in any of the following ways instead:

1. Men + Women
2. People with beards + People without beards
3. Rich people + Non Rich people

....and so on and so on.

And, even though your position can make no sense of it, Paul caps his climactic statement about justification with this:

Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith

Clearly Paul is not simply interested in making universal declaration about either the universality of sin or about the universality of grace. The evidence is clear - Paul is making an argument that is centrally concerned with perceptions about the Jew-Gentile distinction. This is there in chapter 3 and also in chapter 4:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?

Your position has no explanatory power as to why Paul is so focused on the Jew-Gentile distinction. This argument that, together the Jew and the Gentile make up all humanity clearly does not work. The same could be said of men + women, bald people and hairy people.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No expositor of Roman 1-3 denies there is an ethnic distinction within the church at Rome or most of the churches. No expositor denies that the lost Jew and the Judiazer thought they were suprior to the Gentiles. No expositor denies that Paul does not indicate such distinctions. So pointing out the words that indicate such distinctions is mute.

It is not the distinctions that is our point of disagreement but rather how Paul addresses those distinctions in regard to sin and redemption.

You want to make the "law of works" restrictive to the Jew alone without any bearing upon the Gentile. You want to make "the law" in Romans 3:9-20 restrictive to the Jew alone. You want to make the "law of works" in Romans 3:27-28 restrictive to the Jew alone. You want to make "works" in Romans 4 and Romans 11:6 and Ephesians 2:9 restrictive to the Jew alone.

However, Romans 3:31 is your waterloo as it proves this is not the case as the same "law" that is vindicated by justification by faith for the Jew is the same "law" that is vindicated by justificaiton by faith for the GENTILE. If your position were correct then justification by faith for the GENTILE could not vindicate the same "law" as justification by faith of the Jew - but it clearly does.

It is you that ignores the finer details in Romans 3:9-31. The finer details of UNIVERSAL language in Romans 3:19-20 - "THE WHOLE WORLD" and "NO FLESH" and "EVERY MOUTH" whereas your position requires this law to be restrictive to the Jew only and therefore should read "THE JEWS" and "NO JEWISH MOUTH' and "NO JEWISH FLESH." But it does not read that way. Thus "the law" in verse 19-20 is "the law" in Romans 3:31 that faith vindicates since it is the law that sin violated.

This being the case, then the universality of CONDEMNATION "under sin" begun in Romans 3:9 and verified "under law" in Romans 3:10-18 is concluded by UNIVERSAL CONDEMNATION "under law" in Romans 3:19-20.

The "law of works" or "deeds of THE LAW" in verses 27-28 refers to "THE LAW" in Romans 3:19-20 and Romans 3:31 as that is the only law the Jew could boast in and yet violated by sin just as it is the only law which is essentially written upon the conscience of the Gentile and yet violated by sin.

What you fail to see is that Paul is clearly demonstrating that the MORAL law given to the Jew through Moses is substantially no different in moral essence than the law written upon the conscience of all men including the Gentiles and the violation of one is the violation of both and that is precisely why he can quote THE LAW's condemnation in Romans 3:9-18 and apply it UNIVERSALLY in UNIVERSAL terms in Romans 3:19-20.

Romans 3:31 demands that the SAME LAW that justification by faith vindicates for the Jew is the SAME LAW that justification by faith vindicates for the Gentile.

Again what you fail to see and understand is that justification by faith vindicates the very SAME LAW that sin violated in Romans 3:19-20 otherwise no vindication of the law is necessary.

Furthermore, what you fail to see and understand is HOW justification by faith vindicates THE LAW! It vindicates NOT ACCORDING TUR WORKS but according to the works of Jesus Christ which are the only works that provide PROPITIATION/SATISFACTION for the violated law of God - its standard of righteousness - sinless righteousness - and its penalty of sin - death.

Agreed, but this only strengthens the case that a Jew-Gentile distinction is being drawn.,


Again, the point is that Paul is addressing the Jew and Gentile in turn, showing that he is indeed concerned with issue of perceived ethnic differences. This is manifestly clear from this statement:

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[b]? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin

Paul is not simply saying that all humans have sinned - he is saying something more particular - that neither the Jew nor the Gentile can claim to be any less sinful than the other.


I have never denied this. But this does not change the fact that Paul is not simply making a declaration of the universality of sin - he is making the point that neither the Jew nor the Gentile can claim to be any less sinful than the other. Language like "are we any better", or material in Romans 2 about how the Jew might brag make this clear.

Again the mark of unsound exegesis - glossing over details, in this case the Jew-Gentile distinction and how Paul is addressing it as a matter of "ethnic pride".


I did not ignore it, I showed that that it is a circular argument, assuming the very thing it should be trying to prove.


Of course it does no such thing. Again, you simply assume a global context when the 1st century reader in the church at Rome would know only too well that it is only the Jew who can be justified by the works of the Law of Moses.

And Paul is clearly talking about the works of the Law of Moses here, as should be clear from this:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too?

 

[Andre]

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Verse 19 refers to the scriptures quote in verses 10-18 as "the law saith" in application to both Jews and Gentiles and that is precisely why Paul uses only UNIVERSAL terms in verses 19-20

1. "every mouth"
2. "all the world"
3. "no flesh"

These UNIVERSALS cannot possibly be restricted to just the Jewish race nor will the preceding context allow that as verses 19-20 is the conclusion of the further evidence offered by Paul to prove that the Gentiles along with the Jews are "UNDER SIN."

No. Paul argued that Jews are sinful. And he has argued that Gentiles are sinful. Yes, of course this adds up to all humanity. But that does not justify seeing both and Gentile as under "the law" as per verse 19. The Law of Moses is only for Jews, and having made it clear that both the Jew and Gentile are under sin, he then points out that the law condemns those who are under it, that is the Jews and that the Gentile, too, is condemned in virtue of his sinfulness, even though he is not "under the Law of Moses".

To see the problem with your position, imagine that there exists this "law" that short men must shave their beards. Now suppose that I wanted to argue that all men, short or tall, have a problem of scruffy beards. I could start by pointing that short men have not obeyed the law to shave their beards. I could then point out that, even though tall men are under no specific law about beard shaving, they too have a problem with scruffy beards. I could then conclude as follows:

Now we know that whatever the beard shaving law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable for their scruffy beards.

This makes perfect sense. Even though, for some mysterious reason, there is only a law for short men, the tall mean still have a moral obligation to shave their beards. And so, indeed all men, short one and tall ones, are in trouble.

Now returning to the actual text: For my argument to work, I need to be able to make a case that Paul is talking about the Law of Moses in verse 20. Well, I will not make my case here, I will merely point out that there is nothing in the immediate context to rule this out. Second, I suspect you will say that verse 20 must refer to some universal kind of law since Paul has placed everyone under judgement. Well we can have that conversation if you like. But since the law of Moses arrived at Sinai, I can appeal to the fact that people certainly did sin before this particular law was not in force. So Paul can indeed say that the Gentile is a sinner even if he is not under the Law of Moses in particular. So Paul can still be specifically referring to the Law of Moses in verse 20.

And I have already argued, in a different thread, that this is what he probably is doing.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Here is where your dogma overrules the finer points of exegesis. Romans 3:9 includes both Jews and Gentiles together and verse 10 links that togetherness to verse 9 by the words "AS saith the scriptures...."

Paul is bringing in scriptural support to prove that both Jews and Gentiles are all UNDER SIN - vv. 10-18. Romans 3:19-20 is the conclusion Paul draws to the scriptural data given in verses 10-18 to support that both Jews and Gentiles ARE SINNERS.

This is easy to prove. Romans 3:10-11 is quoted from Psalm 14:2-3 or Psalm 54:2-3 and is UNIVERSAL in application:

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men,[not children of "Israel"] to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Pauls use of Scripture comes from texts dealing with the UNIVERSALITY of sin not simply Jewish sin. Romans 3:9-18 is the UNIVERSAL condemnation of mankind both Jew and Gentile and you cannot honestly deny it.

Romans 3:19-20 is the conclusion to this UNIVERSALITY of sin and the finer details in this passage you MUST IGNORE in order to avoid its universality:


Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Your dogma requires you to ignore the finer exegetical points in these two verses in regard to its application:

1. EVERY MOUTH - universal - not "every Jewish mouth"
2. ALL THE WORLD - universal - not "every Jew"
3. NO FLESH - universal - not "every born Jew"

Paul makes it clear just two chapters later in dealing with the UNIVERSALITY OF SIN that where there is no law there is no sin:

(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. - Rom. 5:13

However, both BEFORE Romans 3:19-20 and AFTER Romans 3:19-20 Paul concludes that the Gentiles are "UNDER SIN":


What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; - Rom. 3:9

"For there is no difference for ALL HAVE SINNED...." - Rom. 3:22,23

However, there is no sin to those who are not "under law"! Hence, the Gentiles are "under the law" as sin by definition is "transgression of THE LAW"- I Jn. 4:6

The law in Romans 3:19-20 is described in terms of UNIVERSALITY in its condemnation:

1. "EVERY mouth"
2. "ALL THE WORLD"
3. "NO FLESH"

Moreover, "the law" that is violated in Romans 3:19-20 is "the law" that is vindicated in Romans 3:31 through justification by faith by GENTILES equally as JEWS!!!

Therefore the UNIVERSALITY of sin demonstrated by the Scriptures in Romans 3:10-18 taken from UNIVERSAL contexts refers to the UNIVERAL MORAL LAW of God that is manifested "in the law and the prophets" given to the Jews but it is also manifested in "the law" written upon the conscience of Gentiles that reveals to them RIGHT versus WRONG or GOOD verus BAD works.

This context from Romans 3:9-31 demonlishes your position - totally evaporates it by demonstrating that "the works of the law" are those works that the UNIVERSAL MORAL law whether on stone or conscience dictates "good" versus "bad" WORKS - none of which can justify either the Jew or Gentile as they all "HAVE SINNED" in regard to THE LAW and thus cannot be justified "according to their works" but only according to "the law...of faith."

Give it up! You are simply fighting for dogma that has no Biblical basis in Romans 3:9-31 or anywhere else in scriptures where justification before God is the issue.

No. Paul argued that Jews are sinful. And he has argued that Gentiles are sinful. Yes, of course this adds up to all humanity. But that does not justify seeing both and Gentile as under "the law" as per verse 19. The Law of Moses is only for Jews, and having made it clear that both the Jew and Gentile are under sin, he then points out that the law condemns those who are under it, that is the Jews and that the Gentile, too, is condemned in virtue of his sinfulness, even though he is not "under the Law of Moses".

 

[Andre]

You say Paul is making a difference but Paul says "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE" in regard to being "UNDER SIN" and "UNDER LAW" and therefore there is no difference in justification by faith from the condemnation from sin under law through the righteousness of God manifested in the Person and work of Christ:

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

I do not know how you think I am contradicting Paul. The point is this:

1. Jews, and perhaps Gentiles too, might see themselves a morally superior;

2. Paul wants to say that both Jew and Gentile are equally in bad shape;

3. He therefore explicitly says that both Jew and Gentile alike are under sin. So, yes, there is no distinction.

But do not misrepresent me as saying that I disagree with Paul. Paul's whole argument is that justification is not determined ethnically. So Paul is responding to the perception in the reader's mind that justification might be ethnically based.

So I am not saying that Paul is saying there is a difference, I am saying that Paul is rebuking other people who think there is a difference.

 

[Dr. Walter]

[/COLOR]
So I am not saying that Paul is saying there is a difference, I am saying that Paul is rebuking other people who think there is a difference.

You are interpreting "the law" in order to make such a distinction when Paul is interpreting "the law" in order to deny such a distinction. The reason they are EQUALLY all "under sin" is because they are EQUALLY all "under law" as there is no sin where there is no law.

You are making a distinction in law where Paul denies there is a distinction in law. It is the same MORAL LAW that condemns both the Jews and the gentiles EQUALLY under sin.

The law of Moses is NOTHING more or less than the MORAL LAW applied to every aspect of life. There is no essential difference in regard to SIN between the law written upon stones versus the law written upon conscience as they both act as THE MORAL STANDARD of right and wrong that both Jew and Gentile EQUALLY violate.

The Law of Moses as designed by God is only MORE COMPREHENSIVE in application than the same MORAL law written upon conscience.

This is why Paul could quote from UNIVERSAL applications of scripture in regard to sin in Romans 3:10-18 and then apply both Jew and Gentile "under THE LAW" in Romans 3:19-20 as it is essentially the same law because it originates from the SAME GOD whose righteousness is the SAME basis for both and that is why justification by faith of the Gentile can VALIDATE the very SAME LAW that justification by faith of the Jew validates because it is THE SAME LAW violated by both Gentile and Jew.

Give it up! You are fighting the scriptures not me.

 

[Andre]

This is an absurdly rediculous conclusion that defies every word in the preceding context from verse 9. Romans 3:22-23 says "FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE" and you call Paul a liar and say Paul is making a difference.

An misundersanding on your part of what I have been saying. I have been crysal clear that Paul is not saying there is a difference in respect to justification, I am, as per my last post, saying that Paul is critiquing other people who think there is a difference. And, as the way of doing this, he makes it clear that both Jew and Gentile alike are sinners.

In other words, Paul has to raise the Jew-Gentile distinction in order to then refute it.

Paul says "for ALL have sinned" denying ethnic diversity but claiming UNIVERSAL condemnation "under sin" and you are claiming the very opposite.

As per above, I am doing no such thing.

Verses 24-26 is the provision of God for justification of SINNERS that excludes all works BY SINNERS and includes only faith in the object of God's provision thus elminating ALL BOASTING by ALL would be justified by faith.

Begging the question again - you simply assume that this a good works argument, not an ethnic one. I, on the other hand, have actually mounted a detailed case for my position.

Andre, you don't care what the scriptures say.You will wrest them to say what you want.

Inappropriate comment with no evidence to support it.

Your interpetation is absurd and contradictory to this whole context of UNIVERSAL terms of condemnation, UNVERISAL terms of redemption UNIVERSAL denial of boasting.

I have already fully addressed this critique.

You could not deal with my last post item by item but instead avoided the whole post by coming back with this reinterpretation and reassertion of your false doctrine.

Another claim with no evidence. You, of course, have no evidence at all that I have ignored anything. There are a lot of posts flying back and forth. I am trying to answer all your arguments. If I missed one, it is either because it got lost in the confusion, or because I simply have not yet had the time to deal with it.

Paul nails the coffin shut upon your heresy with precision by his use of UNIVERSALS - "for there is NO DIFFERENCE" "all" and "a man" you response is obvious distortion simply to wiggle out of the precise language of Paul. I dare you to go back to my previous post and deal with it section by section, argument by argument.

My position is sound. I will get to all your arguments as time permits. I am not sure precisely what you think I have overlooked. I suspect it is that you seem to think that the reference to "a man" in the following requires us to see the "works of the law" as something other than the law of Moses:

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

Well, if there any coffin nails being used here, it is this:

29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

It only makes sense for Paul to say this if, in verse 28, the "man" is the Jew under the Law of Moses. If, as you seem to be suggesting, verse 28 is to be understood as a universal, why does Paul need to further qualify what is, on your view, already understood to be a universal statement, with a repetition of its universality?

My view makes much more sense. Paul denies that the Jew can be justified by the works of the Law of Moses, and then explains this by pointing out that God's justification extends to Gentiles as well. It makes no sense to write this:

For (AT)we maintain that any man, Jew or Gentile, is justified by faith apart from good works. 29Or (AU)is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

This does not make sense. If Paul really expected to be understood as rebuking justification by good works by any human being, he would not do what he obviously is doing in verse 29, that is, rebuking the person who would think that God's justification is limited to Jews.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Well, if there any coffin nails being used here, it is this:

29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

It only makes sense for Paul to say this if, in verse 28, the "man" is the Jew under the Law of Moses. If, as you seem to be suggesting, verse 28 is to be understood as a universal, why does Paul need to further qualify what is, on your view, already understood to be a universal statement, with a repetition of its universality?

My view makes much more sense. Paul denies that the Jew can be justified by the works of the Law of Moses, and then explains this by pointing out that God's justification extends to Gentiles as well. It makes no sense to write this:

For (AT)we maintain that any man, Jew or Gentile, is justified by faith apart from good works. 29Or (AU)is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

This does not make sense. If Paul really expected to be understood as rebuking justification by good works by any human being, he would not do what he obviously is doing in verse 29, that is, rebuking the person who would think that God's justification is limited to Jews.

If your position were correct Paul would have said "a jew" instead of "a man" as you demand the previous phrase "deeds of the law" must refer to Jews and not generic "man."

Furthermore, the anarthous construction of "man" expresses what CHARACTERIZES "man" in general and thus gives the basis for the next question - "is God the God of Jews only?" as if that is the only CHARACTERIZATION of a "man" to be a Jew?????? God did not create "a Jew" but he creatd a "man" and Gentiles are by characterization the very same kind of "man" that a Jew is by characterization. That is why he continues to say that He is "ONE God" of the gentiles also as gentiles are MEN as much as Jews are MEN and sin is a MAN thing not a gentile or Jew thing. Thus there is but ONE GOD, and ONE KIND OF MAN - the SINFUL KIND that can only be justified ONE WAY through Faith:

Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Therefore Romans 3:29 does not support your theory of TWO KINDS OF MEN under TWO KINDS OF LAW.

 

[Andre]

You are interpreting "the law" in order to make such a distinction when Paul is interpreting "the law" in order to deny such a distinction. The reason they are EQUALLY all "under sin" is because they are EQUALLY all "under law" as there is no sin where there is no law.

I have fully dealt with this and will not waste time clarifying what I believe is already clear. My argument is what it is. At a certain, we may need to agree to disagree.

You are making a distinction in law where Paul denies there is a distinction in law. It is the same MORAL LAW that condemns both the Jews and the gentiles EQUALLY under sin.

No. Paul does not deny that there is a distinction in law - he denies that there is a distinction in respect to sin:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Now if you want to say that there can only be sin in the presence of law, please go ahead a do so. I would advise you, however, to pay close attention to Paul's argument in Romans 5:

for until the Law sin was in the world,

This is a statement that before the Law of Moses came, there was still sin (check the context). True, Paul speaks of how sin is not "imputed" in the absence of law, and we can discuss that if you like. But it seems pretty clear that Paul thinks that sin can exist in the absence of law.

The law of Moses is NOTHING more or less than the MORAL LAW applied to every aspect of life.

I have agreed with you that the Law of Moses is essentially the manifestation of "love God and love neighbour". But the Bible says what it says - as a code, it was given to Jews only (as you agreed):

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean.
26'Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I (Z)have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.

So Paul can indeed speak of the Jew as those "under the law".

There is no essential difference in regard to SIN between the law written upon stones versus the law written upon conscience as they both act as THE MORAL STANDARD of right and wrong that both Jew and Gentile EQUALLY violate.

I agree, but this is not argument that when Paul refers to those "under the Law" that he is not specifically referring to the Jew under the Law of Moses. The constitution of the USA may well embody universal principles of justice, but only Americans are, in fact, under it.

Give it up! You are fighting the scriptures not me.

I trust the obvious need not be stated, but I will anyway. I believe that my exegesis more correctly captures Paul's intended meaning. After all, when it comes to "fighting the scriptures" it is you, not me, who thinks the following is not a statement of a coming judgement at which eternal life will be awarded based on deeds:

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your fundemental Premise is that all men are going to ultimately be judged "according to your works" - Rom. 2:6

You believe this is as true for Gentiles as it is for Jews.

Would it be wrong to presume that the only "works" that can possibly justify Jew or Gentile before God are "good" works - Rom. 2:7????

Hence, if my presumption is correct and you agree with it, then your position is that only jews and gentiles that are able to present sufficient "good" works as opposed to bad works will be ultimately justified as you don't take the position that anyone now is perfect and produces only "good" works without any "bad" works. So your position is one of scales in the balance - good works out weigh bad works by those who profess Christ in order to be justified before God.

Again, presumably you don't believe the MORAL law has been abolished and that love is the fulfilling of all commandments by God. Therefore, justification by faith according to your position is initial justification as well as inclusive of progressive sanctification as the basis for ultimate future justification before God. Thus faith plus GOOD works equals final justification before God according to your view of Romans 2:6.

In order to avoid the problem of repeated denials that any man is justified by works or by works of the law or the deeds of the law you restrict those statements to the Jewish law and the idea that Paul is only denying that anyone must become a Jew in order to be saved by conforming to the Mosaic Law.

Have I summarized your position correctly?