What matters is keeping the Commandments of God

[Dr. Walter]

John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?

Question: Who did Moses give the law to?

Answer: Jesus said he gave it to "YOU" - thus he not speaking to merely individuals but to the JEWISH NATION.

Question: How many of the Jewish nation kept the law?

Answer "NONE OF YOU"

However, this does not change the fact that the law was given to them to keep

However, this does not change the fact that the law reveals the righteousness of God

However, this does not change the fact that whoever does keep it will obtain eternal life

Both the Lawyer and the Rich Young Ruler came to Jesus on the basis of obtaining eternal life by Law keeping and Jesus simply said DO IT and you will obtain eternal life. Neither the Lawyer or the Rich Young Ruler believed in Christ nor did Christ say "believe in me and you will have eternal life." They came by way of law keeping and Jesus merely pointed them to what the law demanded to obtain etenal life.

In Romans 2:6-15 the self-righteous gentile (vv. 1-5) come to God by way of law keeping and the self-righteous Jew comes to God by way of lawkeeping (vv. 17-25) and Paul merely points out what the law demands for eternal life and what it penalizes for failure "ACCORDING TO" their OWN WORKS - neither came by way of faith in Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

You begin at the wrong place Bob! Romans 2:7 is a response to Romans 2:3-6. In Romans 2:3 the assertion is made that this is a class of people who believe because of their own works they are better than others and on that basis will "escape the judgement of God" (v.3). In verse 5 he defines them in these terms "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath"

No I believe you are the one missing the point. I have admitted in almost every post on Romans 2 that there are failing examples in Romans 2 just as there are in Romans 1 and in Romans 3.

I simply make the point that there are ALSO succeeding cases in Romans 2 just as there are in Romans 1 and in Romans 3!

This is just not that hard.

Then I give examples IN the text of Romans 2 of the very successes you are so anxious to ignore.

Your focus is exclusively on the Jews that are not saved. But Paul is a saved Jew and in Rom 1:1-17 he writes to other saved Jews in Rome as well as gentiles. At no point does Paul ever argue that only the gentiles in the church of Rome are saved NOR does he argue that all Jews in the church of Rome are lost.

So when in Romans 2 we have NOT ONLY the failing examples among BOTH the Jews AND the Gentiles mentioned IN THE TEXT -- but we also have successes not only in the church of Rome but in the world itself listed in Romans 2.

Verses 26-29 repeately use the term "if" because Paul is reasoning with the HYPOCRITICAL LOST JEW that he has just addressed directly in verses 17-25 wherein is described their basis of law keeping which they suppose makes them better

Indeed your view of the lost is quite clear - I have consistently said that.

But Paul does not argue that "Causing the gentiles to blaspheme the name of God" is the right role of a saint - Jew or gentile.. Your focus on the lost is fine - your focus on the saved, born-again saint in Romans 2 and in Rev 14 is completely lacking.

Walter -
He is only bringing this imaginary supposition up only to demonstrate that the EXTERNAL sign of committment to law keeping is worthless

Here is where you argument completely collapsed.

Paul does not argue in Romans 2 that it would be pure fiction to suggest that Jews and Gentiles persevere in doing good. In fact Paul insists that this is the case with saved saints.

WE call that the doctrine of "perseverance of the saints" -- check it out some time -- it is also included in your Cavlinist manual.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

[
He is only bringing this imaginary supposition up only to demonstrate that the EXTERNAL sign of committment to law keeping is worthless if there is no INTERNAL reality that harmonizes with it. To illustrate this point, he takes the very ones that the Pious Jews despise (the gentile) and claim to be superior to in righteousness and presents them as actually obeying the law written upon their conscience without external circumcision and claims that such obedience would be counted by God as circumcision while the Jews external conformance would be discounted. .

Nothing "imaginary" about that idea because as Paul points out IN Romans 2 it is done as a work of the Holy Spirit working on the heart and it is as Paul states in Heb 8 a work of the Holy Spirit under the New Covenant writing the Law of God on the heart!


And big shocker - Romans 2 contains references to BOTH the lost and the saved!

Here is the section on the saved.

Quote:
Rom 2
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.


9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14 For 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,
15 in 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,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

It is the same emphasis on good trees producing good fruit that we see in Matt 7 and the same perseverance of the saints seen in Rev 14:6-7, 12.

No wonder Paul can say in 1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

And "yes" in that context Paul is speaking to the saved saints - so no need to "circle back to the POV of the lost" as a knee jerk reaction to reading that text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In John 7 Jesus speaks to a group of Jews that are rejecting him. I.e. lost Jews

John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?

But in other places we find in structions to the saints --

"But what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19

Maybe a small sampling of one or two other texts along that line --

I Jn 5:2-3
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Rev 12:17
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev 14:12
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Rev 22:14 NKJV/KJV/YLT
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

I Jn 2:3-4
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

John 15:10-11 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.




How is it possible that the new creation of 2Cor 5 would actually obey God's word? Heb 8 has an answer.

Heb 8 - 10 "" FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.


So also does Rom 6

Rom 6
5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so thatwe would no longer be slaves to sin;






While you are correct to observe that there are some people in Rev 14 mentioned as failing there are ALSO saints mentioned in Rev 14 "by contrast" to the wicked.

It seems you have a pattern of wanting to delete the saints from a chapter whenever you find them contrasted to the wicked.

How odd.

Oh well - we always have the Bible by contrast.

Rev 14:12
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

But of course there will be some who when confronted with these texts regarding the perseverance of the saints - will respond that the lost do not do what we see the saints doing in these texts above AND that the lost cannot simply "be good" as a way to "be saved". Their view of the condition of the lost is excellent.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

OK to the series below but this can't mean that no single Jew in the previous 2000 years kept the Law. It refers to the people alive when Jesus spoke.
--------------------
John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?

Question: Who did Moses give the law to?

Answer: Jesus said he gave it to "YOU" - thus he not speaking to merely individuals but to the JEWISH NATION.

Question: How many of the Jewish nation kept the law?

Answer "NONE OF YOU"

However, this does not change the fact that the law was given to them to keep

However, this does not change the fact that the law reveals the righteousness of God

However, this does not change the fact that whoever does keep it will obtain eternal life

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

...............

I simply make the point that there are ALSO succeeding cases in Romans 2 just as there are in Romans 1 and in Romans 3!

This is just not that hard.

....................

GE:

This is just what is too hard for Bob Ryan to admit --- because he obviously does see it --- that there just, ARE, NO, "succeeding cases" of freedom of will or bondage of the law, or vice versa, bondage of will or free from the law. One is either in Christ elected and saved, or not elected in Christ and saved.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You are missing the point - "NO FLESH" can be justified by the works of the Law because NO FLESH can keep the law.

When God gave them the law at Mount Sinai his first response to their committment to keep the Law was:

De 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

Deut. 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

So you see NONE of them were capable in the day of Moses to keep it either, including Moses and Aaron as they were forbidden entrance into the promise land because they broke God's commandments.

There is "NO FLESH" that can be justified by the law because "NO FLESH" lost or saved that can keep it.

Therefore JUSTIFICATION does not come by law keeping but by faith in Christ and "THE LAW IS NOT OF FAITH" - Gal. 3:12a

OK to the series below but this can't mean that no single Jew in the previous 2000 years kept the Law. It refers to the people alive when Jesus spoke.
--------------------
John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?

Question: Who did Moses give the law to?

Answer: Jesus said he gave it to "YOU" - thus he not speaking to merely individuals but to the JEWISH NATION.

Question: How many of the Jewish nation kept the law?

Answer "NONE OF YOU"

However, this does not change the fact that the law was given to them to keep

However, this does not change the fact that the law reveals the righteousness of God

However, this does not change the fact that whoever does keep it will obtain eternal life

 

[BobRyan]

OK to the series below but this can't mean that no single Jew in the previous 2000 years kept the Law. It refers to the people alive when Jesus spoke.
--------------------
John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?

Question: Who did Moses give the law to?

Answer: Jesus said he gave it to "YOU" - thus he not speaking to merely individuals but to the JEWISH NATION.

Question: How many of the Jewish nation kept the law?

Answer "NONE OF YOU"

However, this does not change the fact that the law was given to them to keep

However, this does not change the fact that the law reveals the righteousness of God

However, this does not change the fact that whoever does keep it will obtain eternal life

In Romans 8:7 Paul says that the wicked mind is hostile toward God and does not keep the Law of God.

In 1Cor 7:19 Paul is applying the obligation regarding the Law of God to saved saints when he says "What matters is keeping the Commandments of God".



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You are missing the point - "NO FLESH" can be justified by the works of the Law because NO FLESH can keep the law.

That is a good statemetn from the POV of the lost person.

As Rom 8:7 the lost person's mind is hostile toward God and is not able to keep His Law.

But in 1Cor 7:19 the message to the saved saints is "but what matters is keeping the commandments of God".

In 1John 2 and in Romans 6 the NT authors tell us that if someone is claiming that they must sin - then they are claiming that they are not saved. Whether they are right about such claims - only God knows.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

You begin at the wrong place Bob! Romans 2:7 is a response to Romans 2:3-6. In Romans 2:3 the assertion is made that this is a class of people who believe because of their own works they are better than others and on that basis will "escape the judgement of God" (v.3). In verse 5 he defines them in these terms "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath" and then you miss the vital last statement of verse 5 that introduces verses 6-15: "the RIGHTEOUS judgement of God." Verses 6-16 defends the judgement of God as RIGHTEOUS. It is RIGHTEOUS because it is fair in its criteria and consquences (vv. 6-10). It is RIGHTEOUS because it is without respect of persons (v. 11). It is RIGHTEOUS because every person is judged according to the light they have (vv. 12-15). It is RIGHTEOUS because the gospel standard of righteousness as revealed in the Person and works of Jesus (Rev. 1:17 "therein is the righteousness of God revealed") the man will be applied to all men who come on the basis of their own works (v. 16).

Hence, both the hypocrit in verses 1-5 are in for "wrath" as verse 5 states. Hence, the Jews who believe they can keep the ten commandments (vv. 20-21) will be in for wrath as verse 24 delcares them to be blasphemers.

Verses 26-29 repeately use the term "if" because Paul is reasoning with the HYPOCRITICAL LOST JEW that he has just addressed directly in verses 17-25 wherein is described their basis of law keeping which they suppose makes them better than the Gentiles (when in reality they are not better except in their own imagination as they cannot keep the ten commandments written in stone [vv. 21-22] any better than the gentile can keep the ten commandments written on their conscience [vv. 14-15] and that is why he repeatedly uses the "if" because there is no actual reality to the supposition being considered).

He is only bringing this imaginary supposition up only to demonstrate that the EXTERNAL sign of committment to law keeping is worthless if there is no INTERNAL reality that harmonizes with it. To illustrate this point, he takes the very ones that the Pious Jews despise (the gentile) and claim to be superior to in righteousness and presents them as actually obeying the law written upon their conscience without external circumcision and claims that such obedience would be counted by God as circumcision while the Jews external conformance would be discounted. Paul's point is not to assert Gentiles have done this or can do this but rather that "if" they did then the Jew would be inferior to the Gentile because God looks upon the heart not the externals to judge righteousness.

You don't understand Romans 2;14-15 because you isolate it from the developmental argument beginning with verse 3 and from the immediate point beginning in verse 12 where judgment will not use a standard for the Gentiles which they were not given - the Law of Moses - but rather use as the righteous standard only what they were given - the law as written upon their conscience (vv. 14-15).

Romans 2:25-29 gives the SUPPOSITION ("if') of a Gentile keeping the law written on conscience over the Jew who is circumcised but fails to keep the meaning of circumcision as to which one would be regarded circumcised in the sight of God. Paul's point is to the jew who believes that EXTERNALS make them MORE RIGHTEOUS than Gentiles when true righteousness is not about externals but about true obedience from the heart. This is why both the Jew and the Gentile cannot come to God on the day of judgment on the basis of their own work (Rom. 1:1-5; 17-25) because it requires a righteousness that can only come by faith in Christ and neither Jew or Gentile will come to Christ until they realize they realize they are sinners (Rom. 3:9-21).

Romans 3:9 explicitly tells the reader what point Paul is making between Revelation 1:18 where the Gentiles are first introduced and Romans 3:8 where he concludes with the Jews. Salvation in Christ has not been his subject or his point but rather to prove there is "none good, no, not one" and that "no flesh" can be justified by the works of the Law whether it is written upon stone or conscience.

Salvation and how one is saved does not begin until Romans 3:21 where the righteousness necessary for both Jew and Gentile is revealed apart from the law written on stone or conscience and apart from the prophets who predicted the coming of Christ wherein the rightousness of God is only provided in contrast to the law on stone and on conscience.

Bob you attempted to respond to the above post. However, you ignored the primary thust of this post. You see, you have consistently argued that Romans 2 presents two opposing examples, lost versus saved persons. On the other hand I have consistently argued that Romans 2 deals with one kind of person - the self-righteous who believes on the basis of his works that he will escape judgement because they believe they are better than others and that Paul simply sets forth the RIGHTEOUS CRITERIA and CONSEQUENCES that characterizes the judgement of God.

In a previous post I asked you a question which you ignorned. I asked how would you deal with the kind of persons described in Romans 2:1-5 and 17-25? People who believed they will do fine in the day of judgement WITHOUT CHRIST on the basis of their own works? How would you deal with persons who sincerely believed they were BETTER than others in God's sight based upon comparison of the way they lived and what they knew over others?

I believe that in Romans 3:9 Paul explicitly tells the reader what his intent has been from Romans 1:18-3:8. I begin with Romans 1:18 because in Romans 3:9 Paul says that his intent has been to demonstrate that the Jew i NO BETTER than the Jew and Paul begins with the Gentile in Romans 1:18. I presented chapter two as the crux of this intent to prove that both Jew and Gentile are NO BETTER than each other - both equally sinners.

Instead of seeing and admitting that Romans 2:6-15 simply outlines the principles that define a RIGHTEOUS judgement as introduced by the actual words "RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT" in verse 5 you choose to dismiss this as His intent altogether and instead claim that this is a declaration that in the judgement people are actually being justified by their own works (no mention of Christ or his works) and actually being condemned according to their own works and so Paul's intent is to show that some ARE BETTER than others on the day of judgment rather than NONE ARE BETTER than others.

So your interpretation makes Paul intent the very reverse of what Paul says his intent for Roman 1:18-3:8 has been. You make his intent to prove SOME ARE BETTER than others due to their OWN WORKS. I point out to you and call you to sincerely consider that NOT ONE WORD IS SAID ABOUT JESUS CHRIST, HIS ATONEMENT, HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS in Romans 2:6-15 as the basis for the conclusion you are drawing and the intent you are placing upon Paul and his words.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob you attempted to respond to the above post. However, you ignored the primary thust of this post. You see, you have consistently argued that Romans 2 presents two opposing examples, lost versus saved persons. On the other hand I have consistently argued that Romans 2 deals with one kind of person -

Agreed we keep saying that about each other's positions. I claim there are both succeeding and failing cases listed in Romans 1 and 2 and 3 and you keep insisting that Paul is giving only "imaginary" success cases but then "real" failing cases in Rom 2.

Walter said -
In a previous post I asked you a question which you ignorned. I asked how would you deal with the kind of persons described in Romans 2:1-5 and 17-25?

I think Paul does a good job of pointing to their rebellion "you who teach others that they should not steal do you steal?... the name of God is blasphemed among the gentiles because of you".

Paul says he speaks to "you who bear the name Jew" as if being a Jew is sufficient for salvation no matter how much you violate the Law of God so blatantly that gentiles blaspheme God because of your flagrant rebellion against the law of God.

Then Paul appeals the Jews JUST as he claims he is trying to do in Romans 11 - by appealing to jealousy. He shows these lost Jews that GENTILES are being saved while they themselves are being lost. This shocks them - right to the core of what they stand for!

Now obviously Paul cannot argue that all Jews are lost and that only Gentiles go to heaven - because he and all the Apostles are Jews as is the majority of the Christian church in Israel at that time.

Paul argues that God's judgment is without bias and the people of faith among BOTH Jew AND gentile will go to heaven if they are found to "persevere in doing good" Rom 2:7. He speaks to the same "perseverance of the saints" that we see in Rev 14:12. And He speaks of the same future judgment as we see in Rev 14:6-7.

He then warns the Romans 2 reader that this judgment cuts both ways - not only does it provide for the saint's reward but it provides for the 2nd death wrath of God for BOTH Jew AND Gentile that reject the Gospel call to repentance.

An appeal to "fictional saints" in Romans 2 would be pointless and confusing to the reader of the letter - because Paul has already admitted to real saints in the church of Rome in Rom 1:1-17. There was no way to get into chapter 2 with the assumption that he can speak of saints -- with the understanding that the reader would know there were no saints.

Not possible.

It is the unbiased judgment of God of the form of Matt 7 "by their fruits you shall know them" that is the appeal and is why Paul claims they are condemned even by lost Gentiles for their poor law-breaking open behavior.

So your interpretation makes Paul intent the very reverse of what Paul says his intent for Roman 1:18-3:8 has been. You make his intent to prove SOME ARE BETTER than others due to their OWN WORKS.

On the contrary I point out that IN the text of Romans 2 Paul identifies the work of the Holy Spirit on the heart as "making the difference" such that in the eyes of God "He is a Jew who is one INWARDLY" as a result of the circumcision of the heart done by the Holy Spirit.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Agreed we keep saying that about each other's positions. I claim there are both succeeding and failing cases listed in Romans 1 and 2 and 3 and you keep insisting that Paul is giving only "imaginary" success cases but then "real" failing cases in Rom 2.

You are expanding it to include chapter 1 and chapter 3. I have never denied that actual saved persons are directly identified and addressed in Romans 1:1-13 and the doctrine of justification is actually defined in Romans 3:24-31. However, the immeidate context will not support that Romans 2 includes those "success" person's in Romans 1:1-13 or that "success" doctrine of justification in Romans 3:24-31, both of which you are inserting into this Romans 2 interpretation of yours.

Here is the evidence why I think your attempt to include Romans 1:1-13 and Romans 3:24-31 into your interpetation of Romans 2 fails. I do not believe you are treating Romans 3:9 objectively or honestly. Paul explicitly states he has proven previous to Romans 3:9 that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin. You cannot say he has proven that in Romans 1:1-13 and Romans 3:24-31 comes after not before Romans 3:9. Hence, what he is talking about in Romans 3:9 is Romans 1:18-3:8. It must begin with Romans 1:18 because in Romans 3:9 he says he has proven that there are "none righteous, no not one" among Gentiles and He begins in Romans 1:18 with the "wrath" (not salvation) against what is very descriptive of Gentiles. His case to justify God's wrath revealed against Gentiles extends to Romans 2:5. His case against Jews must at least include Romans 2:17-3:8.

Now here is the point. In the very section that Paul demands has been provided to prove "THERE IS NONE GOOD, NO, NOT ONE" you are using to prove the very opposite and your interpretation claims Paul has found some who are GOOD and in a section (Roms. 2:6-15) that is determined by their own works (v. 6) without any mention in the description you claim are success cases of justification by faith in Christ, salvation by grace but only judgement of works. Yet in this CHRISTLESS context dealing only with their OWN WORKS you claim success cases while Paul claims he found no such success cases based on works (Rom. 3:9-20).

In addition, you must jump out of this context and find refuge in other texts outside this context in order to substantiate your interpretation.

The bottom line, the very section Paul that deals with God's wrath against Gentiles and jews (Rom. 1:18-3:8) which Paul claims he found NONE RIGHTEOUS you repudiate Paul's summary conclusion of that very same section and claim there are "success" cases and yet all your "success" cases are "according to his own works" (v. 6) by obedience to the Law (vv. 12-13) without a single solitary credit given to Jesus Christ and the atonement.

Finally, you cannot honestly claim the law written on the conscience of the Gentile in verses 14-15 is salvatory because the stated purpose is to shew that God's judges Gentiles according to the light they are given rather than judging them according to the law of Moses which they are not given. Indeed, it is this law on conscience that acts as an internal law that provides light of good and evil, right and wrong and thus provides the basis for JUST JUDGEMENT of their works rather than proof of their salvation.

Neither can you claim that Romans 2:16 is salvatory as the stated reason for the mention of the gospel is not salvatory but as a standard of judgement: "JUDGE the secrets of the hearts."


In Romans 2:25-27 the word "if" is used no less than four times setting forth external circumcision as the Jewish perceived condition of righteousness. This is pure supposition as circumcision does not make anyone righteous as Romans 2:28-29 clearly demonstrates. Not only is this pure supposition, but Paul does not mention any PARTICULAR PERSON in which this circumcised heart exists but is dealing with a PRINCIPLES and those PRINCIPLES are namely this, that (1) outward circumcision alone profits no one and so the Jewish boast that they are more righteous than the Gentile because of circumcision is a vain and empty boast; (2) that inward circumcision fully profits the person who has such a heart even though he is totally without external circumcision because the only purpose of external circumcision is to act as a "sign" and "seal" (Rom. 4:11) of that inward condition. Therefore the conclusion is drawn that the Gentile whom the Jew despises as LESS RIGHTEOUS than the jew because of outward circumcision, is circumised in heart than the Gentile is not only more righteous than the Jew but is so without any circumcision at all.

If Paul had been speaking of any "success" cases in Romans 3:26-29 he would have directly addressed them as he did those in Romans 1:1-13. If you believe he is making this PRINCIPLE argument because of the uncircumcised Gentiles in the congregations at Rome, then it is against the prinicple of justification by works because they are regarded to be WITHOUT CIRCUMCISION in the flesh but only an inward transformation without hands as their basis for righteousness.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said -
Now obviously Paul cannot argue that all Jews are lost and that only Gentiles go to heaven - because he and all the Apostles are Jews as is the majority of the Christian church in Israel at that time.

Paul argues that God's judgment is without bias and the people of faith among BOTH Jew AND gentile will go to heaven if they are found to "persevere in doing good" Rom 2:7. He speaks to the same "perseverance of the saints" that we see in Rev 14:12. And He speaks of the same future judgment as we see in Rev 14:6-7.

He then warns the Romans 2 reader that this judgment cuts both ways - not only does it provide for the saint's reward but it provides for the 2nd death wrath of God for BOTH Jew AND Gentile that reject the Gospel call to repentance.

An appeal to "fictional saints" in Romans 2 would be pointless and confusing to the reader of the letter - because Paul has already admitted to real saints in the church of Rome in Rom 1:1-17. There was no way to get into chapter 2 with the assumption that he can speak of saints -- with the understanding that the reader would know there were no saints.

You are expanding it to include chapter 1 and chapter 3.

As we both know - the letter that Paul wrote to Rome had no chapter breaks.

Walter said -
I have never denied that actual saved persons are directly identified and addressed in Romans 1:1-13 and the doctrine of justification is actually defined in Romans 3:24-31. However, the immeidate context will not support that Romans 2 includes those "success" person's in Romans 1:1-13

Seeing that Paul claims they are going to go to heaven - I believe your problem is with the text itself - because without the obvious reference to the saved saints of Romans 1:1-17 you are left imagining that maybe Paul is speaking about fictitious saints. And there is no way for the reader of the letter to switch from "real saints" in Romans 1 to an "assumed understanding" in chapter 2 that all meantion of transformed walking-in-perseverance heart-changed-by-Holy Spirit saints must all be "fiction" in chapter 2.

It would take an extreme form of eisegesis to do it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Walter said -
Here is the evidence why I think your attempt to include Romans 1:1-13 and Romans 3:24-31 into your interpetation of Romans 2 fails. I do not believe you are treating Romans 3:9 objectively or honestly. Paul explicitly states he has proven previous to Romans 3:9 that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin.

In Romans 3 Paul addresses the point that all are lost and in need of a Savior. But in both chatpers 1 and 2 he has contrasted the lost with the saved. Chapter 3 simply points out that even though we do have those wonderful contrasts between the lost and the saved in the prior chapters - it does not mean that the saved were always saved - or that they never needed salvation due to status, or birth or whatever.

He has not make that Rom 3:9 argument in Romans 1 or in Romans 2 - yet he has no problem contrasting the saved to the lost in Romans 1 and in Romans 2.

Walter said -
Now here is the point. In the very section that Paul demands has been provided to prove "THERE IS NONE GOOD, NO, NOT ONE" you are using to prove the very opposite

Not so. I never argue that the succeeding cases of chapter 1 or of Chatper 2 - did not go from being lost to being saved.

In Romans 2 we have the context of the Gospel - in vs 4 it is a Gosel call to repentance in vs 16 it is the future Gospel judgment.

And in Romans 1 (forming the context for chapter 2) we have "The righteous shall live by faith".

And we see them not only "living by faith" in Romans 2 but also "persevering in doing good". (3 and 5 point Calvinists call that "perseverance of the saints" and so do many of us Arminians).

We see the same thing in Rev 14:6-7,12.

Walter -

Finally, you cannot honestly claim the law written on the conscience of the Gentile in verses 14-15 is salvatory because the stated purpose is to shew that God's judges Gentiles according to the light they are given rather than judging them according to the law of Moses which they are not given.

Paul argues that some of the Gentiles are demonstrating the Heb 8 New Covenant result of the "Law written on the heart" which is why Paul ends the chapter with a contrast between GENTILES that DO keep the Law of God compared to Jews that DO NOT - and then points out that the difference is the work of the Holy Spirit on the heart.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here we find the saints of Romans 1 who "live by faith" also "persevering in doing good" in Chatper 2.

Rom 2
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.


9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14 For 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,
15 in 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,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Next we see that Paul is not arguing that all gentiles are accepting the Gospel and so are saved any more than that all Jews are rejecting the gospel.

But just as he takes special cases for the Jews "IF you bear the name Jew AND rely upon the law AND boast.." vs 17

So also Paul speaks to the special case of gentiles whose hearts are transformed by the Holy Spirit.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

There is no way to invent a rule about "IF - means fictional" because not only would that make the born-again Gentile a thing of "fiction" in Romans 2- it would also make Jews a thing of "fiction" in vs 17. But in Romans 2 Paul argues that these are REAL Jews that are causing the name of God to be blasphemed among the Gentiles - not fictional ones.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If Paul had been speaking of any "success" cases in Romans 3:26-29 he would have directly addressed them as he did those in Romans 1:1-13. If you believe he is making this PRINCIPLE argument because of the uncircumcised Gentiles in the congregations at Rome, then it is against the prinicple of justification by works because they are regarded to be WITHOUT CIRCUMCISION in the flesh but only an inward transformation without hands as their basis for righteousness.

James and Paul refer to the same "Future justification" principle. It only applies to saved saints. you are circling back to the concept of Justification for the lost -- and to the fact that the lost are not justified by works. Justification past changes the status from lost to saved.

Justification future that Paul mentions in Romans 2:13-16 and that James speaks about in James 2- does not change the status from lost to saved.

It is simply the Matt 7 review of the tree. Whether that tree be good or evil. Looking at the tree does not change the tree.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

As we both know - the letter that Paul wrote to Rome had no chapter breaks.




Seeing that Paul claims they are going to go to heaven - I believe your problem is with the text itself - because without the obvious reference to the saved saints of Romans 1:1-17 you are left imagining that maybe Paul is speaking about fictitious saints. And there is no way for the reader of the letter to switch from "real saints" in Romans 1 to an "assumed understanding" in chapter 2 that all meantion of transformed walking-in-perseverance heart-changed-by-Holy Spirit saints must all be "fiction" in chapter 2.

It would take an extreme form of eisegesis to do it.

in Christ,

Bob

GE:

Senseless, worthless, powerless ranting.... like usual...

except where you boldly claim "that Paul claims they are going to go to heaven". That, is making perfect sense as and is worth noting for and forcefully portrays your ordinary, usual, and typical, LYING.

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:

Senseless, worthless, powerless ranting.... like usual...

except where you boldly claim "that Paul claims they are going to go to heaven". That, is making perfect sense as and is worth noting for and forcefully portrays your ordinary, usual, and typical, LYING.

I have to agree with you GE. There is simply no objectivity. He is like a drowning man who grasps at any thing and everything to keep from downing but in the end he simply drowns.

 

[DHK]

James and Paul refer to the same "Future justification" principle.
Bob

There is no such animal as "future justification." In that you are deceived. The Bible teaches no such thing. A man is justified but once in his life. A simple definition of justification is "just as if I never sinned," or the principle that God declares the person just before him because by putting faith in his shed blood he has by the grace of God been declared righteous by God. This happens but once in a person's life, and that is on the day he is saved. It cannot be repeated.

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

 

[Dr. Walter]

Agreed we keep saying that about each other's positions. I claim there are both succeeding and failing cases listed in Romans 1 and 2 and 3 and you keep insisting that Paul is giving only "imaginary" success cases but then "real" failing cases in Rom 2.

Bob, the judgment has not yet arrived. Hence, there can be no actual success caes. Paul is merely setting forth ABSTACT PRINCIPLES without any actual applications because there can be no applications because that day has not arrived.

Furthermore, these GENERAL ABSTRACT PRINCIPLES of just judgement are based upon the SPECIFIC PRINCIPLE of judgement according to works in verse 6. This basis for these abstract principles is not "justification by faith manifested in works" as you IMAGINE the text says when it says no such thing. The basis is simply "according to his works" without faith, without Christ, without atonement, without Holy Spirit justification or sanctification.

Paul is strictly considering a judgment "according to works" and only "according to works" and he is considering it in contextual application to only those who believe they can pass the judgement "according to" their works.