Featured The Vast Majority of Christian Denominations are Christian "cults"

W.T. Wright redefines "works of the law" as something entirely different than "good works" on the day of judgement. When in fact, it is "the law" that defines what is "good" works. It is by this redefinition that he includes Spirit produced works both in, and through us, as part of his definition of justification.

He is preaching "another gospel" and is to be regarded as "accursed" by God's true justified children just as John Wesley preached "another gospel" as they both define justification of "the ungodly" precisely the same by the evidentiality of good works that declares them justified not at the point of faith but at the day of judgement. Thus, in reality both are teaching progressive justification rather than a completed finished and sufficient action based wholly upon the imputed righteousness of Christ at the point of faith

 

First, he is saying that it is the doers of the law that will be justified not simply doers of the law. However, there is no human being that can be justified by doing the law. That is justification by works and that is what you are plainly teaching.

Second, the context is not about saved people but about hypocrits (2:1-5; 17-22) and the overall context is explicitly said to prove that NONE can be justified by doing the law (Rom. 3:9-21). Romans 2:6-16 is in direct response to Romans 2:3 and their thinking that they can escape the judgment of God due to their self-perceived righteousness.

Third there is no mention of anyone "saved" in this context or "justified" in this context or "born again" in this context. Romans 2:24-27 follows the description of self-righteous Jews who believe they are the covenant promised children because of circumcision in the flesh. This context is about God's fairness or justness in judging hypocrits according to their actual merits based on the standard of the law.

So you are jerking scripture out of context.

.

First, he is not making any classifications within "Gentiles" but something descriptive of ALL GENTILES.

Second, He did not say the law was written in their heart as you are manipulating, perverting, abusing, misinterpreting, and violating the text. It says that it is "THE WORK" of the law not "the law" that is written in their hearts and the nature of that work is spelled out in black and white - to define good versus evil as that is "The work" or purpose of the law as Paul just a chapter later tells you in black and in white (Rom. 3:21).

Third, what they are doing "by nature" is in response to the "WORK" of the law being written on their heart as conscience is part of their nature and their response to this "WORK" of conscience is therefore is called a response "BY NATURE."

They are not described as Jews inwardly as that description does not come until LITERAL JEWS are first described in verses 17-22 who are HYPOCRITS thinking that OUTWARD CIRCUMCISION makes them the promised Jews of the covenant. So in the immediate context it is descriptive of born again JEWS not Gentiles.

Now you are playing hop and skip back into the context where Paul is proving that God's system of judgement for those who come before him on the basis of THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS whether defined by law or by conscience they will be judged in keeping with one or the other standard as both standards (law vs conscience) function or perform the same "WORK" alike. Finally, they will not be judged by how they interpret either the law of Moses or the law of conscience, but according to how it is interpreted by the life of Christ presented in Paul's gospel (v. 16) or absolute sinless righteousness.

Furthermore, you are teaching works for justification as these verses make persistence or continuing in "well-doing" the basis for eternal life. Instead, he is simply declaring that whatever standard God uses for judgement (law or conscience) if their life of works pass that standard or is approved then they will obtain eternal life rather than condemnation.

Now you are proof texting and pushing texts together that have no contextual relationship whatsoever.

Again, you are abusing this text as it does not say the law is written but only "the work" of the law is written and then it tells you precisely what it does.

Your not only wrong but you are clearly teaching justification by works openly and plainly by your application of "patience in well-doing" for eternal life in Romans 2:6-8. Anyone teaching what you are teaching here are the candidates Paul describes in Galatians 1:6-8. I am not saying you are lost just as I am not saying those Galatians were lost when they embraced "another gospel" but that is clearly what you are embracing and teaching.

 

No doubt "eternal life" has more than one application in scripture. However, context is key to understanding what Paul is speaking about. The context in Romans 2:3-22 is the final day of judgment and the only two options available are spelled out in Romans 2:7-8 and the contrast between the two possible conclusion make it clear that two contrasting eternal destinations are in view.

Again, the key words here are "what must I DO". Notice Jesus never said "believe on me and thou shalt have everlasting life" but he answered the young man's question according to the nature of his question - what can HE DO not what Christ can do. The first issue was his definition of "good" which translates the Greek word for "intrinsic goodness" as the ruler claimed not only that Christ was intrinsically good, but that he also was intrinsically good and therefore able to produce "good" works equivilent to Christ's works. Jesus denied that. Jesus went on to place before him what he THE LAW requires to be good according to its stand and what it takes to earn the Law's approval. The young man continued to claim intrinsic goodness by claiming he had indeed kept all the law. Jesus summarized his profession to be sinless by saying "if thou wilt BE PERFECT" then demonstrate it as follows. What Christ demanded as evidence of sinless perfection was complete self-denial and complete submission to Christ.

Jesus was simply answering his question and showing him what it took to obtain eternal life BY HIS OWN WORKS according to the standard of the law which demands INTRINSIC SINLESS PERFECTION as the definition of "good" in God's eyes.

Ok, thanks for that bit of wisdom. I tried to show the clear distinctions between justification and regeneration and sanctification.

However, there is "eternal life" obtained by new birth by spiritual union with God. There is the eternal salvation of your daily life by bringing your time under the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 2:16-18) which is saved in the form of eternal rewards. Then there is eternal life as the legal declaration of the Law based on justification in contrast to eternal damnation or eternal death. Then there is the life in the new created heaven and earth that is eternal unending bliss.

 

First, it is not my specifications but those clearly set forth by Paul in Romans 3:24-5:2 and I challenge anyone including Wright to prove otherwise. Second, it does not matter what either you or I feel or think but what the scriptures clearly teach.

If you can poke a hole in my interpretation of Romans 3:24-5;2 then do it and stop just flapping your lips about how you feel or think. Is your feelings or opinions your final authority? My position is not unique to me but the whole Reformation stands on it.

Last, there is nothing subjective about my position as it is based upon and defended by contexual based interpretation. If you think not, then point it out. I am sick and tired of moaning and groaning about feelings and personal opinions. If you want to talk about something subjective, all these feelings and personal opinions is nothing less than subjectivism.

 

W. T. Wright claims that the phrase "works of law" was not understood by Paul or by Jews of his day as a legalistic means to obtain justification before God, but rather was simply conveyed them as a covenant people with a common social and ethnical unit.

I beg to differ. The testimony of the Pharisee praying with himself clearly conveys the legalistic mindset the present day Jew had with regard to the Law as both the publican and Pharisee were jews rather than one a jew and the other a Gentile. The Pharisees legal mindset was completely based on his view of law keeping for acceptance before God rather than just a mere common bond of social and ethnic people.

I beg to differ, the typical question by the Pharisee and rich young ruler was all about what they could do to obtain eternal life expecting Christ to affirm their own goodness was sufficient to merit eternal life. However, Christ did not respond as they wanted him to respond. Instead he pointed them to the law as the standard for obtaining eternal life based on works. Hence, Christ's own mindset toward the "works of the law" was that they were a legitimate means to obtain eternal life IF you could keep the law as defined by God.

Wright is wrong and what he teaches is merely redefined justification by works that is condemned by Paul as "another gospel" and those who teach it are to be regarded by God's people as "accursed" rather than great scholars!

 

The difference between Romans 2:13-15 and Romans 13:9-10 is that Romans 2 is speaking about being "justified" by the works of the law on judgement day while Romans 13 is speaking to Christians about but being sanctified in the Christian life through fulfilling the law by love. So you are confusing justification with santification. Do you know the difference? Justification determines entrance into heaven, while sanctification determines your spiritual growth on earth and rewards in heaven. Justification by faith is what Christ did FOR YOU in his own body satisfying/fulfilling all the demands of the law IN YOUR BEHALF. Sanctification is God working in and through your own body to glorify him in your own life by fulfilling the law through love. What Christ did to justify you required sinless obedience in all points of the law. What the Spriit does through you does not require sinless obedience to all points of the Law, in fact, you will never be sinless in your obedience until your are glorified which is the conclusion of sanctification as a process. You are confusing Christ and justification with the Holy Spirit and sanctification. Only Christ can fulfill the Law to justify you and only the Spirit can sanctify you through love. If you confuse or mix Justifcation with sanctification you have "another gospel". Justification is what God does as a completed and sufficient action in the person of Christ for you in fulfilling the law, whereas sanctification is what God does in you for his glory but progressively that only finds its completion in glorification.

In addition Romans 2 is immediately followed by Romans 3 declaring no man can be justified by doing the law:

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 b-y the law is the knowledge of sin.


Ro 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Ac 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Ro 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

You are repudiating the gospel of jesus Christ that Christ fulfilled the law in our place as that is the essence of the "good news" called the gospel. You are teachng "another gospel" plain and simple and that is dangerous for the eternal welfare of your own soul (Gal. 1:8-9).

Take heed to these words by Paul:

Ro 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

 

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,

1. These GENTILES do not have the Law - but Christians do have the Law as they read it every day at Rome.

2.These GENTILES "do by NATURE" not by new birth.

3. These GENTILES have "conscience" as their standard and you think Jews don't have a conscience? All men have conscience, but the Gentiles who do not have the Law of God - lost gentiles outside of Israel and the churches of Christ have only their conscience as their standard of right and wrong while Jews and Christians have God's Word - the Law - the Ten commandments in addition to conscience as a superior standard. So he is not talking about saved people who have the law but gentiles who have no other law but conscience.

Again, this is speaking about being JUSTIFIED by doing the Law, and this is not the claim or aim of true Christians as they are justified by faith WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW. The context is self-righteous lost Gentiles (Rom. 2:1-5) and self-righteous lost Jews (Rom. 2:17-24).

If this is your own profession of faith, what you are depending on to go to heaven, you will never arrive. You need to think about that as your soul is in a very dangerous condition.

 

Brother, I assure you that I don't believe only my kind of Baptists are going to heaven. I believe God has his people in nearly all denominations including Rome (Rev. 18:4). In fact, I don't believe all who call themselves Baptists are going to heaven.

I simply refuse to accept unbiblical standards to define what should be regarded the worst of errors. The invention of the terms "Christian cult" is supposed to define what should be regarded as those who hold to the worst of errors. If that is true, then Galatians 1:8-9 should be part of the standard of "cult" because that is what the bible regards as one of the worst of errors. If "Christian cult" does not include that error then I reject the words "Christian cult" as representative of the worst of errors among professing Christians because it establishes a standard of condemnation that comes short of the true Biblical standard for condemning the worst of errors.

 

You are a Greek student as I am and you know that in Galatians 1:6-8 Paul uses two different Greek terms both equally translated "another." He does say there is a heteros gospel, meaning another kind of gospel, as we use the same Greek word to form the word "hetero-sexual". Then there is the Greek term allos which means one of the same kind. So there is in fact "another kind" of gospel preached by his opponents but there is no other gospel of the same kind Paul preached.

The preaching of the other kind of gospel only produces a two-fold more child of hell than the one preaching it (if indeed that is what his profession is based upon).

As I said previously the "power" of the gospel does not prevent anyone from embracing "another gospel" and does not mean those who embrace it are lost as the Galatians embraced it. However, at the same time as long as they were embracing it, Paul began to treat them as lost, challenging their salvation. In fact, he challenged it so much, that those who reject eternal security find many of their proof texts in Galatians in the words of Paul toward these believers. Neither does the fact they were true believers make void the words "let them be accursed" as Paul is regarding or treating them as such not because he knows the true state of their souls but because he knows the true state of the gospel they are embracing and teaching which is void of any power to save. Therefore the assumption is if one embraces that gospel and preaches that gospel then one must assume that gospel represents their true state or they would not be preaching it and so true Christians should regard and treat them as such "let them be" until they repudiate it and demonstrate by embracing the true gospel that their soul reflects it rather than that of a false gospel.

I don't believe there are "numerous" gospels out there but only two - two basic ways (Mt. 7:13-14) and one is very wide which accomodates variations of that one way of works.