Featured What do you think of NCT/PD theolgy?

Live by the Holy Spirit???? What exactly will that look like, how can we know if we are living by the Spirit?

How many laws of Christ are there?

Make believe a person at work asks you to spell this out....what would you say????

 

First, what I said is correct. Second, the capitals were merely for emphasis.

Now, you are trying to make the law equal to the "work of the Law" which is absurd. Paul denies they have the law and he is denying this in view of the day of judgement. Look at the context! On the day of judgment Gentiles will not be judged by the Law but will be judged by their own conscience which is "A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES."

These texts say NOTHING about the conscience or any law written on their heart. Adam was made in the "image of God" and it is the new birth that renews that image (Eph. 4:24; Col 3:10). The fallen man no longer has any moral image of God but they are at "enmity with God and not subject to the law of God and neither indeed can be" - there is no moral image of God. That is why righteousness and holiness must be CREATED by God (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; Eph. 2:10).


.

Another baseless claim. If man had the law of God written in his heart, then Paul would not have claimed they were without the law and would not merely say the "work" of the law was written in their heart but would have said "they have the law written in their heart."

First, you are changing the singular (law) to a plural (laws) in your wrong explanation. The work of the conscience is the singular "LAW" unto themselves and he tells you exactly how that singular law of the conscience works. You are changing it from singular to plural because you are denying the singular work that it does and is defined to do right in the text. Second, again in your second explanation you again change the singular "law" to a plural "laws" when Paul is speaking about the singular law that conscience operates by and that is approving and disapproving. To claim that Paul is merely denying they don't have an EXTERNAL written revelation but do have an INTERNAL written revelation makes Paul foolish when he says "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law" since according to your interpretation they are not without the law and therefore do not perish without law. Moreover, he is talking about the day of judgment and it is on the day of judgment he says they will "perish WITHOUT law" - meaning the Jewish law regardless on what it may be may not be written.

His point is simple. Conscience works the same way the Law of God works - it manifests what is approved and disapproved. That is the "work" of the law and he spells it out clearly so there can be no confusion. Because Gentiles like jews have hearts in rebellion against any and all law imposed upon them, they violate their own conscience and therefore God can judge them for violating their own standards (family, cultural, religious). Paul in the same epistle says "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" and therefore, whatever conscience has been trained to believe is right or wrong if they do not in good conscience (good faith) act accordingly then conscience convicts them of sin against their conscience proving themselves to have hearts of rebellion. So God can be just in condemning those who have no clue about God's Law by using their own conscience to justly prove they are lawbreakers.

 

Gentleman, in the very same book of Romans Paul tells them that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." In context, Paul has made clear that there is nothing unclean of itself, but only to him that thinks something is unclean, TO HIM IT IS UNCLEAN. His conscience has been trained to believe something that God says is not unclean, to be unclean.Hence, to him that thinketh it is unclean, it is unclean, and he SINS when he violates his conscience, even though God's law is not violated because "whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

For example, take wine. Paul explicitly says that wine is not unclean of itself. However, many of you have been taught to drink wine is sin. If you drink wine it does not violate God's law, however, if you drink wine believing it is wrong, drinking wine does violate your conscience because your conscience has been trained by family, culture or religious upbringing that it is wrong to drink wine. You have not violated God's Law but you have violated the law written on your conscience. Did you sin? Yes, you sinned by violating the law that governs your conscience (not God's Law) because "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" meaning, whatever that is not done in good conscience is sin TO YOU.

Likewise, with the Gentiles on the day of judgment. They may not have WILLFULLY violated any specific law of God simply because they are ignorant of his law, but if they have WILLFULLY violated their own conscience, they are proven to be sinners against the law that governs their conscience.

Hence, those "WITHOUT (God's) LAW" shall also perish "WITHOUT ("God's) LAW" as every family, culture and religion imposes their own standards which every man WILLFULLY violates proving their hearts are in rebellion against any manner of law over them.

Furthermore, infants die prior to being able to willfully violate even the standard of conscience, proving they have already sinned in Adam. However, in a family, culture or religion where the God of the Bible or his law is unknown, that infant will grow up and willfully violate whatever his/her conscience has been trained to think is good or evil, thus demonstrating a lawless heart as the product of the fall in Adam.

For example, suppose an infant grows up to an age where the only thing family, culture or religion has trained its conscience is that it is wrong to drink wine. God's law does not condemn drinking of wine, but the law of that child's conscience has been trained by family, culture or religion to believe drinking wine is wrong. That child contrary to his conscience drinks wine and his conscience condemns him and suppose at that moment he dies. When he stands before the Lord the law that governed his conscience would be used by God to demonstrate his lawless heart and be totally sufficient to condemn him to hell forever, NOT BECAUSE HE WILLFULLY VIOLATED ANY KNOWN LAW OF GOD as God does not condemn drinking wine but because he violated the law of his own conscience and "whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

 

Well Presented......Good Post!

 

O N E!

 

What is the ONE you are thinking of?

 

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 13:1 Romans

Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. V10

And in the kingdom of God neither will it work evil to God. IMO

 

Love....one another.

 

Far reaching, also.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Matt 5:44

Me thinks it requires the love of God shed............

Now I ask; How much of that do we see?

 

I am afraid currently I may fall short and that worries me a little.

 

That is so lame. First of all these are described as DOERS of THE law (AND THEYRE JUSTIFIED!) who do by nature the things of THE law, and, it is not A law, it is THE law as is with the rest of the context:

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);
16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
17 But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest upon the law, and gloriest in God,
18 and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,
19 and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness,
20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth;
21 thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples?
23 thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written.
25 For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision.
26 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?
27 and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law?

The passage is describing the regenerate heart with the work, the essence, of both the law and the religion of Jesus Christ instilled within it - agape.

12 All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets. Mt 7

8 Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law. Ro 13

Why you all cannot see the continuity, the synonymy of "the work of the law written in their hearts", "he is a Jew who is one inwardly" and "circumcision is that of the heart" in the context is beyond me. These are born from Jerusalem above, true Jews, the Israel of God.

 

Here is the very error that Martin's position naturally leads to. Nowhere does it say they are justified because it is impossible for any flesh to be justified by keeping or doing the law (Rom. 3:19-20). The context is speaking of self-righteous lost persons who believe their OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS will pass the law (Rom. 2:3-5; 18-22). This is just part of Paul's exposition to prove that no flesh can be justified by keeping the law. Here, he is simply demonstrating that God's judgment will be according to just principles.

Notice he picks and chooses what he wants. Again notice verse 12. He simply overlooks that some can sin "without the law" and perish "without the law". However, his position denies this and so he does not make these words red and bold as it repudiates his whole position.

Again, he chooses to ignore verse 14 and the words "having not the law" because he wants to prove the opposite, that they do have the law.

Again, notice verse 15 he ignores that it is "the work" of the law instead of the law written in their heart because he wants to prove the law is written in the heart.

Those who use this kind of pick and choose method (eisgesis) can prove anything they want if you are gullible enough to accept their premises and methods.

 

Lol, too set in your ways to open your eyes and see the continuity/synonymy between "who will render to every man according to his works" v 6, "patience in well-doing..eternal life." v 7, "glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good" v 10, and "the doers of the law shall be justified" v 13, also, eh?

Yea, what about that? Reckon Paul was going senile?

....the doers of the law shall be justified Ro 2:13

....by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified... Ro 3:20

 

The contextual design is to demonstrate that God will be just in his judgment of those who believe they will be justified before God based on their works. This is easy to see if one simply reads verses 1-5 as Paul addresses the self-righteous and that belief. Here is the text:

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

Therefore, Paul sets forth clearly the just guidelines for all who come before him on the basis of works. If their works are are approved by God's law then the just benefits will be theirs. If their works are not approved by God's law then the just consequences will be theirs.

The immediate context is dealing with the self-righteous not imputed righteousness.

The overall context is a step by step demonstration that brings the reader to the conclusion in Romans 3:9-23 that no flesh can be justified by the works of the law. This is clear and simple.

No, the problem is not with Paul and his mind, but the problem is with the mind of those who simply don't know how to do proper exposition of clear scripture. When one does the proper exposition of Romans 2:1-24 they will come to the same conclusion as Paul in Romans 3:9-23. When the improper exposition is done then the only way to justify it is to accuse Paul of being senile.

 

No, the "contextual design" is in accordance with the fact that we will all be judged by our works:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,
29 and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. Jn 5

Thus the validity of Paul's statements. It means precisely as he states it:

6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2

 

The Biblicist,

.

This simply means they do not have the written law in front of them as Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God.
Gentiles who sin without the scriptures......still sin and are guilty before God.

 

Just that one?
Can we take God's name in vain?
Can we have other God's?
Can we steal from those we love?

 

Ref Ro 13: 8-10. It seems that 'love...one another' covers a whole lot of ground.

 

The summary found in romans 13.....is the ten commandments.

 

Sin is the transgression of law, any law. The Conscience performs the "work" of God's Law. The work performed by God's law condemns or approves according to God's standard. The conscience condemns according to the law that family, culture or religion provides as its standard. So, yes they will be condemned by sin against the standard of their conscience, which standard was determined by family, culture and religion.

The fact that whatsoever is not of faith is sin, even if God's law approves it as righteous completely repudiates your interpretation. For example, God's law says that such things as wine, or swine are not unclean in and of themselves, yet to him that THINKETH they are unclean they are unclean and if he partakes of such against his conscience then he sins. That proves your view of sin completely restricted to God's law is wrong. Sin is the transgression of law, any law, even if it is the transgression of the law of your conscience, which the law of God does not condemn as sin.