Featured Romans 8:1-4 2 views

Post #3

 

Regarding the “gift”, in Ephesians 2, see Romans 6:23, “…the gift of God is eternal life”, which is precisely the topic of Ephesians 2:8-10.

 

Doers of the law… none did the law except the Lord Jesus! That was Paul’s point—doers, not hearers, received the promise, and the total of doers of those born of Adam were, and are, zero.

Hebrews 7:19
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

 

..it's an idiom, an expression, not to be taken in the strict literal sense that you are doing. It's saying the same thing Paul says later concerning 'fulfillers of the law'; Romans 13:8-10. It's in the spirit, not in the letter, v.29,, and you're literally letting the 'letter' kill the meaning here (but it seems that most do that).

 

Are you able to discern the synonymy of the expressions?

6 who will render to every man according to his works: (note, it's 'according to', NOT because of)
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

 

And none do the law.

IF THEY DID, then Christ died in vain and we could sacrifice sheep, goats, and do the law and get to Heaven WITHOUT His “assistance”.

 

<sigh> ...all I can say is that YOU better be a doer and a fulfiller of the law in the sense that Paul is presenting it in the context. In deep doo doo if you're not.

Christ simplified it for us. Do you follow the Golden Rule? Matthew 7:12

 

No one fulfills the law, and I doubt any human has ever kept the Golden Rule, but hits and misses throughout life, because all are fallen creatures.

 

...it's not what Paul said:

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

...it's not what Christ said:

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

Even the Rabbinism of Christ's day had condensed the law to it's simplest terms:

“…Rabbinism is never weary of quoting as one of the characteristic sayings of its greatest teacher, Hillel (who, of course, lived before this time), that he had summed up the Law, in briefest compass, in these words: ‘What is hateful to thee, that do not to another. This is the whole Law; the rest is only its explanation…..” Life & Times - Edersheim

It's the 'royal law' that James expressed, and all Christians should aim to fulfill it. Go ahead MrW, do ill to your neighbor and see what you get.

Agree. But no where on this thread have I espoused the idea of being 'perfect'. All there's been is knee jerk reactions with no consideration like you're doing.

 

Who loves his neighbor…

“as he loves himself.”?

I know none. If they did, all those who love as they love themselves would be bringing the homeless in to live with them.

I admit I fail. Others just don’t admit it.

 

I think here Paul is doing what he did in all his letters. After explaining doctrine, he goes to practical living. The shift in Romans would be at 12:1. In other words, in light of what we've just been taught, what do we do?

I don't know if most people notice but there is a huge difference between what Jesus said and what Hillel summed up. But beside that, the Sermon on the Mount internalizes the law and puts it into the most severe and exact terms. Jesus did the same thing to the rich young ruler who insisted he obeyed the law. Paul starts Romans out the same way but by 3:23 has destroyed that notion. The offer has always been there to be justified by keeping the law if you think you can.

 

So, if anyone remembers the OP, I would say that starting in chapter 8 Paul is talking about the life of one who has the Spirit, in other words a justified person. Both 1 and 2 are true. Our justification is forensic and because of the work of Christ. But those who have been justified are the ones who walk after the Spirit and not the flesh.

It is an error to think that if 1 is true then it is possible to reject 2. It is also an error to think that 2 is talking about achieving justification, even if it's a matter of following the law on lesser or more lenient terms.

 

Hillel:
"What is hateful to thee, that do not to another. This is the whole Law; the rest is only its explanation…..”

Christ to RYR:
18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, even God.
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother. Lu 18

Paul:
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law. Ro 13

 

Yea.

 

This is called the negative golden rule. The biblical command goes much further, although this part is certainly true. Christ demanded that we actually look to do positive good toward others. This is only don't do wrong. John Wayne even went that far.

 

And Protestant doctrine says that one who has the Spirit is one who has been justified. And the reason for that is that works are specifically excluded from our justification.

If you like Charles Hodge, read his chapter on justification in his systematic theology. It's free on Monergism and costs a buck on Kindle. He explains all the ideas on this, including Roman Catholic, rationalist, and Arminian and Baxterian. And he treats them all with respect.

Personally, I think the way of explaining this that Hodge uses is the best way to explain all this. The only part I think is difficult is that this explanation requires one to say that something is not part of the cause, yet is absolutely essential. This is a very difficult concept and I don't blame someone who rejects it.