Featured Romans 8:1-4 2 views

Right. Hodge's 2nd rule of interpretation:

2. Scripture cannot contradict scripture.

Care to explain why you would use Hebrews 7:19 to refute Romans 13:8-10? Or how does Matthew 5:48 refute Matthew 7:12?

 

I do not use one Scripture to "refute" another Scripture. If you think I did that, then you are very badly mistaken.

 

You used those passages to 'counter' the passages in post #12..

Neither Christ nor Paul (nor I in quoting them) meant those statements as a means to make oneself 'perfect'. Every born from above saint has the 'law written in their heart' and a nature 'to do the things of the law' which causes the 'conflict' within all of us:

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); Ro 2

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. Ro 7

14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would. Gal 5

You should appreciate the summations of the law given by Christ and Paul, the simplification of it helps greatly to alleviate the conflict within.

More 'simplification' from James:

8 Howbeit if ye fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: Ja 2

 

The law being fulfilled in us but not by us. We have no part in fulfilling the law. That is not what that passage says.

 

No. Justification is by faith. Not dead faith. Thus the results are works, yet not as perfect as we would like.

 

That's one of them:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

I'm impressed you didn't parrot the Reformed mantra - justification by faith 'alone'. Perhaps you did learn something from your Old Baptist upbringing.

 

Interpretation of Romans 8:4 requires consideration of its context.

From verse Romans 8:1 we see that our condition "in Christ" is being addressed.

From verse 2 we that the result of being "in Christ" and indwelt with the Spirit of Christ (our Paraclete) is that we are free from the result of sin and spiritual death. No subsequent action on our part can change this "law."

Verse 3 addresses the truth that Christ's gift to those placed within His Spiritual body is to condemn sin, to nullify any consequence of our sin, past, present or future.

Which then brings us to verse 4.

Here Paul addresses not what has already been accomplished, our having been made eternally righreous, but our future ministry as indwelt believers. Note the use of the subjunctive, indicating our possible future action. The idea is that the result of being indwelt and righteous might lead us to fulfill righteousness by our behavior according to the guidance of our Paraclete.

So the summary should read, in Christ and in union with Christ results is our fulfillment of God's requirements as a consequence of the Law. But in addition, as Ambassadors of Christ with the ministry of Reconciliation, we ought to walk according to the Spirit in order to be the best Ambassadors we can be

 

Not hearers of the law shall be justified, but DOERS.

Don’t you see? No one was ever able to DO the law and be justified thereby—except the Lord Jesus.

IF a man could—but he couldn’t. We are born sinners. Flesh begets flesh. The flesh nature, no matter how many good deeds it performs, will ever fulfill the righteous requirements of the law, therefore “the just shall live by faith”. There is no law given that can give life because WE are not sufficient to the task.

Yes, doers. But none ever did, other than Christ. He is virgin-born; Adam is not His father, thus He is not born a sinner, for in Adam all die, because all in Adam are sinners.

 

Don't you see? Paul and James are 'singing from the same songbook' here:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2

22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves. Ja 2
24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2

 

What you consider "counter" I consider "explanation".

 

I agree with MrW. Justification is by faith alone, without any of your works in any way contributing anything. People look at what happens differently. Some say that a "living faith" has within it an intention to obey and love God. Others say that it's not that but that you are changed, born again, or regenerated and now a new creation who will obey for certain. Both of those groups believe that you can look for works to validate the truth of coming to Christ.

Others, like Baxter, believe that you are saved, but now required to do works - but the standard is no longer perfection. However, these works will be judged as to whether you are justified and you are not finally justified until the final judgement. I think Baxter called it a new evangelical obedience or righteousness.

Still others believe that you are saved by bare faith alone and this is true whether or not you do any works ever or show any of the fruit of the Spirit. This would be theological antinomians, Ryrie, Zane Hodges and the Free Grace Society. Campus Crusade was into that for a while. Some of my "old Baptist upbringing" was into this and I credit the reformed influence of the past 20 years with correcting some of this tendency and most Baptist churches now teach you to "examine yourself" whereas before they would refer back to the time they went forward.

I don't understand the concern with the word "alone". Alone is there for emphasis because it was questioned theologically. It is not necessary in common language to use "alone" every time you are stating what is needed in order for it to be true. If your car quits and I look at it and say "put some gas in it" most of us would put some gas in it and drive off. Ky would also rebuild the transmission and then blame me because the manual didn't say put gas in it "alone".

 

I missed that. Which post did he state that?

I'm convinced that 'works' are apart from and precede the 'hearing of faith' in most, if not all His saints, as in examples given with Abraham, Nathanael, Cornelius, Lydia, and others.

Our faith is not the source of our works. The Spirit is the source of both our works and our faith.

 

It's anti-scriptural.

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2

There are other aspects to our justification, NOT just faith alone.

 

James 2:21, ". . . Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? . . . "
Abraham was originally Justified in faith without works, Genesis 15;6, ". . . And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. . . ." see Romans 4:5.
And many years later was also justified by his work, Genesis 22:12, ". . . Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. . . ."

Hebrews 11:17-19, ". . . By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. . . ."

 

I agree with you on this. And I think that solves the problem, in my mind at least, of the idea that you come to Christ simply by faith, and you are born again and become a new creation, and that new person will do works that can be identified and evaluated as proof of saving faith. It is all Spirit led, even the faith itself. My only argument with you is that I think that is solid reformed theology.

So I disagree with that statement. I will say this. The reformed idea that you are justified by faith alone, but is a faith that is never alone - could I think be viewed as a play on words. That's why I don't condemn those who say works are necessary, especially if they say it like you do, and attribute it all to the Holy Spirit's leading.

In salvation there are two things going on. The most important thing is us coming to Christ for forgiveness and then becoming a follower. The other thing is how exactly this is verbally explained. In that I think there can be a lot of variations of understanding. That's why I am a huge fan of Baxter yet I think his explanation of justification is not correct.

 

Was it an unrighteous man that Jehovah called out of Mesopotamia years earlier, appeared to several times, and announced blessings upon?

Was it an unregenerate man that built an altar to Jehovah at Shechem years earlier?

Was it to a dead alien sinner that Melchizedek pronounced 'Blessed be Abram of God Most High' years earlier?

Abraham didn't become righteous at Genesis 15:6, he was PRONOUNCED to be righteous.

 

??? I already know that you refuse to accept that our deeds have anything to do with our justification. Do you also disagree that the blood of Christ is an integral component of our justification?

 

I'll try to clarify. Justification is the legal, official, forensic declaration by God that we are completely exonerated and have no grounds of condemnation against us any more. It's more than forgiveness, more than pardon because it goes further than those. It is a declaration by God and it is based on the blood of Christ as the source of all the merit. That is why I am so certain that works have no part in justification.

This justification is given to us upon our faith, not that our faith has any actual merit in it as far as being virtuous but that our faith is the reaching out and taking hold of this offer as well as the renouncing of any other means of being justified. So the reformers considered faith a "condition" in that sense only. And that explains why they used the term "alone" and were so adamant against adding works.

The fact that when you are justified a new principle of new life is put into you which will mean that you will pursue Godliness and holiness is true but make no mistake - this has NOTHING to do with your actual justification.

 

8 But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him.
10 For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life; Ro 5

 

Yes.

Yes. I think what is being said there is either that there is an additional benefit of his blood (the saving from God's wrath), or it could be saying that being justified at that time saves you from the wrath of God which will be fully expressed at a future time.

And this again emphasizes the importance of Christ's death but in addition it starts talking about the imputation of Christ's righteousness, his active obedience as the reformers say, put to our account.
I'm not sure what you meant by the quote of mine you used because you didn't offer any explanation so forgive me if I make a wrong assumption. But if you are objecting to my saying that the benefits of Christ's death come timewise at the time of your exercising of saving faith rather than at the time when Christ actually died I would say that's just the way I see it when it comes to our justification. Other benefits of Christ's death are completely corporate and benefited everyone at the time of Christ's death and/or resurrection but you are not justified until you come by faith. (I don't get into arguments about whether faith precedes regeneration because I think that is not important but justification either occurs at the same time as faith or immediately after faith.)

If that isn't what you were referring to then just disregard it.