Are the Greek/Russian orthodox Valid Christian Churches?

[Thinkingstuff]

Where does the scripture teach that apostolic oral teaching is less direct than written revelation. Peter is comparing WRITTEN revelation to ORAL revelation not in regard to directness but in regard to STABILITY.

This is so obious that it is pathetic we even have to defend it. Look at the pathetic undependable condition of "the traditions of the elders" or oral teachings handed down to the Jews! They became a mess and yet Jesus went to the OLDER written revelation to establish doctrine and practice as did the Apostles demonstrating the written word is "MORE SURE" than oral traditions.

look how you jump topics. You're not even trying anymore!!!!! Again I never said what you suggest. I said the Apostles give defference to the direct word of God. and then I showed you the meaning of the passage. If you don't believe us who have seen and heard believe the direct word of God!

Look you are having such issues as to belittle my character which by use terms referring to me such as Pathetic etc.... So not only do you jump all over the bible to insert your interpretation to a non related verse but you change subjects and accuse others at having done so then you belittle others by insulting them. Come on! How can people and you yourself take this tact seriously?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Here you change the subject.

Either you are a complete idiot or you are simply being deceptive or absoltuely forgetful. I don't think you are a complete idiot. I will be charitable and by pass deception. So to remind you of your own words that it was you that introduced this subject not I:

My post was in direct response to your following words:

When they refer to OT writings or prophesy they term it Scriptures which isn't a referrence to the NT writings. - WM

My purpose for quoting 2 Peter 3:16 is to respond directly to your assertion that the term "scripture" is only used by the apostles for "OT writings" and your denial it can be a "reference to NT writings".

 

[Dr. Walter]

look how you jump topics. You're not even trying anymore!!!!! Again I never said what you suggest. I said the Apostles give defference to the direct word of God. and then I showed you the meaning of the passage. If you don't believe us who have seen and heard believe the direct word of God!

Look you are having such issues as to belittle my character which by use terms referring to me such as Pathetic etc.... So not only do you jump all over the bible to insert your interpretation to a non related verse but you change subjects and accuse others at having done so then you belittle others by insulting them. Come on! How can people and you yourself take this tact seriously?

I have changed my mind - you are either a complete idiot or you are intentionally deceptive. I don't think you are a complete idiot. You are being completely deceptive and it is glaring!

I simply responded to your words -it is you that brought up this subject of one being more direct than the other not I. I simply exposed your error.

When a man is too proudful to admit they are wrong they just keep digging themselves deeper in a ditch. Put your shovel down and man up.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Why don't we just drop this discussion.

 

[WestminsterMan]

You are only exposing your own foolishness for several obvious reasons.

1. Your texts are totally unrelated to teach other (Jesus is the speaker in one but not in the author; judas is the subject in one but not in the other) but my scritpures are from the same author talking about the same subject - scripture (1 Thes. 2:15; 2 Thes. 2:19; 2 Tim. 3:16-17)

2. Timothy was his companion when he wrote the words in 1 Thess. 2:15 and 2 Thes. 2:19. but your texts have no such historical or contextual correlation with each other.

3. You cannot possibly make "the man of God" in 2 Tim. 3:17 refer only to Timothy but that is exactly what you must do in order to restrict "all scripture" to merely Old Testament scriptures used to instruct Timothy.

You obviously have no sense of humor. Lighten up doc - dang!

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

You obviously have no sense of humor. Lighten up doc - dang!

WM

If it were objective humor without any specific personal application I wouldn't respond to it. I can take a joke but not a joke that belittles truth. If your intent was only to lighten things up then I apologize for thinking you were describing my method of hermeneutics.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have changed my mind - you are either a complete idiot or you are intentionally deceptive. I don't think you are a complete idiot. You are being completely deceptive and it is glaring!

I simply responded to your words -it is you that brought up this subject of one being more direct than the other not I. I simply exposed your error.

When a man is too proudful to admit they are wrong they just keep digging themselves deeper in a ditch. Put your shovel down and man up.

I haven't once changed the subject. I'm still on 2 Tim 3:16. You've jumped all over the place to prove your point and at times using passages that supported mine. then you accuse me of the very thing you've done bringing up other topics like what did Peter mean when he said all of Pauls letters. Then when I show you a simple principle that in 2 Tim Paul in the previous passage already refers to his own oral teaching of Timothy and then refers to the scriptures that the scriptures he had in mine were not his writings but primarily the OT as the NT hadn't been completed at that Point and at that point Peter had just begun to write his letter. Then you call me ridiculous, pathetic, and now deceptive or generally a complete idiot when I have kept faithful to the text and its meaning. You have not uncovered any glaring error on my part instead your tactics have been made obvious by your verbose misapplication of other scriptures to this text to suite your presupposition which is not proper. When unable to proceed further or convince me of your attempt you become insulting. All I've done is called you on it. I am certain your response to this post is to call me a Politician, a Deciever, Pathetic, deranged, the villiage idiot, a spawn of Satan, or whatever else suits your fancy. If perchance you want a serious discussion without belittling my character I would be glad to speak with you. However, I think the passages are clear. I've clearly stated their meaning, and have succintly made my point.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is extremely difficult to withhold anger from such absolute lies. In every instance you have accused me of changing the subject I have documented it was your words that I merely responded to! I did not change topics at all but simply answered your objections and false assertions. It is on record and anyone can go back and see who is telling the truth.

Second, you have changed topics repeatedly and that is on record and can be easily verified by simply going back and reading your posts.

Third, your interpretation of "all scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16 has been proven blatantly false! The word "all scripture" cannot be restricted to just "OT scriptures" any more or less than "the man of God" in verse 17 can be restricted to Timothy!

Fourth, You assertion that there is no evidence that Paul understood his own epistles as inspired scripture (1 Thes. 2:15; 2 Thes. 2:19) is no more valid than you assertion that the term "scripture" was never used for apostolic writings (2 Peter. 3:16).

Fifth, your assertion that Old Testament prophetic writings are more "DIRECT" than oral teaching is absolutely false as both equally are inspired.

Sixth, Your assertion that "MORE SURE" in 2 Peter 3:19 means only that Peter gives "deference" is false. He is talking about the obvious inherent weakness of oral traditions in the long run as patently obvious in the oral traditions "of the elders".

Seventh, Timothy was trained all along by Paul throughout the missionary journey's and knew what Paul wrote to the Thessalonicans and had such an epistle at Ephesus as well as all the epistles that Paul commanded to be circulated (Col. 4:16).

Bottom line - Catholic oral tradition is worthless and it is not valid for any kind of doctrine and practice any more than Jewish oral traditions. The written scriptures are completed, they are "more sure" than apostolic oral teaching and they are what preserve that oral teaching with integrity not messed up ECF.

I haven't once changed the subject. I'm still on 2 Tim 3:16. You've jumped all over the place to prove your point and at times using passages that supported mine. then you accuse me of the very thing you've done bringing up other topics like what did Peter mean when he said all of Pauls letters. Then when I show you a simple principle that in 2 Tim Paul in the previous passage already refers to his own oral teaching of Timothy and then refers to the scriptures that the scriptures he had in mine were not his writings but primarily the OT as the NT hadn't been completed at that Point and at that point Peter had just begun to write his letter. Then you call me ridiculous, pathetic, and now deceptive or generally a complete idiot when I have kept faithful to the text and its meaning. You have not uncovered any glaring error on my part instead your tactics have been made obvious by your verbose misapplication of other scriptures to this text to suite your presupposition which is not proper. When unable to proceed further or convince me of your attempt you become insulting. All I've done is called you on it. I am certain your response to this post is to call me a Politician, a Deciever, Pathetic, deranged, the villiage idiot, a spawn of Satan, or whatever else suits your fancy. If perchance you want a serious discussion without belittling my character I would be glad to speak with you. However, I think the passages are clear. I've clearly stated their meaning, and have succintly made my point.

 

[Crabtownboy]

John of Damascus wrote about icons in his book, The Fountain of Knowledge.

Basically he said that icons and/or graphic representations of God are now not a problem. Why? Glad you asked.

Before God became incarnate in human form through Jesus Christ there was no way to have any idea of what God looked like. Thus it was blasphemous to draw a picture or a graphic representation of God. That changed with Christ. Since Christ is God in human form we now have God in a material form, one that can be seen. We can now hold in our mind an image of God incarnate. Thus because this representation if Christ then using a physical image of this human becomes part of his fullness in his incarnation, an enfleshment, indeed part of our theology. Now, as we have an image it is not blasphemous to have graphic images of God incarnate.

Remember the word icon simply means a pictorial representation. Christ was real. He was physical.

Cheers and blessings to all.

 

[Dr. Walter]

John of Damascus wrote about icons in his book, The Fountain of Knowledge.

Basically he said that icons and/or graphic representations of God are now not a problem. Why? Glad you asked.

Before God became incarnate in human form through Jesus Christ there was no way to have any idea of what God looked like. Thus it was blasphemous to draw a picture or a graphic representation of God. That changed with Christ. Since Christ is God in human form we now have God in a material form, one that can be seen. We can now hold in our mind an image of God incarnate. Thus because this representation if Christ then using a physical image of this human becomes part of his fullness in his incarnation, an enfleshment, indeed part of our theology. Now, as we have an image it is not blasphemous to have graphic images of God incarnate.

Cheers and blessings to all.

Ohhhhh! I see, God repudiated the second and third commandments when Christ came to earth!

When did Christ sit for his official painting? When did God change his mind about the physical appearance of Christ (Isa. 53:2-3)?

So when Moses saw his backside at Mount Sinai he could then paint, mold and form the backside of God without impunity or violation of the ten commandments?

How absurdly rediculous!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Ohhhhh! I see, God repudiated the second and third commandments when Christ came to earth!

When did Christ sit for his official painting? When did God change his mind about the physical appearance of Christ (Isa. 53:2-3)?

So when Moses saw his backside at Mount Sinai he could then paint, mold and form the backside of God without impunity or violation of the ten commandments?

How absurdly rediculous!

I see you miss the meaning of the post. Read it again carefully and see the distinction.

Remember Col. 1:15 Paul is speaking of Christ when he says:

15Who is the image [icon] of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

 

[Dr. Walter]

I see you miss the meaning of the post. Read it again carefully and see the distinction.

I did not miss a single solitary syllable that you wrote. What I did was utterly repudiate it as absolute nonsense and contradictory to Gods' Word.

When did Christ sit and have an official portrait made????

When did Christ repeal the his own description in Isaiah 53:2-3?

When did God repudiate the first three commandments?

You obviously do not understand my response!

 

[Crabtownboy]

I did not miss a single solitary syllable that you wrote. What I did was utterly repudiate it as absolute nonsense and contradictory to Gods' Word.

You can read it but obviously you do not understand the distinction. Now if you do understand the distinction please explain it to me and do not simply post a rude reply. If you cannot discuss without attempted insults there is no profit in talking ... as there is no discussion. Thanks in advance.

Remember in Col. 1:15 Paul is talking of Christ when he writes:

Who is the image [icon] of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

Do you deny this?

 

[Dr. Walter]

You can read it but obviously you do not understand the distinction. Now if you do understand the distinction please explain it to me and do not simply post a rude reply. Thanks in advance.

Remember in Col. 1:15 Paul is talking of Christ when he writes:

15Who is the image [icon] of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

I never posted rude replies. I posted factual replies. However, as you wish I will explain it back to you. Here is what you said:

John of Damascus wrote about icons in his book, The Fountain of Knowledge.

Basically he said that icons and/or graphic representations of God are now not a problem. Why? Glad you asked.

My interpretation? Things have changed. What used to be a problem in regard to icons and/or VISIBLE representations are no longer a problem. By "problem" he means it is no longer wrong, or a sin or evil or something to be condemned.

However, that is only true if misrepresenting Christ is not wrong (Isa. 53:2-3).

However, that is only true if Christ sat for an official portrait.

However, that is only true if God repudiated the words "anything in heaven or in earth" and thus repudiated the second and third commandments.

Now, let us proceed:




Before God became incarnate in human form through Jesus Christ there was no way to have any idea of what God looked like.

Is that so? Tell me what photograph do we have that tells us what Christ looked like much less what God looked like? Would not a picture that misrepresents the Biblical data about his looks be wrong? Isn't the real issue about idolatry misrepresentation of God, reducing him down to something finite when he is infinite?

We go on!


Thus it was blasphemous to draw a picture or a graphic representation of God. That changed with Christ. Since Christ is God in human form we now have God in a material form, one that can be seen.

Where is the official photograph or painting that he "can be seen"?????

Who says it changed with Christ? Rome? What right has Rome to say it has changed when God's word never provides exceptions to the rule given? When was the second and third commandments repudiated or "changed"?????

We can now hold in our mind an image of God incarnate. Thus because this representation if Christ then using a physical image of this human becomes part of his fullness in his incarnation, an enfleshment, indeed part of our theology. Now, as we have an image it is not blasphemous to have graphic images of God incarnate.

Who says we can "now hold in our mind an image of God incarnate"??? You? Rome? What right have they to redact the Word of God that expressly prohibits making icons of things in heaven or in earth??????

 

[Dr. Walter]

Remember in Col. 1:15 Paul is talking of Christ when he writes:

Who is the image [icon] of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

Do you deny this?

Do you know what this means? He is not talking about the PHYSICAL image of Jesus Christ as a man because God is "spirit" (Jn. 4:24).

When we are born again we are "renewed after the image of God" but our body does not change!!! That "image" is spiritual - true holiness and righteousness.

Jesus Christ was the very image of God in the sense of true holiness, righteousness and actual deity.

 

[Dr. Walter]

If you cannot discuss without attempted insults there is no profit in talking ... as there is no discussion. Thanks in advance.

May I ask you "WHO" changed the rules that make it right "now" but "wrong" before the incarnation?

May I ask you where in God's Word does he give permission to paint a picture of Jesus Christ or make any other visible image of Christ? Isn't Christ something on earth or in heaven?

What is the source of authority for John of Damascus to even say what he says?

I apologize for coming across gruff but I have been dealing with irrational and unreasonble people who simply will not admit they are wrong when the evidence is abundant, clear and explicit and it becomes frustrating.

 

[Crabtownboy]

May I ask you "WHO" changed the rules that make it right "now" but "wrong" before the incarnation?

That is explained in my first post. There was no image of God prior to Christ. Christ is the image. Thus we now have an image and it is Christ.

May I ask you where in God's Word does he give permission to paint a picture of Jesus Christ or make any other visible image of Christ? Isn't Christ something on earth or in heaven?

Where in the NT does it forbid this. Either we are under grace and the NT or we are still held under the law. This would make Christ's death and resurrection nil and void.

What is the source of authority for John of Damascus to even say what he says?

What authority does any of us have. If we say the Bible that does not mean much as it is the interpretation that is important and obviously people do not agree with each others interpretations

I apologize for coming across gruff but I have been dealing with irrational and unreasonable people who simply will not admit they are wrong when the evidence is abundant, clear and explicit and it becomes frustrating.

Irrational and unreasonable are not reasons to be rude. Being rude only weakens a person's argument IMHO. Point out the irrationality and unreasonableness calmly and rationally.

On evidence, again it is in the interpretation of the evidence and therein may lie the problem.

Years ago I was in a small group. Our pastor led the group and wrote a book on that group. When I read the book I realized he was telling the absolute truth from his view. But my view was quite different in some areas. Both of us were truthful, true to our own understanding, but we differed in interpretation.

 

[Dr. Walter]

That is explained in my first post. There was no image of God prior to Christ. Christ is the image. Thus we now have an image and it is Christ.

Ok, I will point out the irrationality of this statement. He admits that formerly it was a problem, right? Why? Why was it a problem in the first place? Because the ten commandments forbade it, that is why it is a "problem" prior to the incarnation.

Hence, the "problem" was not "interpretation" of the ten commandments because he agrees it was a "problem" to make any image - no interpretation problem!

Now, since there is no interpretation "problem" why is there an interpretation "problem' after the incarnation of the same text????? Does the text say anything different than what it did previous to the incarnation? No!

Is there anything written in the New Testament that explicitly repudiates the second and third commandments any more than the rest of the commandments? Since we are under grace and not law are we free to kill, steal, lie, commit adultery or have another God? What right does John of Damascus have to say things are changed now in regard to this specific commandment?

I understand the series of INFERENCES he draws to come to his conclusion. But are his inferences valid inferences?

For example, prior to the incarnation the same Christ was manifested in Theophanies. People saw these images. Would it had been alright for those who saw these images of Christ before the incarnation to make images, paintings or impressions of what they saw? If so, then the incarnation is not a valid inference to make this change. If not, then neither is the incarnation valid to make this change.

Where in the NT does it forbid this. Either we are under grace and the NT or we are still held under the law. This would make Christ's death and resurrection nil and void.

Is God the author of confusion? Is being under grace mean we can steal, lie, kill, worship another god? Does not the New Testament say the "law is good" (Rom. 7:12) for what it was designed for? To reveal the knowledge of sin?

Where does the New Testament repudiate the first three commandments?

How would using the law properly to teach the knowledge of sin make nil and void Christ's death and resurrection?

What authority does any of us have. If we say the Bible that does not mean much as it is the interpretation that is important and obviously people do not agree with each others interpretations

Again, did not John of Damascus admit this was wrong before the incarnation and did not he admit this on the basis of the second and third commandments? Did he have any problem with interpreting those commandments??? Why all of a sudden "now" it is a problem of interpreting those commandments? There is no problem of interpretation of the second and third commandments as John undestood them and used them as a basis to condemn any kind of images of God previous to the incarnation. Hence, the problem is not interpretation of scripture.

I will tell you what the problem is. John has no clear and explicit scriptures to change the ten commandments from meaning what they say and saying what they mean. The problem is that he has developed a NEW doctrine based upon "INFERENCES" rather than any clear or explicit scriptures but these inferences are in direct contradiction to the second and third commandments and his admitted interpretation of them.

He INFERS that since God had been manifested in the incarnation it is now permissible to make images of Christ when in fact Christ manifested himself before the incarnation in theophanies. He admits it would have been wrong previous to the incarnation and yet there were visible theophanies. Hence, his inference is not only contradictory to the ten commandments but contradictory to his own application or use of the incarnation to say that "now" it is not a problem.

 

[kyredneck]

They believe that we are saved by faith, but that faith is an active faith, not mere intellectual assent. If it were, then in the parable of the rich man, Christ would have answered differently.

True Faith involves:

A) Believing in Christ (Acts 16:31)
B) Repenting of sin (St. Mark 1:15)
C) Receiving Christ (St. John 1:12; 6:54)
D) Being Baptized in Christ (I Peter 3:21; Romans 6:3; Titus 3:5; Acts 2:38)
E) Following Christ (St. Matthew 10:38)
F) Confessing Christ (Romans 10:9-10)

These are things that a person with saving faith does (unless of course they die in the process or something).

They distinguish between initial justification that occurs with baptism and justification that occurs when one dies. Like Catholics, they don't separate the idea of justification with that of sanctification. The process in salvation that may be related well to sanctification is theosis, where one becomes free of sin and in better union with God, not that one is God or is a god, but has a better close relationship with God.

Sacraments are ways that we experience God's grace. Because Baptism is the initial sacrament as a Christian and we all need grace, they baptize both young and old into the faith where there is desire. The young, however, are required to be taught the faith as they are fed and educated in other things by the parents.

Here is part of a little write-up I gave someone else about the Orthodox churches.

Short answer on Orthodoxy: Orthodoxy is like Catholic tradition with a Protestant-like common sense to things like salvation. They are trinitarian, apostolic, philosophical rather than legalistic, sacramental, and sometimes cultural.

Long answer: The Orthodox churches are similar to the Catholic church in that they have the seven sacraments, believe in real presence (though not necessarily as defined as the Catholic Transubstantiation), and follow the same idea of apostolic succession of clergy rather than just teaching. Baptism is symbolic of death and resurrection in Christ and with Chrismation (equivalent to confirmation) the individual is sealed with the Holy Spirit. Confession is more to get something off of your mind and be assured of absolution, and while the priest is the only one that gives absolution, a spiritual mother or father (individual who is mature in the faith) can hear a confession. Marriage is a sacrament done by the husband and wife in the ceremony, but the Catholics say it is something administered by the priest.* Orthodox do baptize infants of faithful Orthodox members who will be brought up in the faith and typically do not re-baptize incoming Protestants (exception: the Coptic Church), but do require that converts understand the doctrines of the Orthodox church prior to being chrismated and then being allowed to receive communion. Orthodox churches do have saints the way that the Catholics do, but they are not always emphasized in the liturgy and an individual can choose to ask saints for intercession or just those fellow Christian there in person. [This is because the body of Christ is not separated from itself.]

They also differ in that they are not governed by a single pope but by a council of patriarchs who head the individual Orthodox churches (Russian, Greek, Etc.), and in that they don't emphasize works with regards to salvation but speak of grace and faith (in this regard, they are more similar to Protestants, or rather Protestants are more similar to them given the historical ecclesiastic divisions). In Orthodoxy, confession is not based on the seven deadly sins but rather sin is just that, sin, missing the mark. In Orthodoxy, there is a concept of theosis, which I think has some similarities to sanctification. It emphasizes the transformation of nature into a sinless one, one that is by grace what God is by nature (which is not to say that we become gods or exactly like God), and in this, we have communion with God. This is based on 2 Pet. 1:4.

The fourth ecumenical council was the Council of Chalcedon, where monophysitism/miaphysitism was rejected. The Assyrian Church of the East is often considered monophysite (one nature in Christ, one form says that the humanity dissolves into a sea of Christ's divinity, this church left at the 3rd ecumenical council). The Oriental Orthodox churches hold to miaphysitism. Miaphysitism says Christ is both divine and human but merged into one nature (the Copts say this separation of them and the Eastern Orthodox was a matter of translation, but the Eastern Orthodox do not accept this). Eastern Orthodox say He has two individual natures in one person. Both Orthodox churches dispute the filoque in the Nicene Creed and say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not the Father and the Son, so that the HS and Son are equal in God. The Easterns separated from the Catholics at the 7th council.

One of the most popular prayers in Orthodoxy is the Jesus prayer, something to the effect of "Lord Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner," or simply, "Lord have mercy." They do have different times of fasting and celebrate various feast days. The Didache is influential in the practices and faith of the Orthodox church.

*Approximate understanding.

Here are some good websites:

Orthodox Wikipedia:
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page

Greek Orthodox (one of the Eastern Orthodox churches) website that discusses the faith and has a lot of helpful into.
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/

I know there is a lot more that can be said, and some places where digging up Scripture references may either be helpful or result in a discussion of who interprets correctly and stuff, but hopefully you will forgive the fact that this is intended merely as a light overview of Orthodoxy.

Thank you Anastasia for this good and helpful post.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

It most certainly does not! Saving faith IN Christ has to do with Christ alone and what He did for you and not about you or what you do for God.

Of course one cannot merit salvation--Christ alone could do that. However, scripture is equally and abundantly clear that if your life is not characterized by obedience, you will not see the kingdom of heaven.

"Not everyone that says to Me, 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of my Father in heaven." --Matt 7:21

That is the Biblical doctrine of justification and it is not synonymous with regeneration. Regeneration changes you into a willing servant but it is the power of the indwelling Spirit that makes your obedience possible.

This of course is true as far as it goes. However...

There is no such thing as a justified but unregenerate person any more than there is such a thing as a regenerate but unjustified person.

If a branch in Christ (ie regenerated and justified) does not abide in Christ, he will be cut off as a branch and be no longer justified. (John 15:1-6)

Hebrews 5:9 place the authorship of eternal life and Hebrews 12;2 places the authorship of faith with Christ not you. Hebrews 5:9 simply states a CONSEQUENTIAL truth and that is those possessing eternal life obey the Lord but does not teach that obedience begets eternal life.

The verse clearly states He is the "author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him", your dismissal of the clear meaning (because it doesn't apparently jive with your preconceived theology) notwithstanding.

"He became the author of eternal life to all who obey Him." Hebrews 5:9

You have jerked Romans 2:6-7 completely out of context. There are no saved, justified persons even regarded in this context.

You made an assertion without backing it up. Romans 2:13 states: "for not the hearers of the law are just in his sight, but the doers of the law will be justified." (Oops)

He is directing this to those self-righteous persons who believe they can be justified by keeping the law. Paul simply spells out the terms and consequences for approaching God on the basis of law keeping.

No he's spelling out the terms for the eternal judgement in which he states God will render (not hypothetically render) each one according to his deeds (2:6). This is statement of fact, not a hypothetical situation. Those who by patient continuence in doing good will get eternal life; those who are disobedient and self-seeking will not (2:8-9). It's not the self-righteous per se whom Paul is speaking against here but it is the one (particularly the Jew, in the immediate context) who boasts in the law but is yet HARD and IMPENITENT (Romans 2:5). The IMPENITENT ones--whether Jew or Greek--are the ones treasuring up for themselves wrath in the day of judgement. Paul further makes it clear that those boasting in and relying on having he Law (as opposed to being Greeks without the Law) are actually not keep it (2:21-24); conversely, the Gentile who keeps the righteous requirement of the law will judge the Jew who trangresses the Law (2:27) and will be considered to be the true Jew inwardly and one who has been spiritually circumcised (2:29). Of course the Gentile/Jew who has been spiritual circumcised is the one baptized in Christ--he's the one by the Spirit who can in patient continuence in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality.

Eternal life by law keeping requires "patient continuance" or as Paul says in Galatians 3:10 "continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

Paul in writing to the Galatian believers is quite clear:

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of his flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us (ie believers) not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we will reap if we do not lose heart." Galatians 6:7-9

This is clearly consistent with the passage in Romans...

"(God)who 'will render to each one according to his deeds': eternal life to those who by patient continunce in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality" Romans 2:6-7

As well as this passage in Romans...

"For if you (Paul is addressing 'brethren'-see v.12) live according to the flesh you will die; butif by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you willl live." Romans 8:13

So you see, Paul is talking about (eternal) life or death in all three passages--he's not just talking about an optional sanctification tacked on to an allegedly irrevocable eternal life regardless of how the believer lives his life.

John 5:24 does not help you in the least. Concerning "good" Jesus said "there is NONE GOOD but one and that is God" referring to the lost unregnerate man. So in God's sight no lost person can do good. Hence, the only ones capable of doing good are those previously defined in context in verse 24 and they shall not come into condemnation.

Only if they abide in Christ and thus bear fruit; if a branch in Christ does not abide in Him, he will be cut off and thrown into the fire and burned. Those who continue to believe in Christ (the ones who 'abide') are the ones who bear fruit of obedience--these are the ones who 'do good' and are thus able to partake of the 'resurrection of life' (John 5:29), as they are the ones who (continue to) have Christ's perfect merit imputed to them.

"Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." John 5:28-29

However, you and your theology is that of the Rich Young Ruler. You do not understand what the law means by "good" and you do not understand Jesus' words "There is NONE GOOD but one and that is God."

(YAWN) Another unproven assertion. I know well the purpose of the law; I know Christ alone perfectly fulfilled it and died in our place on our Christ; and I also know that those who have faith in Him will follow Him in repentence and obedience. The persistently disobedient and unrepentant will not see the kingdom of heaven, regardless if they 'put their trust in Christ' once during a previous moment in their lives.

So my point stands--true saving faith involves obedience to Christ. You cannot trust in Christ as Savior without following Him as Lord.

"Now by this we know we that know Him, if we keep His commandments [notice the PLURAL]. He who says, 'I know Him', and does not keep His commandments [PLURAL], is a liar and the truth is not in him." 1 John 2:3-4

"He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk as He walked" 1 John 2:6

"Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him and He in him." 1 John 3:24a

The faith in Christ which avails for anything is a faith which works through love (see Gal 5:6) and if we love God, we will keep his commandments.