Bogus Law Theories

[Dr. Walter]

Those who attempt to deny that "justification by the deeds of the law" has any reference to justification by "good" works as defined by the "righteousness" of the Mosaic law (moral, ceremonial, civil) attempt to provide the following bogus theories to redefine "the law" and "deeds of the law" in Romans 3-4 and Galatians 1-5 to mean:

1. Ceremonial laws only
2. Oral traditions of the Jews

However, the contextual evidence denies both theories:


A. CEREMONIAL LAW THEORY:

Rom. 2:17 ¶ Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
21 Thou therefore which 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 commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

The phrase "the law" used repeatedly throughout this text explicitly includes the moral law as three of the ten commandments are stated and underlined and it includes the ceremonial law as circumcision the introductory rite of all ceremonial laws is stated. Paul's point is stated in Romans 3:9 and concluded in Romans 3:19-20 that He has been dealing only with Gentiles and Jews and there can be no question what Law He has in view with the Jews. It is not the oral traditions but the whole Mosaic written law.

In regard to justification and being dead to the law, it is consistently the whole Mosaic Law all the way through Romans 7 where Paul gives his own experience and uses the tenth commandment to show what law He is now dead to:

Rom. 7:7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

There is not one syllable for theories that it is merely the Jewish oral law or ceremonial law referred to in the book of Romans. It is the whole Mosaic law (moral, ceremonial, civil) that is being denied as the basis for justification.


B. THE ORAL TRADITIONS OF THE JEWS THEORY:

Gal. 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Gal. 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 ¶ Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Again, it is the whole Mosaic law (moral, ceremonial, civil) that is being referred to. Circumcision is merely the INTRODUCTORY RITE that commits THE WHOLE LIFE to observance of the entire Mosaic moral,ceremonial and civil law.

Romans 3:19-20 and Galatians 3:10-12 have the SAME LAW in view in regard to justification and use the SAME LANGUAGE and the SAME CONTRAST between justification by the deeds of the law versus justification by faith.

Rom. 3:19 ¶ 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 by the law is the knowledge of sin.....27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Gal. 3:10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.


CONCLUSION: The Mosaic law defined what is right and what is wrong in God's sight. The deeds of the law were deeds that were intended to conform to what the law said is RIGHT and thus by such RIGHTEOUS DEEDS the Jew sought to be justified in God's sight. RIGHTEOUS DEEDS is synonomous with GOOD WORKS. This is a plain and explicit denial that any flesh can be justified by "GOOD WORKS" before God because if the Jew cannot do it with the most explicit detailed written form of right and wrong then NO FLESH can do it with less explicit light. Those who teach justification by good works preach "another gospel" and are to be regarded by true Christians as "accursed" rather than as orthodox people of God.

 

[Andre]

Those who attempt to deny that "justification by the deeds of the law" has any reference to justification by "good" works as defined by the "righteousness" of the Mosaic law (moral, ceremonial, civil) attempt to provide the following bogus theories to redefine "the law" and "deeds of the law" in Romans 3-4 and Galatians 1-5 to mean:

1. Ceremonial laws only
2. Oral traditions of the Jews

Well I certainly assert that when Paul denies "justification by works of the law", he is not denying justification by good deeds.

As has been already extensively argued, Paul indeed embraces ultimate justification by good works. When he argues that people are not justified by "works of the Law", he is saying that justification is not limited to those who do the works of the Law of Moses, that is Jews.

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also

Paul is saying that if justification were indeed based on the works of the law, that would means that Gentiles have no chance.

But Paul is not saying that justification is not based on good works - far from it. He clearly embraces justification by good works in Romans 2 and elsewhere.

I make neither of the arguments you set forth - I do not suggest "law" denotes "ceremonial laws only". Nor do I suggest that "law" refers to oral tradition.

When Paul denies justification by deeds of the law, he is denying justification is limited to Jews - those who do the "works" of the Law of Moses, a written code.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your position is obviously wrong! The Mosaic law which is the Law under consideration sets out 611 commandents that in great detail instruct the Jew what is right versus what is wrong in God's sight. "Justification by the law" refers to doing, obeying those laws in order to be judged righteous by God - that is the essence of rightoues works or good works.

The written law of Moses is inclusive of the natural revelations and laws given by God as Psalm 19 clearly illustrate. Hence, Romans 3:9 includes both Jews and GENTILES "under sin." However, there is no sin where there is no law as law gives the knowledge of sin. Yet, the Gentile is included in Romans 3:9 which is then expounded in greater detail in verses 10-18 and verses 19-20 is the conclusion that includes GENTILES in verse 9. Hence, you are wrong, Romans 3:19-20 is inclusive of Gentiles because the greater revelation given to the Jews is inclusive of the lessor revelations and laws given to Gentiles.

You cannot possibly deny by sound scholarship the logical and contextual relationship of the term "gentile" in verse 9 consistently through verse 20 as "all under sin" in verse 9 is the subject of verses 10-18 and thus have to be the same ones who are all "under law" in verses 19-20 as there is no sin where there is no law.

You cannot possibly deny by sound scholarship that the gentiles are included in Romans 3:19-20 any more than you an deny by sound scholarship the universal language surpassing ethnic divisions used in Romans 3:19-20.

I will tell you exactly what you will do. You will simply ignore the evidence and repeat your theory like a parrot as do all those who refuse to acknowledge obvious and explicit truth.

Well I certainly assert that when Paul denies "justification by works of the law", he is not denying justification by good deeds.

As has been already extensively argued, Paul indeed embraces ultimate justification by good works. When he argues that people are not justified by "works of the Law", he is saying that justification is not limited to those who do the works of the Law of Moses, that is Jews.

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also

Paul is saying that if justification were indeed based on the works of the law, that would means that Gentiles have no chance.

But Paul is not saying that justification is not based on good works - far from it. He clearly embraces justification by good works in Romans 2 and elsewhere.

I make neither of the arguments you set forth - I do not suggest "law" denotes "ceremonial laws only". Nor do I suggest that "law" refers to oral tradition.

When Paul denies justification by deeds of the law, he is denying justification is limited to Jews - those who do the "works" of the Law of Moses, a written code.

 

[Andre]

Your position is obviously wrong!

You can claim that I am wrong all you like. But you have made no case to support that claim.

The Mosaic law which is the Law under consideration sets out 611 commandents that in great detail instruct the Jew what is right versus what is wrong in God's sight. "Justification by the law" refers to doing, obeying those laws in order to be judged righteous by God - that is the essence of rightoues works or good works.

You are obviously begging the very question at issue here. To be fair, though, I too made no actual argument in that last post.

But the point is this: Just like I cannot simply assume that Paul's critique of justification by "works" is a critique of the view that justification is for Jews only, so you cannot simply assume that what you say above is Paul's intended meaning.

The written law of Moses is inclusive of the natural revelations and laws given by God as Psalm 19 clearly illustrate.

I am not denying this at all.

But this does not challlenge my claim: The Law of Moses can indeed embrace such "natural revelations and law" and Paul can still be arguing against the Jewish view that justification is limited to Jews when he denies "justification by works of the Law".

Hence, you are wrong, Romans 3:19-20 is inclusive of Gentiles because the greater revelation given to the Jews is inclusive of the lessor revelations and laws given to Gentiles.

You are mistaken - I have never denied that 3:19-20 places both Jew and Gentile "in the dock". But the "ones under the law" here are Jews.

You cannot possibly deny by sound scholarship the logical and contextual relationship of the term "gentile" in verse 9 consistently through verse 20 as "all under sin" in verse 9 is the subject of verses 10-18 and thus have to be the same ones who are all "under law" in verses 19-20 as there is no sin where there is no law.

I can and do deny it. And there are indeed scholars who agree with me.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

Now people will argue that Paul cannot mean “Law of Moses” here when he uses the tem “law”. That argument goes like this: The “so that” connective strongly implies that “law” is something that all mankind is under. So since the Law of Moses is for Jews only, Paul must be referring here to some general principle of law, and not the Law of Moses.

I think that this is a mistake for at least three reasons:

1. Paul almost always uses the word “Law” to denote the Law of Moses, so why we would he do otherwise here?

2. The phrase “it says to those under the law” strongly suggests that he is talking about a “law” that is limited in its applicability. Otherwise, this qualifier is entirely unnecessary;

3. The context provided by verses 1-18 support a “Law of Moses” reading, specific to Jews, for the word “law”

I will not make the case for point number 1 right here – that would be too lengthy a treatment. Point 2, I suggest, requires no further elaboration. So I now turn to point number 3 in relation to the understandable objection that it seems that the “so that the whole world….” clause makes it clear that this is some kind of universal law.

So why does he then talk about the whole world being accountable to God if “law” here is the Law of Moses, which is for Jews only. One needs to look at the preceding 18 verses where Paul has engaged in separate treatments of Jew and Gentile being sinners.

Here is the important point: He has just finished (in verses 9-18) an argument that the Gentile is a sinner just like the Jew. So his statement about the whole world being accountable is not only madein relation to what he has just written about the Law - that could not be true since the Gentiles were never under the Law - but it is rather the capstone of his whole argument.

So Paul's basic point is this:

1. The Jews have been faithless (verses 1-8);

2. The Gentiles, too, are sinners (verses 9-18);

3. While the Law speaks only to those under the Law - the Jews - the whole world nevertheless stands condemned before God.

I will tell you exactly what you will do. You will simply ignore the evidence and repeat your theory like a parrot as do all those who refuse to acknowledge obvious and explicit truth.

Content-less and argumentative. You have no evidence that I engage in such a pattern of behaviour.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have placed the evidence in your lap and all you have done is assert that I am wrong without any responsible evidence to prove I am wrong!

The term Gentile is found in Romans 3:9 whether you admit it or not.

The Gentile is explicitly included in "ALL UNDER SIN" in verse 9 whether you admit it or not.

The phrase "ALL UNDER SIN" is expounded upon in verse 10-18 where the ALL are inclusive of "NONE righteous, no, NOT ONE" whether you admit it or not

Romans 3:19-20 is the conclusion of the iditement against Gentiles beginning in Romans 3:9-18 whether you admit it or not.

Romans 3:19-20 uses UNVERSAL non-ethnic restricted langauge whether you admit it or not.

Romans 3:19-20 and the phrase "under the law" is synonomous with "under sin" in Romans 3:9 and expounded further in verse 10-18 whether you admit it or not.

Hence, you are wrong whether you admit it or not.

I have made absolutely not one assumption but have based every single statement above on sound Biblical exegeses. You can deny that I have but I dare you to prove it with sound exegesis - I double dog dare you :smilewinkgrin:

You can claim that I am wrong all you like. But you have made no case to support that claim.


You are obviously begging the very question at issue here. To be fair, though, I too made no actual argument in that last post.

But the point is this: Just like I cannot simply assume that Paul's critique of justification by "works" is a critique of the view that justification is for Jews only, so you cannot simply assume that what you say above is Paul's intended meaning.


I am not denying this at all.

But this does not challlenge my claim: The Law of Moses can indeed embrace such "natural revelations and law" and Paul can still be arguing against the Jewish view that justification is limited to Jews when he denies "justification by works of the Law".


You are mistaken - I have never denied that 3:19-20 places both Jew and Gentile "in the dock". But the "ones under the law" here are Jews.


I can and do deny it. And there are indeed scholars who agree with me.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

Now people will argue that Paul cannot mean “Law of Moses” here when he uses the tem “law”. That argument goes like this: The “so that” connective strongly implies that “law” is something that all mankind is under. So since the Law of Moses is for Jews only, Paul must be referring here to some general principle of law, and not the Law of Moses.

I think that this is a mistake for at least three reasons:

1. Paul almost always uses the word “Law” to denote the Law of Moses, so why we would he do otherwise here?

2. The phrase “it says to those under the law” strongly suggests that he is talking about a “law” that is limited in its applicability. Otherwise, this qualifier is entirely unnecessary;

3. The context provided by verses 1-18 support a “Law of Moses” reading, specific to Jews, for the word “law”

I will not make the case for point number 1 right here – that would be too lengthy a treatment. Point 2, I suggest, requires no further elaboration. So I now turn to point number 3 in relation to the understandable objection that it seems that the “so that the whole world….” clause makes it clear that this is some kind of universal law.

So why does he then talk about the whole world being accountable to God if “law” here is the Law of Moses, which is for Jews only. One needs to look at the preceding 18 verses where Paul has engaged in separate treatments of Jew and Gentile being sinners.

Here is the important point: He has just finished (in verses 9-18) an argument that the Gentile is a sinner just like the Jew. So his statement about the whole world being accountable is not only madein relation to what he has just written about the Law - that could not be true since the Gentiles were never under the Law - but it is rather the capstone of his whole argument.

So Paul's basic point is this:

1. The Jews have been faithless (verses 1-8);

2. The Gentiles, too, are sinners (verses 9-18);

3. While the Law speaks only to those under the Law - the Jews - the whole world nevertheless stands condemned before God.



Content-less and argumentative. You have no evidence that I engage in such a pattern of behaviour.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The phrase "justified by the deeds of the law in the sight of God" does mean justification by good works.

1. The term justifed means to be made or considered RIGHTEOUS
2. The terms "deeds" are the means to be regarded as made or considered RIGHTEOUS

3. The term "the law" are the source or authority by which the deeds are to be judged or considered RIGHTEOUS

4. The law in question, in context is the Mosaic law including moral, ceremonial and civil laws as Romans 2:17-25 proves it is and as Romans 3:1-2 proves it is and the exact same language in Galatians 3:10-13 proves it is.

To deny this is justification by good works is to deny the very meaning of the terms involved in this phrase as it is the law of God that is the STANDARD of what is right and wrong in regard to deeds or works.

Your position is simply wrong and illogical and unbiblical and the above evidence proves it.

But this does not challlenge my claim: The Law of Moses can indeed embrace such "natural revelations and law" and Paul can still be arguing against the Jewish view that justification is limited to Jews when he denies "justification by works of the Law".


You are mistaken - I have never denied that 3:19-20 places both Jew and Gentile "in the dock". But the "ones under the law" here are Jews.


I can and do deny it. And there are indeed scholars who agree with me.

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

Now people will argue that Paul cannot mean “Law of Moses” here when he uses the tem “law”. That argument goes like this: The “so that” connective strongly implies that “law” is something that all mankind is under. So since the Law of Moses is for Jews only, Paul must be referring here to some general principle of law, and not the Law of Moses.

I think that this is a mistake for at least three reasons:

1. Paul almost always uses the word “Law” to denote the Law of Moses, so why we would he do otherwise here?

2. The phrase “it says to those under the law” strongly suggests that he is talking about a “law” that is limited in its applicability. Otherwise, this qualifier is entirely unnecessary;

3. The context provided by verses 1-18 support a “Law of Moses” reading, specific to Jews, for the word “law”

I will not make the case for point number 1 right here – that would be too lengthy a treatment. Point 2, I suggest, requires no further elaboration. So I now turn to point number 3 in relation to the understandable objection that it seems that the “so that the whole world….” clause makes it clear that this is some kind of universal law.

So why does he then talk about the whole world being accountable to God if “law” here is the Law of Moses, which is for Jews only. One needs to look at the preceding 18 verses where Paul has engaged in separate treatments of Jew and Gentile being sinners.

Here is the important point: He has just finished (in verses 9-18) an argument that the Gentile is a sinner just like the Jew. So his statement about the whole world being accountable is not only madein relation to what he has just written about the Law - that could not be true since the Gentiles were never under the Law - but it is rather the capstone of his whole argument.

So Paul's basic point is this:

1. The Jews have been faithless (verses 1-8);

2. The Gentiles, too, are sinners (verses 9-18);

3. While the Law speaks only to those under the Law - the Jews - the whole world nevertheless stands condemned before God.



Content-less and argumentative. You have no evidence that I engage in such a pattern of behaviour.

 

[Andre]

I have placed the evidence in your lap and all you have done is assert that I am wrong without any responsible evidence to prove I am wrong!

Incorrect. I just made an argument that you were mistaken. And I have made many others besides.

The term Gentile is found in Romans 3:9 whether you admit it or not.

I have never denied this, and none of my arguments are challenged by this text.

The Gentile is explicitly included in "ALL UNDER SIN" in verse 9 whether you admit it or not.

It is a mystery to me why you would think that I would deny that the Gentile is included in verse 9. You will find nothing in any of my posts that would suggest that I deny that the Gentile is indicted in Romans 3:9.

The problem is that the fact that the Gentile is included in Paul's critique does not magically place him under the authority of the Law of Moses. As Paul says in 3:19 - the Law speaks to those under the Law.

Who is under the Law of Moses?

Jews.

Does the fact that the Jew and only the Jew is under the Law of Moses mean that the Gentile is not otherwise under sin? Of course not. Romans 1 speaks of the sinfulness of all humanity - not only those under the Law of Moses.

I think you have quite a challenge to maintain consistency. I believe that you have agreed that the phrase "without the law" here in 2:12 refers to those who are not under the Law of Moses:

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law

Why, then, would Paul, just a few breaths later in 3:19, refer to those "under the Law" and expect the reader to think that the Gentile is has now actually under the Law?

Paul is being consistent. Those who are "without the law" (as in 2:12) are Gentiles; those "under the Law" (as in 3:19) are Jews.

Romans 3:19-20 is the conclusion of the iditement against Gentiles beginning in Romans 3:9-18 whether you admit it or not.

No, Romans 3:19-20 is the capstone of the entire argument that begins at verse 1.

Romans 3:19-20 uses UNVERSAL non-ethnic restricted langauge whether you admit it or not.

Yes and no.

Yes, Paul is saying that all humanity is accountable to God.

But when he refers to those "under the Law", he is referring to Jews as just argued.

Romans 3:19-20 and the phrase "under the law" is synonomous with "under sin" in Romans 3:9 and expounded further in verse 10-18 whether you admit it or not.

You have made no case here.

Yes, all are under sin.

But that simply does not require us to understand that all are under the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses is only for the Jew.

I have made absolutely not one assumption but have based every single statement above on sound Biblical exegeses. You can deny that I have but I dare you to prove it with sound exegesis - I double dog dare you :smilewinkgrin:

I have addressed your "dare" in this post.

When you can tell the readers why Paul would use the phrase "without the law" to refer to Gentiles in Romans 2, and then use the phrase "under the Law" to include Gentiles, then you may have some kind of an argument.

To repeat - the fact that the Gentile is under sin - something I have never denied - does not somehow make him subject to the Law of Moses.

The Law of Moses speaks to those under it - Jews.

And Romans 2 shows that Paul thinks that Gentile are not under the Law of Moses:

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

Again, we have even more problems with your position. Here in 2:12, it is clearly the Jew who is under the Law to the exclusion of the Gentile. You have Paul now saying in 3:19 that the Gentile is now under the Law.

Can you explain this?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Incorrect. I just made an argument that you were mistaken. And I have made many others besides.

No you have not! Where is your argument? You made nothing but an unfounded assertion! Where is the exegetical based argument you have given to deny that verses 10-18 exclude the Gentile??? THE ONLY ARGUMENT YOU OFFER IS BASED UPON CIRCULAR REASONING. YOU ASSERT YOUR POSITION ON THE TERMS "THE LAW" AND THEN USE IT TO DENY IT CAN BE APPLIED TO GENTILES! That is not exegesis but pure unadulterated eisgesis! You cannot use your theory to substantiate your interpretation of this passage!!!!! You cannot assert that "the law" in Romans 3:19-20 is Jewish law based upon our presupposition that it cannot be applied to Gentiles!!! That is begging the question entirely and simply apply circular reasoning!

It is a mystery to me why you would think that I would deny that the Gentile is included in verse 9. You will find nothing in any of my posts that would suggest that I deny that the Gentile is indicted in Romans 3:9.

The "sin" in verse 9 is the sin expounded in verses 10-18. The first words "as it is written" is explanatory of the previous phrase "both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin."
The only reason you splice and cut out the Gentile in verse 10-18 is because of your PRE-supposition of the meaning of "law" in verses 19-20 - thus circular reasoning is employed to deny the very contextual connection between verse 9 and verse 10 that is inclusive of "both Jews and Gentiles."
Indeed, such logic is irrational and purely biased showing no regard for the Word of God.

The problem is that the fact that the Gentile is included in Paul's critique does not magically place him under the authority of the Law of Moses. As Paul says in 3:19 - the Law speaks to those under the Law.

Who is under the Law of Moses?

Jews.

Look at your circular reasoning process spelled out in your own words above. First you deny what the text demands - the inclusion of the Gentiles in verses 9-18 based upon your presupposition that to be "under the law" cannot refer to Gentiles but must refer to Jews.
However, if the law of conscience written upon the Gentile is also written upon the Jewish conscience, and natural revelation (Rom. 1:19-20) is also included in the Jewish law (Psa. 19) then the Gentile is "UNDER" the SAME LAW as to violate ONE POINT is to violate ALL POINTS even if the Gentile is not exposed to all other points. There is no "problem" here except in your thinking.
The Gentile is subject to the same law included in the Mosaic law - the law of conscience and the law of nature. In breaking that ONE POINT he has broken ALL POINTS regardless if he has been "subject" to all other points as the law is unified and all one has to do to violate it is to break the particular points they are under.

The Law of Moses includes the law of conscience as what is written on the Gentiles conscience is equally written upon the Jewish conscience. The Law of Moses includes responsibility to the law of nature (Psa. 19). There is the SAME GOD/AUTHOR of both and they are inseparable from the most comprehensive law God has given to mankind as it comprehends everything that the Gentile is subject to, and so to break what he is subject to in "ONE POINT" is to break the whole law of God comprehensively.

 

[billwald]

Judaism NEVER classified the 613 statements into ceremonial and moral precepts. Judaism has always considered the entire 613 as moral. Who are Christians to tell Jews what Jews believe?

Protestant Christians love to bad mouth other religions linguistic use of "God." Ignoring that "Allah" is the generic Arabic word for "god," we say that Allah isn't "our" God. In the same way, some baptists say that the Catholic god isn't "our" God.

Christians love to claim that the Christian god is the same as the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The pragmatic outworking of that claim is that the modern day Jews are NOT the same line as the OT Hebrews . . . one theory is that it was the "real" Hebrews who stayed in Babylon and the evil Jews who returned to Jerusalem from the captivity thus Christians claim to be True Israel and Jews are the enemy of Christianity. Isn't that what Paul teaches?

 

[Dr. Walter]

The term "Allah" may mean "god" but the application of that term by Muslims is not the God of the Bible as any comparison with the characteristics of the Muslim god with the God of the Bible can easily see. God is not defined by a term but by His characteristics or attributes.

The jews that returned to Jerusalem had God's approval as the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Zechariah and Micah clearly demonstrate. So either one must reject that theory or reject the inspiration of these books of the Old Testament.

The moral law is not separated from the ceremonial and civil laws but is considered a single covenant of law. Just as we can distinguish between the Persons in the Godhead does not mean they can be separated from each other and the same is true in regard to the Mosaic law. Just because we can distinguish between the ten commandments, the ceremonial and civil commandments does not mean they can be separated from the Mosaic Law.

Judaism NEVER classified the 613 statements into ceremonial and moral precepts. Judaism has always considered the entire 613 as moral. Who are Christians to tell Jews what Jews believe?

Protestant Christians love to bad mouth other religions linguistic use of "God." Ignoring that "Allah" is the generic Arabic word for "god," we say that Allah isn't "our" God. In the same way, some baptists say that the Catholic god isn't "our" God.

Christians love to claim that the Christian god is the same as the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The pragmatic outworking of that claim is that the modern day Jews are NOT the same line as the OT Hebrews . . . one theory is that it was the "real" Hebrews who stayed in Babylon and the evil Jews who returned to Jerusalem from the captivity thus Christians claim to be True Israel and Jews are the enemy of Christianity. Isn't that what Paul teaches?

 

[Andre]

No you have not! Where is your argument? You made nothing but an unfounded assertion! Where is the exegetical based argument you have given to deny that verses 10-18 exclude the Gentile???

I have, of course, never asserted that verses 10-18 exclude the Gentile. I have no idea why you think I believe this.

THE ONLY ARGUMENT YOU OFFER IS BASED UPON CIRCULAR REASONING. YOU ASSERT YOUR POSITION ON THE TERMS "THE LAW" AND THEN USE IT TO DENY IT CAN BE APPLIED TO GENTILES!

You are clearly mistaken. I have argued that since, in Romans 2, Paul uses the phrase "under the law" to characterize Jews, there is every reason that he intends us to understand that those "under the law" in 3:19 are also only Jews.

That is not a circular argument. It does not establish my point beyond the possibility of error, but it is not a circular argument.

You cannot assert that "the law" in Romans 3:19-20 is Jewish law based upon our presupposition that it cannot be applied to Gentiles!!! That is begging the question entirely and simply apply circular reasoning!

I have never pre-supposed that the "law" in 3:19 cannot be applied to Gentiles. I have provided a range of arguments for drawing such a conclusion.

 

[Andre]

The phrase "justified by the deeds of the law in the sight of God" does mean justification by good works.

1. The term justifed means to be made or considered RIGHTEOUS
2. The terms "deeds" are the means to be regarded as made or considered RIGHTEOUS

3. The term "the law" are the source or authority by which the deeds are to be judged or considered RIGHTEOUS

4. The law in question, in context is the Mosaic law including moral, ceremonial and civil laws as Romans 2:17-25 proves it is and as Romans 3:1-2 proves it is and the exact same language in Galatians 3:10-13 proves it is.

To deny this is justification by good works is to deny the very meaning of the terms involved in this phrase as it is the law of God that is the STANDARD of what is right and wrong in regard to deeds or works.

Your position is simply wrong and illogical and unbiblical and the above evidence proves it.

No. Your argument does not work - it effectively begs the very question at issue.

Let me address your point number 1 in the present post. You assert that "justification means to be made or considered RIGHTEOUS". This is not how Paul actually uses the term. And that is what matters.

Paul’s concept of justification is basically covenantal. “To be justified” means, primarily, to be deemed to be a member of the covenant family and thus be one of those who inherit the covenant promises. True, Paul does use the term “justification” in a law-court setting at times – a prime example is Romans 2. However, I maintain that such uses focus on only one aspect of what is, for Paul, a much richer concept.

Having asserted the primacy of the covenantal reading of the term “justification” over the forensic one, the relationship between these two perspectives needs further exploration. When I assert that justification is primarily a covenantal term for Paul, I am not saying that Paul denies its forensic implications. I instead suggest that when Paul talks about justification, he does so in a manner which evokes all sorts of covenantal connections above and beyond a mere declaration of legal status. In other words, “justification” for Paul is a multi-dimensional concept including “forensic status” as but one of its dimensions.

I will turn to a text in Galatians 3 which clearly illustrates Paul’s use of the concept of justification in a broader covenantal sense that goes beyond the matter of forensic status. This passage is particularly instructive in that both the words “righteousness” (verse 6) and “justify” (verse 8) have the same Greek root word – dikaio. This means that when we read that Abraham was reckoned as in the right, we need to understand this as entailing a declaration that Abraham was justified.

6Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
7Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
8The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."

In verse 6, we have the familiar statement that we also get in Romans 4 – the text so beloved of those who see justification as a purely forensic term with no connections to the covenant. But this is clearly not Paul’s view. Note how in verse 7, he uses the “therefore” to elaborate on the implications of Abraham being reckoned as “in the right”: membership in Abraham’s family for those who share his belief. Of course, every reader of the Scriptures should know that membership in Abraham’s family is covenant membership – it is the descendents of Abraham who are the heirs to the covenant promises. And then in verse 8, Paul explicitly asserts the justification of the Gentile by faith that is implied in verse 7.

 

[Andre]

It is a mystery to me why you would think that I would deny that the Gentile is included in verse 9. You will find nothing in any of my posts that would suggest that I deny that the Gentile is indicted in Romans 3:9.

The "sin" in verse 9 is the sin expounded in verses 10-18.

Agree, but this does not evidence that I have anywhere denied that the Gentile is indicted in Romans 3:9.

The first words "as it is written" is explanatory of the previous phrase "both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin."

I entirely agree. How does cause a problem for my position.

The only reason you splice and cut out the Gentile in verse 10-18 is because of your PRE-supposition of the meaning of "law" in verses 19-20 - thus circular reasoning is employed to deny the very contextual connection between verse 9 and verse 10 that is inclusive of "both Jews and Gentiles."

You have no evidence at all that I have "cut the Gentile" out of 10-18. That is a construct of your mind - it is not based on anything I have posted. I hereby affirm that Paul is telling us that the Gentile is in sin.

The fact that the Gentile is included in Paul's critique in 3:10-18 does not magically place him under the authority of the Law of Moses. Who is under the Law of Moses? Jews.

Does the fact that the Jew and only the Jew is under the Law of Moses mean that the Gentile is not otherwise under sin? Of course not. Romans 1 speaks of the sinfulness of all humanity - not only those under the Law of Moses.

Indeed, such logic is irrational and purely biased showing no regard for the Word of God.

You have made no case against my position.

 

[Andre]

The problem is that the fact that the Gentile is included in Paul's critique does not magically place him under the authority of the Law of Moses. As Paul says in 3:19 - the Law speaks to those under the Law.

Who is under the Law of Moses?

Jews.

Look at your circular reasoning process spelled out in your own words above. First you deny what the text demands - the inclusion of the Gentiles in verses 9-18 based upon your presupposition that to be "under the law" cannot refer to Gentiles but must refer to Jews.

You make two errors here:

1. You erroneously attribute to me a position I have never asserted - and which I have now repeatedly denied that I hold - that the Gentile is included in the critique of 9-18. Dr. W: You will produce no evidence from any of my posts that I deny that Paul is including Gentiles in 3:9-18.

2. Whether willfully or otherwise, you ignore that my argument is not circular - I have argued that it is unlikely that Paul would use the concept of "those under the Law" in chapter 2 to refer to Jews - which he clearly does - and then use that same phrase a few sentences later in chapter to characterize a group that includes Gentiles. I am not pre-supposing when I do this - I am making an actual argument. Now my argument is not bullet-proof. It is possible that Paul is using the same term to denote two different groups. That is what your position demands - and I suggest this is rather implausible.

 

[Andre]

Judaism NEVER classified the 613 statements into ceremonial and moral precepts. Judaism has always considered the entire 613 as moral. Who are Christians to tell Jews what Jews believe?

I basically agree with this, at least to a certain degree. People will often assume that Paul is tallking about only a "part" of the Law of Moses when he uses the term "law". However, this assumption really cannot be justified.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Agree, but this does not evidence that I have anywhere denied that the Gentile is indicted in Romans 3:9.


I entirely agree. How does cause a problem for my position.


You have no evidence at all that I have "cut the Gentile" out of 10-18. That is a construct of your mind - it is not based on anything I have posted. I hereby affirm that Paul is telling us that the Gentile is in sin.

You admit that both the Jew and the Gentile are "all under sin" and that they are both the subjects of Romans 3:10-18.

What you may not realize is that verse 10-18 is simply quotations from the REVEALED LAW OF GOD given to the Jews! It is the WRITTEN REVELATION that Paul has been referring to as the law given to the Jews that was not given to the Gentiles in Romans 2:12-14. Yet Paul is applying this written revelation directly to the Gentiles in Romans 3:9-18.

Now, do you still admit that Romans 3:10-18 includes the Gentiles UNDER THIS LAW that is being quoted?

If you do, then you cannot deny that verse 19 refers to the same law that Paul has already placed the Gentile UNDER in verses 10-18 as verses 10-18 is demonstrating why both the Jew and GENTILE are "ALL UNDER SIN" and therefore the next words out of his mouth is "AS IT IS WRITTEN" where again he uses UNIVERSAL TERMS just as he does in Romans 3:19-20.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your argument is circular. You interpret Romans 3:19-20 based upon your interpretation of Romans 2:12-14 which has been the subject of debate. That interpretation of Romans 2:12-14 is the subject of our debate and yet you presume your interpretation is correct and apply it to Romans 3:19-20 - that is circular reasoning and circular arguing because you cannot apply as fact what is subject of this debate.

Furthermore, you admit that "the law" means different things in different contexts but you ASSUME it can only mean one thing in Romans 3:19-20 based upon your interpretation of it in an entirely different context (Rom. 2:12-14). That is circular reasoning as you don't even bother to establish its meaning contextually in Romans 3:19-20 by the immediate preceding and following context.

I have proven and you have agreed that Romans 3:9-18 is inclusive of both Jew and Gentile. The last phrase of verse "all under sin" is being established by scripture in verses 10-18 with UNIVERSAL TERMS just as UNIVERSAL TERMS are applied in verses 19-20. Hence, Paul is establishing the Gentile is "under sin" by bringing the Gentile UNDER THE LAW quoted in verses 10-18.

What you have ignored is the fact that the law of God is interconnected and inseparable as to violate one point is to violate all points. The law broken by the Gentile is INCLUDED in the Mosaic law as the Jews have it written upon their conscience as much as the Gentile and natural revelation is inclusive in the Mosaic law (Psa. 19).

Hence, the Gentile has broken the Mosaic law as the law they have broken is indeed part of that law and to violate one point is to violate all the points.

YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THIS PROBLEM.

The problem is that the fact that the Gentile is included in Paul's critique does not magically place him under the authority of the Law of Moses. As Paul says in 3:19 - the Law speaks to those under the Law.

Who is under the Law of Moses?

Jews.


You make two errors here:

1. You erroneously attribute to me a position I have never asserted - and which I have now repeatedly denied that I hold - that the Gentile is included in the critique of 9-18. Dr. W: You will produce no evidence from any of my posts that I deny that Paul is including Gentiles in 3:9-18.

2. Whether willfully or otherwise, you ignore that my argument is not circular - I have argued that it is unlikely that Paul would use the concept of "those under the Law" in chapter 2 to refer to Jews - which he clearly does - and then use that same phrase a few sentences later in chapter to characterize a group that includes Gentiles. I am not pre-supposing when I do this - I am making an actual argument. Now my argument is not bullet-proof. It is possible that Paul is using the same term to denote two different groups. That is what your position demands - and I suggest this is rather implausible.

 

[Andre]

You admit that both the Jew and the Gentile are "all under sin" and that they are both the subjects of Romans 3:10-18.

Yes.

What you may not realize is that verse 10-18 is simply quotations from the REVEALED LAW OF GOD given to the Jews!

I am very aware of this.

It is the WRITTEN REVELATION that Paul has been referring to as the law given to the Jews that was not given to the Gentiles in Romans 2:12-14. Yet Paul is applying this written revelation directly to the Gentiles in Romans 3:9-18.

How do you know he is applying it to Gentiles?

As I have said many times already, we know that the Gentile need not be under the Law of Moses to be deemed a sinner.

Gentiles were born, lived, and died without ever hearing of the Law of Moses. Were they not sinners? Of course they were.

The Gentile is deemed to be a sinner apart from the law of Moses (Romans 2, if not many other places). Therefore, the fact that the Gentile is a sinner does not require us to have Paul placing him "under the law" in 3:19.

Which would be a very odd thing for him to do anyway, since in chapter 2 he has used the term "under the law" to denote Jews to the exclusion of Gentiles.

Now, do you still admit that Romans 3:10-18 includes the Gentiles UNDER THIS LAW that is being quoted?

I maintain my position - the Gentile is not under the Law that Paul refers to in 3:19.

If you do, then you cannot deny that verse 19 refers to the same law that Paul has already placed the Gentile UNDER in verses 10-18 as verses 10-18 is demonstrating why both the Jew and GENTILE are "ALL UNDER SIN" and therefore the next words out of his mouth is "AS IT IS WRITTEN" where again he uses UNIVERSAL TERMS just as he does in Romans 3:19-20.

No, and to explain why this reasoning is incorrect woukd be to repeat things I have already posted.

 

[billwald]

>The moral law is not separated from the ceremonial and civil laws but is considered a single covenant of law. Just as we can distinguish between the Persons in the Godhead does not mean they can be separated from each other and the same is true in regard to the Mosaic law. Just because we can distinguish between the ten commandments, the ceremonial and civil commandments does not mean they can be separated from the Mosaic Law.

Agree, and therefore any Christian who claims to be observing any of the 10 is obligated by the 613.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Yes.


I am very aware of this.


How do you know he is applying it to Gentiles?.

The last phrase of Romans 3:10 says "all under sin" and the first phrase of Romans 3:10 says "as it is written." The term "as" translates "kathos" which is a combination of the Greek terms "kata" and "hos". The term "kata' means "in accordance with" and the term "hos" means "even, as, like."

Hence, you cannot possibly deny the connection between verse 9 and verse 10 and that Paul is calling upon scripture to prove that the Gentile is "under sin" NOT BY USE OF THE REVELATION OF NATURE or CONSCIENCE but by JEWISH SCRIPTURES.

God and His own righteousness is the SOURCE of both natural and special revelation and so they are inseparably connected through God. To violate either one in one point is to violate the WHOLE LAW OF GOD or HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS regardless if it is natural or special.

The UNIVERSAL TERMS in Romans 3:10-18 is being specifically applied to the Gentiles just as the UNIVERSAL TERMS in Romans 3:19-20 is being specifically applied to the Gentiles. The Unity of God's law whether natural or special makes the violator guilty of every point of God's law whether natural or special. Why? Because both has the same righteousness in view, the same source in view and the same condemnation in view - eternal death. Only the degree of punishment is determined by whether the violation was the natural law or the special revelation.