Jesus & Salvation By Faith ALONE

[Andre]

In the book of Romans "the Law" refers exclusively to the standard of righteousness that manifests the character of God. - The righteousness of God

1. The law written on conscience manifests this standard - Rom. 2:14-15

Rom. 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.

Another example of Paul's use of the term "law" to denote the Law of Moses, as applicable to Jews only:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations

Paul is arguing that Gentiles can also be in God's true family. There is no dboubt - here, at leat, Paul uses the word "law" to denote the written code of the Law of Moses, which is for Jews only.

 

[Andre]

The entire context of Romans chapter two is Paul addressing the Jews, particularly those who are trying to be saved by following Moses' Law.

That may be true, but that does not change Paul's clear words about a judgement at which both Jew and Gentile will appear with eternal life granted according to deeds (note especially verses 6 and 7):

God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

Many people seem to think that just because Paul is critiquing a self-righteous person, that he then cannot possibly mean what he write in 2:6-7. That doesn't work though.

The 2:6-10 material is about a coming judgement. And Paul uses this to warn the self-righteous sinner. If what is described in 2:6-7 is not actually going to transpire, why should the sinner take the rest of the stuff seriously, either.

Which, of course, undermines the whole notion of the 2:6-10 material being a warning, which it obviously is.

 

[Andre]

Can you point to me one person that through the law has been justified. Can you name me just one. I would like to know one person who has been justified through the Law so that you can demonstrate to me that this is not a hypothetical.

You are not following the argument. I have never claimed, suggested or implied that anyone can be justified by the Law of Moses. And I have acknowledged that I need to make an actual argument as to why we can read "law" in this verse as denoting something other than the Law of Moses:

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

I will say it again - the "law" in this verse is not the Law of Moses. You, and others will need to wait for the argument.

 

[Andre]

Can you point to me one person that through the law has been justified. Can you name me just one.

Paul is talking about a future judgement that has not taken place yet. So the fact that no one has yet been finally justified by good deeds at that coming judgement is not an argument against the assertion that this is indeed how people will be justified.

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

I agree - no person will ever be justified by the written code of the Law of Moses. As is clear from context, this bit at the end of Romans 3 (and carrying on into Romans 4) does not deny (final) justification by good works, it denies that (final) justification is not limited to the Jew only.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

All right, let's talk about this often misunderstood passage.

Romans 4:4-5, a text often used to argue that Paul cannot have meant what he wrote in Romans 2 (and Romans 8 for that matter) about how eternal life is granted according to “how we live”. Here is the relevant material, and I include stuff from the end of Romans 3 for context – remember, it is not Paul who inserts “chapter breaks”:

27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28For 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, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith (is one. 31Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we (establish the Law. 1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, …

A vital point is to note that context clearly shows that the “works” in 4:2 are the works of the Law of Moses. In 3:28, Paul talks about how men are not justified by the works of the Law. It should be clear that this is a reference to the Law of Moses, not to “good works” generally. But even if this were not clear from 3:28, 3:29 seals the deal – Paul is talking about the works of the Law of Moses since the Jew who believes that the works of the Law of Moses justifies could claim that the Gentile, who is not under the Law of Moses, would be excluded from justification. And Paul clearly wants to argue that the Gentile is also a candidate for justification.

So there is really no doubt – Paul is making an argument about the Law of Moses, not good works in general. So why anybody thinks 4:2 is about “good works” is a mystery to me – Paul does not arbitrarily change topics without notice. No - in 4:2 Paul says Abraham was not justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses.

So now we come to the workman. I trust we all understand that this is a metaphor. As such, it cannot be taken literally in all its details – it is a comparison, like all metaphors. Paul has just finished arguing that Abraham, like any other Jew, cannot claim that God “owes” justification to the Jew, and only the Jew, in virtue of the cultural marker of the Law of Moses. The issue to this point is not “does someone who does good works have a claim on God”, it is “does the Jew – the one who is under the Law of Moses – have a claim on God”.

The workman expects to be paid because he has done something. Fine. What is the parallel to Abraham? The parallel is that Abraham might think he has claim on justification because of his obedience to the Law of Moses, not because he has done “good works”. Paul is no doubt spinning in his grave, wondering how people have ignored the flow of the argument and instead impose their own “Paul must be denying justification by good works” scheme onto his text.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The righteousness of God is the ONLY basis for all expressed laws that can be used to judge men. Why? Because it is the ONLY standard of right and wrong approved by God because it stems form God's own nature. Any law that does not reflect the righteousness of God will not be used in judgement by God. All righteous laws originate with this standard and thus are but reflections of that standard.

The Mosaic law supremely manifests the righteousness of God and Paul says this in Romans 3:22:

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested,

This righteousness "without the law is manifested" in the person of Jesus Christ. However, the point is that you cannot separate the Mosaic law from the righteousness found in God or the Person of Jesus Christ and that is precisely why the standard of righteousness is also identified with the gospel (Rom. 2:16) because they are THE SAME standard.

13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Your interpretation is wrong. Let us read it this way:

"for it is not the hearers of the MOASIC law who are just before God but the doers of the MOSAIC law will be justified. For when gentiles who do not have the MOSAIC law do instinctively the things of MOSAIC law, these, not having the MOSAIC Law, are an INSTINCTIVE MOSAIC LAW to themselves, in that they show the work of the MOSAIC law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternativey accusing or else defending them...."

The law written in their heart which controls the conscience "bearing witness and their thoughts alternatively accusing or else defending them" is one and the same law in its essence. There is a law written in their heart that is FUNCTIONING as a JUDGE between right and wrong and ultimately there is no right and wrong apart from God's own righteous character as that alone is definitive of right and wrong.

You cannot separate the Mosaic law from God's own righteous character as it is expressly stated to manifest that righteous character. His righteous characteristics cannnot be restricted to the Jews alone. Therefore, your argument that this is law restrictive to Jews alone is wrong as Paul says it is manifests the very righteousness of God and God is NOT A JEW.

By denying that the "works of the law" is included in Justification by faith, Paul is rejecting any and every kind of good works possible as the Mosaic law was the most comprehensive application of moral law to the life of a human being ever given among men. To deny the Mosaic law and its works are inclusive in justification by faith is the most comprehensive denial of works that is possible for Paul to make.

 

[DHK]

All right, let's talk about this often misunderstood passage.

Romans 4:4-5, a text often used to argue that Paul cannot have meant what he wrote in Romans 2 (and Romans 8 for that matter) about how eternal life is granted according to “how we live”. Here is the relevant material, and I include stuff from the end of Romans 3 for context – remember, it is not Paul who inserts “chapter breaks”:

27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28For 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, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith (is one. 31Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we (establish the Law. 1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, …

A vital point is to note that context clearly shows that the “works” in 4:2 are the works of the Law of Moses. In 3:28, Paul talks about how men are not justified by the works of the Law. It should be clear that this is a reference to the Law of Moses, not to “good works” generally. But even if this were not clear from 3:28, 3:29 seals the deal – Paul is talking about the works of the Law of Moses since the Jew who believes that the works of the Law of Moses justifies could claim that the Gentile, who is not under the Law of Moses, would be excluded from justification. And Paul clearly wants to argue that the Gentile is also a candidate for justification.

It is not quite as simple as that.

So there is really no doubt – Paul is making an argument about the Law of Moses, not good works in general. So why anybody thinks 4:2 is about “good works” is a mystery to me – Paul does not arbitrarily change topics without notice.

The change is not arbitrary. It is on purpose. Abraham is being used as an example of a man who was justified by faith--the point that he is driving home, both in this chapter and in chapter five. In chapters four and five, the subject is no longer the law; it is justification.

No - in 4:2 Paul says Abraham was not justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses.

Not true at all. Abraham was not a Jew, but a Gentile. The Law of Moses was not applicable to him. Abraham lived ca.2100 B.C. and Moses lived ca. 1400 B.C. The laws of Moses had no effect on Abraham. Abraham was justified by faith, not the works of general law.

So now we come to the workman. I trust we all understand that this is a metaphor. As such, it cannot be taken literally in all its details – it is a comparison, like all metaphors. Paul has just finished arguing that Abraham, like any other Jew, cannot claim that God “owes” justification to the Jew, and only the Jew, in virtue of the cultural marker of the Law of Moses.

1. God does not owe any man anything.
2. Abraham is not/was not a Jew. He came from Ur of the Chaldees. He was justified by faith when he believed God.

The issue to this point is not “does someone who does good works have a claim on God”, it is “does the Jew – the one who is under the Law of Moses – have a claim on God”.

No one does. Not the Jew; not the Gentile; and not Abraham.

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
--Abraham did not have any claim on God whatsoever.

The workman expects to be paid because he has done something. Fine. What is the parallel to Abraham? The parallel is that Abraham might think he has claim on justification because of his obedience to the Law of Moses, not because he has done “good works”. Paul is no doubt spinning in his grave, wondering how people have ignored the flow of the argument and instead impose their own “Paul must be denying justification by good works” scheme onto his text.

Abraham was not justified by works as verse 2 emphasizes:
Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
--He could only glory or boast about his works before man, not before God.

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
--His justification came by faith and faith alone. That is how a man is justified, and has always been justified. There is no other way. It is by faith alone. This is further emphasized in chapter five:

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
--The workman receives his wage or salary because he earns it. It is not a gift, a reward, something given out of grace. It is given as a debt owed, for he earned it.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
--To the one who never did a good work in his life, but simply believed on Christ, that man is justified. Why? Because it is only Christ that can justify the sinner, and he does it by faith and faith alone, as Paul teaches in Rom.5:1.

 

[Andre]

The righteousness of God is the ONLY basis for all expressed laws that can be used to judge men. Why? Because it is the ONLY standard of right and wrong approved by God because it stems form God's own nature. Any law that does not reflect the righteousness of God will not be used in judgement by God. All righteous laws originate with this standard and thus are but reflections of that standard.

I agree with all this, but it does not challenge anything I have posted. And it certainly does not challenge the fact that, at many points, Paul uses the term "law" to refer to the written code of the Law of Moses which applies to Jews only.

And it does not challenge my argument that, in Romans 2:14-15, the "law" written on the heart of the Gentile does not denote some kind of universal law that is written on the hearts of all men. As my argument demonstrates, Paul is talking about a "law" that has been written on the heart of believing Gentiles.

The Mosaic law supremely manifests the righteousness of God and Paul says this in Romans 3:22:

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested,

Quite the contrary - this is a statement that the righteousness of God is manifested by something other than the Law of Moses.

This righteousness "without the law is manifested" in the person of Jesus Christ.

Agree.

However, the point is that you cannot separate the Mosaic law from the righteousness found in God or the Person of Jesus Christ....

But Paul does separate them - he declares that the righteousness of God is realized through a means other than the Law of Moses.

 

[Andre]

You cannot separate the Mosaic law from God's own righteous character as it is expressly stated to manifest that righteous character.

Your issue is with Paul not me. It is Paul, not me, who makes it clear that the righteousness of God is made manifest through a means other than the Law of Moses:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,

Yes the Law is from God, but Paul discerns that is through some other means - the work of Jesus - that the righteousness of God is made manifest.

His righteous characteristics cannnot be restricted to the Jews alone.

I never suggested that God's righteousness is restricted to Jews. But the Old and New Testaments are quite clear - the written code of the Law of Moses was for Jews and Jews only.

Therefore, your argument that this is law restrictive to Jews alone is wrong as Paul says it is manifests the very righteousness of God and God is NOT A JEW.

My argument is correct and I suspect you will find very few Biblical scholars who will say that the Law of Moses was given to all mankind. It was given to the Jews at Sinai and is for them alone.

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26'Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I (Z)have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It contradicts everything you have posted. Paul's point is very very simple. If the most comprehensive law God ever devised to apply to every possible aspect of human life, thus spelling out "good works" in the most comprehensive manner known to mankind cannot justify the Jew, THEN NO FLESH CAN BE JUSTIFIED BY GOOD WORKS anywhere, at anytime by anyone on planet earth. It is an argument from greater to lessor. If the Jew cannot be justified by "good works" NO FLESH CAN!

Your intepretation of Romans 3:22 is wrong! In arguing that the righteousness of God is manifested "apart from" the law in some other way (the life of Christ) it is affirming that the law manifested it as well but not exclusively. Furthermore, the life of Christ was the fulfillment of what Law??????????? What law did he come to fulfill in Matthew 5:16-19??????? You cannot separate the righteousness of God, the righteousness of Christ from the Law given under Moses as it was this law he OBEYED as he was born "under the law" as a Jew and he died "under the law" as Jew as it is this same law that said "cursed" be anyone that hangeth on a tree - WHAT LAW IS THAT???????

You reject that law and you reject the righteousness of Christ as that righteousness was defined by that law, satisfied that law NOT JUST FOR JEWS but for US! If you isolate that law to the Jew only as your whole thesis has done and demands than you better do the same thing with the life of Christ and with the righteousness of God as both are manifested through that same law and defined by that same law.

Christ did away with that law by FULFILLING it to the "iota" NOT FOR JEWS ONLY but for ALL THE ELECT. In denying we are justified by the good "works" of THAT LAW is simply saying in the most comprehensive manner possible that NO FLESH can be justified by good works as the Jew is the epitomy of that. In denying we are justified by the good "works" of THAT LAW is simply saying CHRIST FULFILLED IT FOR US - not just for Jews. However, if you regulate THAT LAW for "Jews only" then you regulate Christ's satisfaction for "Jews only" and "the righteousness of God" for "Jews only."

You are taking Paul's beautiful exposition and applying it directly opposite of his intent and that intent is simply to show that if the Jew cannot be justified by works NO HUMAN BEING can as the Jew is the EPITOMY of this attempt. By going to UNCIRCUMCISED Abraham (thus not a Jew) and a GENTILE 430 years before God gave the TEN COMMANDMENTS to Moses, Abraham is demonstrating that when there was NO LAW GIVEN to define "good works" from "bad works" that Abraham was justified by a "faith" as an "UNGODLY" man without works pertaining to the flesh (not law as no law existed) - vv. 1-8; without ordinances as no ordinances existed until 14 years later - vv. 9-13; without works of the law as no law existed until 430 years later - vv. 14-15; without any kind of personal assistance or actions as God performed his promise when both Abraham and Sarah were DEAD in the very areas where they could cooperate or assist as they had tried in Ishmael. This is a faith that is defined by simply resting upon God's power to accomplish God's promise and this is the faith that justifies us in the gospel - vv. 23-25.

You wish to have God justify the GODLY as defined by their good works in Romans 2:6-10 but Paul says that God justfies "THE UNGODLY" who is "without works" - Rom. 4:5. Therefore, you application of Romans 2:6-10 is wrong as it directly contradicts the kind of person whom Paul says is justified by faith - THE UNGODLY - without works.

I agree with all this, but it does not challenge anything I have posted. And it certainly does not challenge the fact that, at many points, Paul uses the term "law" to refer to the written code of the Law of Moses which applies to Jews only.

And it does not challenge my argument that, in Romans 2:14-15, the "law" written on the heart of the Gentile does not denote some kind of universal law that is written on the hearts of all men. As my argument demonstrates, Paul is talking about a "law" that has been written on the heart of believing Gentiles.


Quite the contrary - this is a statement that the righteousness of God is manifested by something other than the Law of Moses.


Agree.


But Paul does separate them - he declares that the righteousness of God is realized through a means other than the Law of Moses.

 

[Andre]

Your interpretation is wrong. Let us read it this way:

"for it is not the hearers of the MOASIC law who are just before God but the doers of the MOSAIC law will be justified. For when gentiles who do not have the MOSAIC law do instinctively the things of MOSAIC law, these, not having the MOSAIC Law, are an INSTINCTIVE MOSAIC LAW to themselves, in that they show the work of the MOSAIC law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternativey accusing or else defending them...."

The law written in their heart which controls the conscience "bearing witness and their thoughts alternatively accusing or else defending them" is one and the same law in its essence. There is a law written in their heart that is FUNCTIONING as a JUDGE between right and wrong and ultimately there is no right and wrong apart from God's own righteous character as that alone is definitive of right and wrong.

Again, I have no particular objection to this, but it is certainly not argument against the view that Paul is here asserting that the "law" here is written only on the hearts of Gentile believers. And neither is it an argument that the "law" written on the heart of such a believer is the Law of Moses.

I would agree that what is written on the heart of Gentile believer here (and is also written on the heart of the Jewish) believer stands in a close relation to the Law of Moses.

But it is clearly not the Law of Moses. Paul clearly sees the Law of Moses as being for Jews only. In fact he says so right here in this same section:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law,....

Things are very tricky here. Yes Paul sees the Gentile as, in some sense, doing the "essence" of the Law of Moses. But that Gentile never was under the written code of the Law of Moses.

This is complicated stuff - this bit in Romans 2 is notoriously challenging. Besides, I have yet to give my full-dress treatment about what exactly I think is going on when Paul writes of a "law" written on the heart of the believing Gentile.

But whatever that law is, it cannot be the Law of Moses. As per Romans 3 and 4, the Law of Moses is seen by Paul as being for Jews only.

And this is, of course, consistent with the Old Testament. The Law of Moses was given to the Jews and was for them only. In fact, the text I gave from Lev 20 shows that the Law of Moses functions to mark out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile.

So there is no room to argue that the Law of Moses is some kind of universal law. Yes, one can argue that something very closely related to the Law of Moses is available to Gentile believers. But this subtle distinction is, I suggest, quite important.

By denying that the "works of the law" is included in Justification by faith, Paul is rejecting any and every kind of good works possible as the Mosaic law was the most comprehensive application of moral law to the life of a human being ever given among men.

No. I suggest that you are reading stuff into the Biblical texts. When Paul denies justification by works, he is very clearly denying that justification is limited to Jews. The classic proof text is this:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

Verse 29 only makes sense if Paul sees the "law" here as being for Jews only. Do I really need to explain why?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I never said that the law written upon the conscience of men is the law of Moses. What I said is that both the law of Moses and the law written upon the conscience are manifestations of the righteousness found in God's nature.

Why can't you see that Paul is arguing from the greater to lessor when he speaks of the law given to the Jew??? If the Jew cannot justified by good works as defined by the law then NO FLESH can as NO FLESH was given a more comprehensive application of "good" versus "bad' than the Jew. Look at Romans 4:5 and note clearly it is the "UNGODLY" that is being justified NOT THE PERSON DOING GOOD WORKS.

The law written on conscience, written on stone, written in the Torah and prophets is nothing more or less than imperfect manifestations of the righteousness of God Himself which is manifest in the life of Christ. There is no law given to mankind more comprehensive than the law given to the Jew. There is no human on earth that was given more light of right and wrong in all aspects of life than the Jew. If the Jew could not be justified by the "deeds of the law" then all human beings are "UNGODLY" and none can be justified by good works and therefore the only kind of beings existing that can be justified by faith are "THE UNGODLY" by definition of coming "short of the GLORY OF GOD." What is the GLORY of God - IT IS HIS SINLESSNESS or HOLINESS. This is why Jesus told all who would keep the ten commandments in order to obtain eternal llife - THERE IS NONE GOOD BUT ONE AND THAT IS GOD. To prove it, Jesus said keep the commandments! The rich young ruler said HE HAD KEPT THEM FROM HIS YOUTH UP, however, proof that he nor any man does is his response to Jesus command - sell everything, give to the poor and come follow me. He went away sorrowful because true obedience to the Law means TOTAL 100% devotion to God and man 100% of the time - be ye therefore perfect EVEN AS your Father in heaven is perfect.

The simple truth is that there is only one kind of human being that God justifies and it is not the one who has been doing "good works" but "THE UNGODLY" as there really are no such human beings, NO FLESH on planet earth that can do "good" enough to be justified by God's standard of Righteousness which is HIS OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS - "Be therefore perfect EVEN AS your Father in heaven is perfect". Those that God justifies are JUSTIFIED at the beginning of their Christian life as "THE UNGODLY" and these "SHALL NOT COME into judgement" (Jn. 5:24) for life and death decisions but "is passed from death to life." (Jn. 5:24). The only thing a JUSTIFIED person stands before to be judged "according to their works" is for REWARDS in heaven (I Cor. 3:11-15).

Again, I have no particular objection to this, but it is certainly not argument against the view that Paul is here asserting that the "law" here is written only on the hearts of Gentile believers. And neither is it an argument that the "law" written on the heart of such a believer is the Law of Moses.

I would agree that what is written on the heart of Gentile believer here (and is also written on the heart of the Jewish) believer stands in a close relation to the Law of Moses.

But it is clearly not the Law of Moses. Paul clearly sees the Law of Moses as being for Jews only. In fact he says so right here in this same section:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law,....

Things are very tricky here. Yes Paul sees the Gentile as, in some sense, doing the "essence" of the Law of Moses. But that Gentile never was under the written code of the Law of Moses.

This is complicated stuff - this bit in Romans 2 is notoriously challenging. Besides, I have yet to give my full-dress treatment about what exactly I think is going on when Paul writes of a "law" written on the heart of the believing Gentile.

But whatever that law is, it cannot be the Law of Moses. As per Romans 3 and 4, the Law of Moses is seen by Paul as being for Jews only.

And this is, of course, consistent with the Old Testament. The Law of Moses was given to the Jews and was for them only. In fact, the text I gave from Lev 20 shows that the Law of Moses functions to mark out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile.

So there is no room to argue that the Law of Moses is some kind of universal law. Yes, one can argue that something very closely related to the Law of Moses is available to Gentile believers. But this subtle distinction is, I suggest, quite important.


No. I suggest that you are reading stuff into the Biblical texts. When Paul denies justification by works, he is very clearly denying that justification is limited to Jews. The classic proof text is this:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

Verse 29 only makes sense if Paul sees the "law" here as being for Jews only. Do I really need to explain why?

 

[Andre]

I never said that the law written upon the conscience of men is the law of Moses. What I said is that both the law of Moses and the law written upon the conscience are manifestations of the righteousness found in God's nature.

Well I would certainly agree with this, except if you are saying that any kind of a non-believer has the "law" written on their heart. Romans 1 addresses the non-believer. I am quite convinced that only believers get the law written on their hearts. After all, only believers have the Holy Spirit and I believe there is clear Biblical support for the notion that it is specifically the Holy Spirit who writes the law on the heart.

Why can't you see that Paul is arguing from the greater to lessor when he speaks of the law given to the Jew??? If the Jew cannot justified by good works as defined by the law then NO FLESH can as NO FLESH was given a more comprehensive application of "good" versus "bad' than the Jew. Look at Romans 4:5 and note clearly it is the "UNGODLY" that is being justified NOT THE PERSON DOING GOOD WORKS.

This is really just a statement of your position on what Paul means when he says one cannot be justified by "works". You see it as a critique of the Jewish belief that one can be justified by doing the "good works" embodied in the Law of Moses.

I have been arguing that Paul is really critiquing the Jewish view that justification is a racially exlcusive privelege.

And I have already provided an argument about Romans 4:5 and why it does not support the idea that Paul is critiquing justification by "good works".

 

[Dr. Walter]

Paul defines his use of "heart" in Romans 2:14 as the "conscience" Romans 2:15. God has given "conscience" that operates as described, approving and condemning, to every unregenerate man. This conscience is a God given faculty which is the Law "written upon it" by God in its minimal essence, sufficient for God to use it as the standard of righteousenss to condemn them for violating it.

Your interpretation of Romans 4:5 is wrong. The only reason the jew regarded themselves as justifiable is because they had the law of God given to them and because they believed justification was obtained through doing "works" defined as "good" by the law. However, in Romans 4:5 Paul contrasts "beleiveth" with "worketh" while characterizing the condition of the one believing as "ungodly" or one "without works." The term "ungodly" does not mean to be "without Jewish law." It means to be without God, unlike God, godless and thus "without [GOOD] works as God is GOOD and DOETH GOOD.

If a lost person embraces your view of justification without works THEY CAN NEVER BE SAVED. If this is the view you embraced at your profession you are still lost and will stay lost as long as you embrace this antithetical position to the gospel of Jesus Christ because it is "another gospel."

Well I would certainly agree with this, except if you are saying that any kind of a non-believer has the "law" written on their heart. Romans 1 addresses the non-believer. I am quite convinced that only believers get the law written on their hearts. After all, only believers have the Holy Spirit and I believe there is clear Biblical support for the notion that it is specifically the Holy Spirit who writes the law on the heart.


This is really just a statement of your position on what Paul means when he says one cannot be justified by "works". You see it as a critique of the Jewish belief that one can be justified by doing the "good works" embodied in the Law of Moses.

I have been arguing that Paul is really critiquing the Jewish view that justification is a racially exlcusive privelege.

And I have already provided an argument about Romans 4:5 and why it does not support the idea that Paul is critiquing justification by "good works".

 

[Andre]

Your interpretation of Romans 4:5 is wrong. The only reason the jew regarded themselves as justifiable is because they had the law of God given to them and because they believed justification was obtained through doing "works" defined as "good" by the law.

As per a previous post, I suggest that the historical evidence - what we know about first century Judaim - suggests otherwise.

That is, the evidence suggests that the Jew never saw the Law of Moses as a set of things they needed to do to get justified. Instead, they saw it primarily as an ethnic delimiter. And that they did the works of the Law out of gratitude for having otherwise been justified on the basis of being Jewish.

Do you have any evidence that the Jew saw doing the works of the Law of Moses as a means of attaining justification? From the end of Romans 3, it is pretty clear that at least Paul saw the Jew as seeing the Law of Moses as an ethnic marker, not as a ladder of good works to attain justification:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

 

[Dr. Walter]

No wonder you have a messed up view. Let scripture interpret scripture. Paul said nothing about an "ethnic delimiter" but he spoke plenty about no flesh being justified by "the deeds" of law. He spoke about being justified "without works." He spoke about the "ungodly" as justified.

Why in the world do you think Paul repeats over and over and over again that we are not justified by "the deed" by "works" of the law if the Judiazers were not demanding the very opposite.

Romans and Galatians were not written to repudiate JEWISH teaching but the teaching of Judiastic Christians. The Jewish teaching repudiated Jesus as the Christ ALTOGETHER. It is Jews who claim to be Christians, claim to be believers in Jesus as the Christ that Paul is addressing. They are denying that justification is by simple faith in the Christ provision as presented in the gospel but demand that gentiles must be brought into the covenant of "works" as well in order to obtain final justification by "good" works JUST LIKE YOU ARE TEACHING.

As per a previous post, I suggest that the historical evidence - what we know about first century Judaim - suggests otherwise.

That is, the evidence suggests that the Jew never saw the Law of Moses as a set of things they needed to do to get justified. Instead, they saw it primarily as an ethnic delimiter. And that they did the works of the Law out of gratitude for having otherwise been justified on the basis of being Jewish.

Do you have any evidence that the Jew saw doing the works of the Law of Moses as a means of attaining justification? From the end of Romans 3, it is pretty clear that at least Paul saw the Jew as seeing the Law of Moses as an ethnic marker, not as a ladder of good works to attain justification:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

 

[Andre]

No wonder you have a messed up view. Let scripture interpret scripture. Paul said nothing about an "ethnic delimiter" but he spoke plenty about no flesh being justified by "the deeds" of law. He spoke about being justified "without works." He spoke about the "ungodly" as justified.

I suggest that it is my view that actually maps to what Paul actually wrote, not to what some tradition has super-imposed on what Paul wrote.

Now, about the function of the Law as an ethnic delimiter. There are many texts which directly support and sustain my position.

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law,....

Paul sees the Jews as being under the Law of Moses, and the Gentile not. The Law therefore functions as an ethnic delimiter

You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?

Paul clearly believes that the Jew saw the Law as a specifically ethnic charter that set them in a privileged position.

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

The "very words" here are a rather thinly veiled allusion to the Law. Paul is clearly acknowledging that, despite how the Jew has taken the ethnic privilege of the Law too far, there are indeed "advantages" to being under it.

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

An obvious Pauline challenge to the Jew who thinks that the Law, given to Jews alone, sets the Jew apart as having an inside track on justification. This is something you would say to a Jew who sees the Law as an ethnic marker, not to a Jew who thought he could be justified by doing the "good works" set forth in the Law. Again, your exegesis does not honour the details of the texts. If Paul is really concerned with justification by "good works", why does he emphasize the overturning of the Jew - Gentile distinction, a distinction that has no sense if justification by good works were on his mind, but the very thing that needs to be challenged if, indeed, Paul is reacting to a Jewish belief that the Law of Moses set the Jew in a special class unto which the Gentile could not aspire to belong.

And there is much, much, more as I will show in a subsequent post.

The Scriptural case is very strong indeed - Paul's critique of the Jew in relation to the Law of Moses was that the Jew saw the Law as marking him out ethnically for justification.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You are the one who has adopted what man (the Jew) has super-imposed upon the law.

QUESTION: Why do you think God gave the Law?

Do you think God gave the law so the jew could boast he was superior? Do you think that God gave the law to the Jews because God believed they were a better race than others?

First answer the question, Why did God give the law to the Jews! What you have done is adopted what the Jews have super-imposed upon the law - something that God never intended or designed the law.

Paul is defining God's intent and design behind the law IN CONTRAST TO what the Jews super-imposed upon the law.

You can clearly see what the Jews super-imposed upon the law but you cannot see God's design and intent for the law which Paul spells out in contrast to the Jewish super-imposed ideology (Rom. 2:17-3:8).

God gave the law to REVEAL sin and demonstrate there is NONE GOOD, NO, NOT ONE and as a school master to lead the Jew away from law keeping for justification unto faith in Christ to have fulfilled the law FOR the sinner. Those in Romans 2:1-5; 17-3:8 are just like you. They have not learned the design and intent for which God gave the law. They believe they can come before God on judgement day and "according to their works" actually find approval under the law and receive eternal life. Of course Paul says that is true for all who can live so as to be approved by the law but it is not true for those who cannot. Paul concludes NONE will be able to do that (Rom. 3:9-21).

However, you are under the same mind set as the Jews in Romans 2:1-5; 17-24. You have super-imposed the Jewish thinking upon the Law of God and actually believe you can produce "works" that will measure up to the Law's standard of "good." You actually believe your as "good" as God because that is exactly what the standard of the Law requires - to be as "good" as God as the law manifests THE RIGHTEOUSENSSS OF GOD.

You are among those in Romans 10:3 "going about trying to establish their own righteousness" - "good works" but have rejected "the righteousness of God." You reject the "righteousness of God" because you don't believe that is what the law requires for your works to be "good." You reject the righteousness of God and lower the standard of the law on judgement day to a level of the righteousness of the Jew - super-imposed righteousness that is RELATIVE righteousness as that is the only kind of righteousness that your works can pass. You reject the righteousness of God found ONLY in the Person and works of Jesus Christ - "For Christ is THE END of righteousness to every one that believeth." You reject the righteousness of Christ by super-imposing the Jewish mindset of RELATIVE righteousness upon the Law of God in order that YOUR "works" will be justified by the law on judgement day. You reject the righeousness of God because if you believe the law's standard on judgement day was THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD you would never even attempt to come before him "according to YOUR works" as that would demand that YOUR WORKS must be as GOOD as God's works in order for the Law to justify them.

You have adopted the super-imposed design and intent of the Jew as your theological interpretation of the law, justification, judgement. You are the person Paul is addressing in Romans 2:1-5; 17-24.

I suggest that it is my view that actually maps to what Paul actually wrote, not to what some tradition has super-imposed on what Paul wrote.

Now, about the function of the Law as an ethnic delimiter. There are many texts which directly support and sustain my position.

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law,....

Paul sees the Jews as being under the Law of Moses, and the Gentile not. The Law therefore functions as an ethnic delimiter

You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?

Paul clearly believes that the Jew saw the Law as a specifically ethnic charter that set them in a privileged position.

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

The "very words" here are a rather thinly veiled allusion to the Law. Paul is clearly acknowledging that, despite how the Jew has taken the ethnic privilege of the Law too far, there are indeed "advantages" to being under it.

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

An obvious Pauline challenge to the Jew who thinks that the Law, given to Jews alone, sets the Jew apart as having an inside track on justification. This is something you would say to a Jew who sees the Law as an ethnic marker, not to a Jew who thought he could be justified by doing the "good works" set forth in the Law. Again, your exegesis does not honour the details of the texts. If Paul is really concerned with justification by "good works", why does he emphasize the overturning of the Jew - Gentile distinction, a distinction that has no sense if justification by good works were on his mind, but the very thing that needs to be challenged if, indeed, Paul is reacting to a Jewish belief that the Law of Moses set the Jew in a special class unto which the Gentile could not aspire to belong.

And there is much, much, more as I will show in a subsequent post.

The Scriptural case is very strong indeed - Paul's critique of the Jew in relation to the Law of Moses was that the Jew saw the Law as marking him out ethnically for justification.

 

[Andre]

More evidence that Paul understood the Law of Moses as substantially functioning as an ethnic delimiter. Hence when Paul is critiquing justification by works of the law, he is really critiquing the Jew who believes that justification is for the Jew alone, not the Jew who thinks he can "earn" his way to ultimate justification:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. 16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."

The case makes itself - Paul is arguing that justification is not limited to Jews. Why would the Jew need to be told this?

Precisely because the Jew saw the Law of Moses marked him out for justification to the exclusion of the Gentile.

 

[Andre]

More evidence that Paul understands the Jew to believe that the Law of Moses is an ethnic delimiter, not as a means of "earning" justification:

Paul is not denying “salvation by good works” in Ephesians 2, he is denying “salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses” (the Torah). However, this view appears vulnerable to the following critique: Since Torah contains moral prescriptions (such as the 10 commandments), any statement that doing the works of Torah does not save really amounts to a statement that good works do not save. As will be demonstrated, this objection turns out to have no force.

As has already been argued elsewhere, the “works” of verse 9 (that do not save) are the works of Torah. As that argument shows, Paul is focusing on the role of the Torah as an ethnic delimiter, not as a code of good moral conduct. That is why Paul weaves circumcision into the argument. In verse 11, he contrasts the status of the Gentile by birth (not by good works) to that of the Jew's status as being circumcised. This is not a good works issue - Paul describes a dividing line that is ethnic, and circumcision is the hallmark "work of Torah" - it is not a "good work".

In verse 12, Paul describes the Gentile as not being a citizen of Israel and being an outsider of to the covenants. Again, this is not relevant to any argument about good works. It is a claim about the Jew's status as a member of an ethnic group. And it is the Torah that is the charter of the Jews as a people - it is the Torah that marks them out as distinct from the Gentile. So, once again, this is not the kind of argument one should be mounting if a denial of salvation by good works is on the table. And it is precisely the argument that denial salvation by works of Torah is Paul’s intent.


Let's be clear here - while the Torah indeed has a "moral" or "good works" dimension, Paul is focusing on its function of splitting the world into two camps - Jews and Gentiles. And the Torah does this through things like Sabbath, circumcision, and kosher purity laws.

We already know that Paul sees Jew and Gentile as both morally bankrupt (Romans 3). The rhetoric of the argument (in Ephesian 2:11 and following) is clear: Paul is saying that the abolition of the Law of Moses has brought Jew and Gentile into one family. Therefore, Paul is clearly seeing the Law of Moses as an ethnic delimiter. If you are going to make the point that Jew and Gentile are in the same family, the perfect way to do this is to undermine the function of Torah as an ethnic delimiter. Thus the perfect thing to say that "the works of the Law of Moses do not justify"

 

[Dr. Walter]

For your position to be true then the Jew would have to believe that simply being a jew qualified you for justification and the Jews did not believe that. The Jews denied that certain CLASSES of Jews could be justified if they were a publican/tax collector or an adulterer or a law breaker. You have the Pharisee Jew versus the Sadducee Jew. They did not believe merely being a Jew qualified you as justified. The Pharisee Jew threatened other Jews with "Gehenna" if they did not obey the law but transgresssed it. They believed in justification by "good works" and clearly denied that all Jews would be justified but some would go to hell on the very same basis you do.

You have simply super-imposed Jewish tradition in regard to the law.

More evidence that Paul understands the Jew to believe that the Law of Moses is an ethnic delimiter, not as a means of "earning" justification:

Paul is not denying “salvation by good works” in Ephesians 2, he is denying “salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses” (the Torah). However, this view appears vulnerable to the following critique: Since Torah contains moral prescriptions (such as the 10 commandments), any statement that doing the works of Torah does not save really amounts to a statement that good works do not save. As will be demonstrated, this objection turns out to have no force.

As has already been argued elsewhere, the “works” of verse 9 (that do not save) are the works of Torah. As that argument shows, Paul is focusing on the role of the Torah as an ethnic delimiter, not as a code of good moral conduct. That is why Paul weaves circumcision into the argument. In verse 11, he contrasts the status of the Gentile by birth (not by good works) to that of the Jew's status as being circumcised. This is not a good works issue - Paul describes a dividing line that is ethnic, and circumcision is the hallmark "work of Torah" - it is not a "good work".

In verse 12, Paul describes the Gentile as not being a citizen of Israel and being an outsider of to the covenants. Again, this is not relevant to any argument about good works. It is a claim about the Jew's status as a member of an ethnic group. And it is the Torah that is the charter of the Jews as a people - it is the Torah that marks them out as distinct from the Gentile. So, once again, this is not the kind of argument one should be mounting if a denial of salvation by good works is on the table. And it is precisely the argument that denial salvation by works of Torah is Paul’s intent.


Let's be clear here - while the Torah indeed has a "moral" or "good works" dimension, Paul is focusing on its function of splitting the world into two camps - Jews and Gentiles. And the Torah does this through things like Sabbath, circumcision, and kosher purity laws.

We already know that Paul sees Jew and Gentile as both morally bankrupt (Romans 3). The rhetoric of the argument (in Ephesian 2:11 and following) is clear: Paul is saying that the abolition of the Law of Moses has brought Jew and Gentile into one family. Therefore, Paul is clearly seeing the Law of Moses as an ethnic delimiter. If you are going to make the point that Jew and Gentile are in the same family, the perfect way to do this is to undermine the function of Torah as an ethnic delimiter. Thus the perfect thing to say that "the works of the Law of Moses do not justify"