Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

[Dr. Walter]

According to who - you? Let me get this straight. I don't agree with your personal and fallible interpretation of scripture therefore, I am ignorant of scripture, arrogant and exalt myself about scripture and above God. Right... That's quite the scholoarly response there, doc.



Then why are there soooo many different interpretations of scripture? There are as many as there are Protestants.



Well, first you fail in your attempt to support the man-made doctrine of Sola Scripture, so now you are promoting the writtings of some pastor named Fenison as authoritative. Need I point out once again that by this action you, my dear doctor, are providing ample evidence that you do not REALLY follow the doctrine yourself? Yes!



How original. Now, I seem to remember that you were going to provide me with scripture claiming for itself the SOLE authority for the christian regarding matters of faith and morals.

Peace!

Proverbs 26:4

 

[Dr. Walter]

And as for the 14 years its inconsiquential as to when it comes in operation. God promised Abraham that he would have a child it doesn't matter that the promise occured when he was 80. Just like the Holy of Holy's wasn't established until Moses. However, God intended to dwell among his people.

Paul's point in Romans 4 is to demonstrate what is included versus what is excluded in his doctrine of justification by faith. In Romans 4:9-12 he is explicitly denying that circumcision as a divine ordinance has any bearing on justification by faith. Read it!


VERSE 910a SPECIFIC QUESTION IS ASKED

9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision?


VERSE 10b SPECIFIC QUESTION IS ANSWERED

Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.


VERSE 11a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CIRCUMCISION AND JUSTIFICATION EXPLAINED:

11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith


VERSE 11b JUSTIFICATION COMPLETED BEFORE CIRCUMCISION

which he had yet being uncircumcised:


VERSE 11c WHY IT IS COMPLETED PRIOR TO CIRCUMCISION

that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I knew you would respond to this text that way. Soooo, I saved the best to last. If you will examine Isaiah 8:14-18 you will see it is a Messanic promise in regard not only to Christ but the NEW TESTAMENT DISCIPLES of Christ. For example, Isa. 8:14-15 is often quoted in the New Testament and applied directly to Christ. Isaiah 8:16-18 is directly applied to the apostles as you can clearly see in Hebrews 2:3-4,12.

Isaiah 8:16 is an Old Testament prophecy that the Biblical canon will be completed under the apostles of Christ who were given as signs unto Israel (Isa. 8:17-18). The "law" is the common designation for the whole Old Testament Scriptures and the "testimony" is exactly the term the last living apostle used to describe the last book of the New Tesament (Rev. 1:2; 19:10) and placed a final anathema on those who added to it (Rev. 22:18-19).

This prophecy was understood by Christ and in the upper room discourse the Holy Spirit was promised to lead them into all truth, bring to remembrance the things of Jesus and those things that will come. In John 17:20 Jesus promises that it is through the words of the apostles that future saints would come to Christ (New Testament Scriptures). As you know all the New Testament was either written by one of the Apostles or under their supervision by an associate under them. The apostles knew they were providing the inspired scripture as final authority (I Jn. 4:5-6; 2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15).

After predicting the completion of the Biblical canon (Isa 8:16 "bind up the testimony and seal the law AMONG MY DISCIPLES") the next revelation from God that is expected is Christ's second advent:

"And I will wait upon the LORD that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I WILL LOOK FOR HIM." - Isa. 8:17.

Finally, the Bible reads as a completed book with a beginning and ending that compliment each other:

"In the beginning God created..." - Gen. 1:1
"And I saw a new heaven and new earth" - Rev. 21:1

The gathering together of waters he called seas..- Gen
"And the sea is no more" - Rev.

"The Darkness He called night" - Gen.
"There shall be no night there" - Rev.

God made two great lights (sun and moon) - Gen
"The city had no need of the Sun nor the Moon" - Rev

"In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die" - Gen.
"Death shall be no more" - Rev

" Cursed is the ground for your sake" - Gen
"There shall be no more curse" - Rev

"I will greatly multiply they paint" - Gen
"Nether shal there be pain any more" Rev

Satan appears as the deceiver of mankind - Gen
Satan disappears into the lake of fire forever - Rev

They were driven from the tree of llife - Gen
Tree of life reappears - Rev

They were driven from God's presence -Gen
They shall look upon his face - Rev

Man's primeval home was by a river -Gen.
Man's eternal home will be beside a river - Rev.

Genesis tells how everything began and Revelation tells how everything ends. Revelation takes us from the end of apostolic era to the new heaven and earth.

Therefore, Isaiah 8:20 is planted in a context that includes the FULL REVELATION from God and specifically includes the very terms in Isaiah 8:16 of the predicted completed Biblical canon. So my friend, you are wrong. This text is absolute claim of the final authority of the Scriptures OVER EVERY MAN and the Pope included and every church, every counsel, every human on earth. If "THEY" do not speak according to "THIS WORD" it is because they have no light in them as "THIS WORD" is the standard of LIGHT and thus FINAL in authority.

Isaiah 8:14-20 has greater application than the book of Isaiah or the Old Testament scriptures because:

1. This is a Messanic Prophecy (Isa. 8:14-15) directly referred to and applied to Christ three different times in the New Testament (Romans 9:32-33; 11:11; 1 Pet. 2:8).

2. Isaiah 8:16-18 and the "disciples" described are prophetic of the apostles as this text is directly applied to the Apostles in Hebrews 2:3-4,12-13.

3. "this word" in Isaiah 8:20 forms the conclusion (vv. 19-20) to Isaiah 8:16-18 as the contextual application.

4. John 14-17 repeatedly state that the Holy Spirit had a special work for the Apostles in regard to providing them with inspired memories and prophetic insights into truth that their words would be used for future generations:

5. He is to bind and seal revelation "among my disciples"


"AMONG MY DISCIPLES"

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. -Jn. 14:26


Jn. 15:26 ¶ But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.


Jn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Jn. 17: 20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

I Jn. 1:1 ¶ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things write we unto you,
I Jn. 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

1 Thes. 2:13 ¶ For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

2 Pet. 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Isa. 8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.


Rev. 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God[/B],["the law" - Isa. 8:16] and of the testimony ["the testimony" - Isa. 8:16] of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Isa. 8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples[/COLOR].

Rev. 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Isa. 8:17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.


Rev. 22:20 ¶ He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Isa. 8:16 ¶ Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.
18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.
19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[Andre]

For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves.
It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.

If you cannot see saved by faith alone in that verse you need glasses.

Its not so simple. This verse has been widely misunderstood. Paul is not denying what he has written in Romans 2 - that ultimate salvation is based on good works:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Instead, the "works" that do not justify in Ephesians 2:8-9 are the works of the Law of Moses. Paul is not denying what he has clearly asserted in Romans 2. Instead, he is directing this "you are not saved by works" statement to the Jew, who might be under the impression that doing the works of the Law of Moses will save him and that, by extension, salvation is limited to Jews and Jews only.

That the "works" that do not justify (in Ephesians 2) are not "good works" but rather the works of the Law of Moses is clearly understood from the surrounding context, particularly from the "therefore......" material found in verse 11 and following. I can provide more detailed arguments about this.

 

[Andre]

Two justifications.

Justification past - as we see in Romans 3 and Romans 5. The justification received by the lost person that comes to Christ.

Justification future - as we see in Romans 2 and James 2 that relies on the truth of "by their fruits you SHALL know them" Matt 7.

It reveals what the state of that person already is

I agree. We need to honour the fact that Paul speaks of justification, and the related (but not identical) concept of salvation, in both past and future senses.

This may be more intellectually challenging, but to assert that justification occurs at a single, discrete point in time simply is not faithful to what Paul actually writes.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I agree. We need to honour the fact that Paul speaks of justification, and the related (but not identical) concept of salvation, in both past and future senses.

This may be more intellectually challenging, but to assert that justification occurs at a single, discrete point in time simply is not faithful to what Paul actually writes.

In Romans 2 there is not a single human being declared to be justified. The only thing that is set forth are characteristics and consequences for future justification or damnation. In Romans 1:18-32 NONE meet those consequences for justification. In Romans 2:17-3:8 NONE meet those consequences for justification. They ALL meet the consequences for damnation and that is precisely why Paul draws the universal conclusion in regard to ALL previously considered in Romans 3:9-23.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Its not so simple. This verse has been widely misunderstood. Paul is not denying what he has written in Romans 2 - that ultimate salvation is based on good works:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Instead, the "works" that do not justify in Ephesians 2:8-9 are the works of the Law of Moses. Paul is not denying what he has clearly asserted in Romans 2. Instead, he is directing this "you are not saved by works" statement to the Jew, who might be under the impression that doing the works of the Law of Moses will save him and that, by extension, salvation is limited to Jews and Jews only.

That the "works" that do not justify (in Ephesians 2) are not "good works" but rather the works of the Law of Moses is clearly understood from the surrounding context, particularly from the "therefore......" material found in verse 11 and following. I can provide more detailed arguments about this.

In Romans 2 there is not a single human being declared to be justified. The only thing that is set forth are characteristics and consequences for future justification or damnation. In Romans 1:18-32 NONE meet those consequences for justification. In Romans 2:17-3:8 NONE meet those consequences for justification. They ALL meet the consequences for damnation and that is precisely why Paul draws the universal conclusion in regard to ALL previously considered in Romans 3:9-23

Good works do not justify us either (Tit. 3:5). No works justify you before God (before men, yes -James 2). The law of Moses is the standard for "good works" as the moral law of Moses is the standard for every principle found in the ceremonial and civil laws. No one is justified by the law/works of the law/good works/works as justification before God requires obedience without ONE POINT of the law violated (James 2:10; Rom. 3:23; Mt. 5:46). That is why the law is a schoolmaster to lead you away from personal obedience for justification to substitutionary obedience by faith in Christ alone.

 

[DHK]

Its not so simple. This verse has been widely misunderstood. Paul is not denying what he has written in Romans 2 - that ultimate salvation is based on good works:

Eph.2 does not follow Romans 2. They are not even the same book, not dealing with the same topic. Your assertion is false. In Romans 2 Paul is addressing the Jews. They cannot be justified by their works as they think they can. In Ephesians 2 Paul is addressing the believers at Ephesus. There is no reason to believe that works would be confined to the law. The context does not lend itself to that belief. In fact the context is entirely the opposite.

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Yes, this is Romans 2; another book.

Instead, the "works" that do not justify in Ephesians 2:8-9 are the works of the Law of Moses. Paul is not denying what he has clearly asserted in Romans 2. Instead, he is directing this "you are not saved by works" statement to the Jew, who might be under the impression that doing the works of the Law of Moses will save him and that, by extension, salvation is limited to Jews and Jews only.

Let me assert again. Paul is writing to the Ephesians believers. He has no reason to write "to the Jew who might be under the impression that by doing the works of Law will save him..."
That is ludicrous. The context is entirely against that. He is writing to believers--both of Jewish and Gentile believers, and emphasizing that they are one in Christ. In this chapter he clearly sets forth why they are one in Christ--because of Christ; because salvation is by God's grace alone; because salvation is by faith alone; because salvation is not by works--any kind of works. "It is the gift of God, not of works." A gift cannot be attained by works.

That the "works" that do not justify (in Ephesians 2) are not "good works" but rather the works of the Law of Moses is clearly understood from the surrounding context, particularly from the "therefore......" material found in verse 11 and following. I can provide more detailed arguments about this.

What surrounding context gives you the impression that this is speaking of the Law of Moses?
Verse 5: "For we are saved by grace."
verse 10: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
--We are not created to do the law of Moses, are we?
The context is salvation is gained by faith alone, that after salvation God's will for every believer is to do good works. There is nothing here about the law of Moses.

If you look carefully in your Bible you will find a paragraph marking at verse 11 where Paul launches into a different topic.
His theme of that section is not the Law of Moses but one of unity. Look again:
Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
--Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ--this has nothing to do with the Law of Moses.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Proverbs 26:4

Nope - that verse does not state the scripture is the sole authority. Try again - and please lose the insults.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your absolutley right as long as you make Roman monks your final authority for history. You are absolutely wrong if you have a discerning mind in your approach of history. From your responses above I can see why you have problems.

Truth is not relative Dr. Walter. Rome is not my final authority. However, I do like facts. And facts do not support Landmarkism.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Truth is not relative Dr. Walter. Rome is not my final authority. However, I do like facts. And facts do not support Landmarkism.

And how would you know? I have spent a good 35 years studying the "facts" of history and in particular those groups through history that are inter-related and all claiming apostolic origin outside of Rome. I have taken several course in church history and the basic tenets (not every claim) of Landmarkism are biblical and historically accurate.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Nope - that verse does not state the scripture is the sole authority. Try again - and please lose the insults.

That is not an insult, it is an accurate prescription for the problem.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And how would you know? I have spent a good 35 years studying the "facts" of history and in particular those groups through history that are inter-related and all claiming apostolic origin outside of Rome. I have taken several course in church history and the basic tenets (not every claim) of Landmarkism are biblical and historically accurate.

I can't claim 35 years Dr. Walter. I can claim collegiate level history courses from Protestant Colleges 1) Lee University 2) Eastern University priorly known as Eastern Bible College. I've taken the trip down Carol's outline and viewed the divergent beliefs of the different off shoots of Christianity and do I find baptist distinctives? No. I don't Many of the sects had liturgical practice. save for a few. The closest I come to a baptist in the early years of the Christian faith is a singular monk named Jovinian and he even has divergent beliefs from the baptist distinctives. Landmarkism is much like Soviet style historical revisionism. Forcing pieces that do not fit.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I can't claim 35 years Dr. Walter. I can claim collegiate level history courses from Protestant Colleges 1) Lee University 2) Eastern University priorly known as Eastern Bible College. I've taken the trip down Carol's outline and viewed the divergent beliefs of the different off shoots of Christianity and do I find baptist distinctives? No. I don't Many of the sects had liturgical practice. save for a few. The closest I come to a baptist in the early years of the Christian faith is a singular monk named Jovinian and he even has divergent beliefs from the baptist distinctives. Landmarkism is much like Soviet style historical revisionism. Forcing pieces that do not fit.

I have had graduate and post graduate secular and church history in addition to graduate and post-graduate Baptist history. I remember well, one good Phd History professor of you ilk that confessed that there are two historical models or options that all available evidence can be identified with and interpreted by (much like creation and evolution). The model provided by the church of Rome and the model provided by the Anabaptists.

Have you ever read "The Reformers and their Step-children" by Leonard Verduin? Have you every read "Baptist Perpetuity" by Dr. W.A. Jarrel?

Finally, have you ever studied Christ's predictive history of His churches and the characteristics of their future persecutors? Have you ever studied the predictive characteristics of Post-Apostoloic apostates and their apostasies?

Rome and Reformed Rome fit all the character traits of the predicted apostasy and apostate doctrine and practice.

Look at the characteristics ascribed to His churches by future predictive apostates and it is easy to see it can't be Rome or Reformed Rome.

 

[Andre]

In Romans 2 there is not a single human being declared to be justified. The only thing that is set forth are characteristics and consequences for future justification or damnation. In Romans 1:18-32 NONE meet those consequences for justification. In Romans 2:17-3:8 NONE meet those consequences for justification. They ALL meet the consequences for damnation and that is precisely why Paul draws the universal conclusion in regard to ALL previously considered in Romans 3:9-23.

I doubt it. What kind of person would repeatedly make statements about a future justification by good works - as Paul clearly does in Romans 2 - if he believes that precisely zero persons will be justified in that manner?

No competent writer would do this. Your argument against taking Paul at his word in Romans 2 is the most common one. It appears that you are arguing that Paul cannot mean what he says in Romans 2 since it is clear in Romans 3 that none can be justified by "law".

Well, there are two problems with this:

1. It is clear from context that, in Romans 3, Paul is not denying salvation by good works, he is denying salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses (I am prepared to argue this in detail). Denial that doing the works of the Law of Moses saves is not a denial that "good works" save.

2. You still need to explain why Paul would say people will be ultimately saved based on good works (e.g. Romans 2:6-7) if he believes that zero persons will be justified that way. No normal person would assert something that they believe to be true of zero persons. Andthis is the position you are placing Paul in. Note how there is nothing in Romans 2 to suggest that Paul is, in any sense, speaking "hypothetically" when he writes of ultimate salvation by good works.

Also please remember: The fact that all have sinned does not mean that God cannot transform that person into someone who is thereby enabled to be saved by their good works. In fact, this is what Romans 8 teaches - it is through the Spirit that we are enabled to works which ultimately save:

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

 

[Andre]

Eph.2 does not follow Romans 2. They are not even the same book, not dealing with the same topic. Your assertion is false. In Romans 2 Paul is addressing the Jews. They cannot be justified by their works as they think they can. In Ephesians 2 Paul is addressing the believers at Ephesus.

I believe that my argument is fine. Yes, in Ephesians 2, Paul is addressing believers. But that doesn't mean that the Gentile believers do not need to be assured that salvation is not limited to Jews.

The material that follows 2:8-10 makes no sense if "good works" are in view in 2:9. More specifically, if the justification value of "good works" is being denied, why does Paul use a "therefore" transitional in verse 11 to conclude that the Gentile now has access to the covenant promises (including, of course, final justification) specifically because a dividing line between Jew and Gentile has been dissolved? After all, the dividing line is, of course, not the “good works” line, it is the “works of the Law of Moses” line.

There is indeed a sense in which the standard reformed reading of this could be salvaged (although this ultimately does not work as we will shortly see). If Paul says “no one is justified by good works, therefore remember that the Jew-Gentile barrier has been destroyed”, he could mean that there is some difference between the Jew and the Gentile in respect to doing good works, but this difference is irrelevant since good works do not justify.

In other words, he could be saying: "Listen you Gentiles, you need not do the good works that the Jews are doing to be saved since good works do not save anyway, therefore...you are not foreigners to the covenants of the promise, etc., etc.)”

But, of course, Paul does not believe this - he believes that Jew and Gentile alike are in sin. So it makes no sense for Paul, if he has really asserted that "good works" do not save, to then say "thereforeyou Gentiles now have hope since the barrier between Jew and Gentile has been destroyed, etc. etc." Why does this not make sense? Obviously, because Jew and Gentile are on equal footing in respect to "good works" – neither does enough good works to save.

Paul is therefore obviously talking about the works of the Law of Moses in 2:8-10. Then the "therefore" stuff makes sense since the Law of Moses is indeed the thing that divides Jew from Gentile and is the basis for the Gentile believing that he is on the outside in respect to the covenant promises.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Are you capable of reading Romans 1:18-3:9 and failing to see that Romans 2:1-6 is preceded by NONE righteous in Romans 1:18-32 and followed by NONE righteous in Romans 2:17-3:9???

If you are capable of reading and see that, then, are you capable of asking yourself why would Paul place the rules of engagement for divine justice right between two sections where NONE are deemed righteous (Rom. 2:1-16 between Romans 1:18-32 and Romans 2:17-3:9)???? If you have not considered that question you are admitting you have no concept about the relationship that Romans 2:1-16 has with its preceding and foregoing context. Hence, you need to study it before you start claiming you know what it is about.

Last, Those SINNERS considered before Romans 2:1-16 in Romans 1:18-32 and those SINNERS considered after Romans 2:1-16 in Romans 2:17-3:8 need to know why the wrath of God (Rom. 1:18) will be revealed against them at judgement day (Rom. 1:32) and they need to know it will be administered justly without respect of persons and by just principles. That is the purpose of Romans 2:1-16.

Romans 2:1-16 is not given to justify or condemn anyone but to let them know exactly what the rules of judgement are and that God is fair and just in his judgements. That he will judge all according to the light they are given and according to their works. If their works deserve praise, rewards, heaven it will be given them. If their works deserve condemnation, judgement and wrath it will be given them. NO SPECIFIC PERSON or CLASS OF PERSONS are named. For example, Paul never says "the children of God" or "the elect" or "the saints" nor does he ever refer to "sinners" or "reprobates" or "lost" or Satan's children. It is unspecified because there is no specific application given or meant to be given as it deals only with the rules of engagement in judicial affairs before God.

Just read it in its context.

I doubt it. What kind of person would repeatedly make statements about a future justification by good works - as Paul clearly does in Romans 2 - if he believes that precisely zero persons will be justified in that manner?

No competent writer would do this. Your argument against taking Paul at his word in Romans 2 is the most common one. It appears that you are arguing that Paul cannot mean what he says in Romans 2 since it is clear in Romans 3 that none can be justified by "law".

Well, there are two problems with this:

1. It is clear from context that, in Romans 3, Paul is not denying salvation by good works, he is denying salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses (I am prepared to argue this in detail). Denial that doing the works of the Law of Moses saves is not a denial that "good works" save.

2. You still need to explain why Paul would say people will be ultimately saved based on good works (e.g. Romans 2:6-7) if he believes that zero persons will be justified that way. No normal person would assert something that they believe to be true of zero persons. Andthis is the position you are placing Paul in. Note how there is nothing in Romans 2 to suggest that Paul is, in any sense, speaking "hypothetically" when he writes of ultimate salvation by good works.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have had graduate and post graduate secular and church history in addition to graduate and post-graduate Baptist history. I remember well, one good Phd History professor of you ilk that confessed that there are two historical models or options that all available evidence can be identified with and interpreted by (much like creation and evolution). The model provided by the church of Rome and the model provided by the Anabaptists.

Have you ever read "The Reformers and their Step-children" by Leonard Verduin? Have you every read "Baptist Perpetuity" by Dr. W.A. Jarrel?

Finally, have you ever studied Christ's predictive history of His churches and the characteristics of their future persecutors? Have you ever studied the predictive characteristics of Post-Apostoloic apostates and their apostasies?

Rome and Reformed Rome fit all the character traits of the predicted apostasy and apostate doctrine and practice.

Look at the characteristics ascribed to His churches by future predictive apostates and it is easy to see it can't be Rome or Reformed Rome.

I haven't read either author. However, now that I have their name; I will be glad to take a gander. I'm not certain what you mean by a proffesor of my ilk though I doubt I would have been as charitable. The documents I've read the books I've studied don't seem to give this Landmark view credibility. Even my pastors who've I've discussed this particular issue (graduate of Gordon Conwell with Phd's) don't hold to it either. Plus you can't take a modern premise and modern litmus test and apply retroactively. You have to work with what you have historically. All the documents. All the Archeology. And this statement confuses me a little

have you ever studied Christ's predictive history of His churches and the characteristics of their future persecutors?

. It seems you are applying to Christ words a particular view you hold? Is this correct? I think you are pulling the cart before the horse in this respect. If I'm wrong clarify to me what it is your are asking.

If I'm not asserting what you are asking please clarify. Because that's how it sounds to me. I find christians need to be careful with their eschatological views. I believe Daniel to be presenting eschatological view that shows the last days of Judaism as the old testiment give testimony of. and that the dates and times work perfectly to 70 AD. However, considering the view that the Jews had of Messiah Peter makes an error when he tells Jesus that "God forbid!" when explained how Jesus was to suffer and die. What is Jesus' responce? Get behind me satan! What was Peter's error? A wrong eschatological view that was common in his day. Jesus was not the military warrior that would trample Rome. Instead he was the humble servant who would suffer and die freeing men from their sin. I believe applying a modern eschatological view to christ 2nd return can be as dangerous and error filled as peter's statement.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I haven't read either author. However, now that I have their name; I will be glad to take a gander. I'm not certain what you mean by a proffesor of my ilk though I doubt I would have been as charitable. The documents I've read the books I've studied don't seem to give this Landmark view credibility. Even my pastors who've I've discussed this particular issue (graduate of Gordon Conwell with Phd's) don't hold to it either. Plus you can't take a modern premise and modern litmus test and apply retroactively. You have to work with what you have historically. All the documents. All the Archeology. And this statement confuses me a little . It seems you are applying to Christ words a particular view you hold? Is this correct? I think you are pulling the cart before the horse in this respect. If I'm wrong clarify to me what it is your are asking.

If I'm not asserting what you are asking please clarify. Because that's how it sounds to me. I find christians need to be careful with their eschatological views. I believe Daniel to be presenting eschatological view that shows the last days of Judaism as the old testiment give testimony of. and that the dates and times work perfectly to 70 AD. However, considering the view that the Jews had of Messiah Peter makes an error when he tells Jesus that "God forbid!" when explained how Jesus was to suffer and die. What is Jesus' responce? Get behind me satan! What was Peter's error? A wrong eschatological view that was common in his day. Jesus was not the military warrior that would trample Rome. Instead he was the humble servant who would suffer and die freeing men from their sin. I believe applying a modern eschatological view to christ 2nd return can be as dangerous and error filled as peter's statement.

All I am saying is that Christ and the apostles make predictive statements that characterize post-apostolic Christianity and their adversaries. If you take these predictive characteristics and apply it to all post-apostolic groups that claim to be apostolic Christianity, or claim to be Christians for that matter, you can easily see who fit the characteristics of predicted apostate Christianity versus New Testament Christianity future from the apostolic period. The first 1500 years of secular church history is written and controlled by Rome and written from their perspective while they systematically destroyed all literature and even attempted to physically destroy all those whom they classified as "heretics" by the secular arm of government under secular religous codes.

 

[Andre]

Are you capable of reading Romans 1:18-3:9 and failing to see that Romans 2:1-6 is preceded by NONE righteous in Romans 1:18-32 and followed by NONE righteous in Romans 2:17-3:9???

I do not agree with your take on this. And please desist with the insulting "if you are capable of reading" stuff. You will soon discover, perhaps to your discomfiture, that I have spent a lot of time studying Romans.

The problem with your argument is this: While Paul indeed describes the hopeless state of all humanity in chapter 1, and then in chapter 3, this does not eliminate the possibility that man can be rescued from that hopeless state and enabled to do good works. And this is indeed what Paul goes on to argue in Romans 8.

So the fact that all men are hopeless sinners in their natural state does not rule out the possibility of future salvation by good works.

Paul means what he says:

6God "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.

No competent writer would write these words while at the same time believing that it is impossible to be granted eternal life in accordance with their good works.

Hence, you need to study it before you start claiming you know what it is about.

As implied above, I have spent a lot of time studying Romans in detail, as you will no doubt soon discover if this discussion continues. I am not claiming that this means I am right, but you are entirely mistaken if you believe that I have not studied this book in great detail.

If their works deserve praise, rewards, heaven it will be given them.

No. This is not honouring what Paul actually writes. In 2:6-7, he makes it clear - eternal life itself is at issue here:

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

It appears that you believe that zero persons will get eternal life this way. That would be a very odd thing for Paul, or anyone, to do.