Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

[Dr. Walter]

I am anxious to be placed in discomfort by your exegetical responses from Romans.

Istead of attempting to interpret Romans 2:1-16 by its immediate context like a capable exegete you do the eisgetical norm. You jump ahead to Romans 3:24-8:39 where justification and salvation of sinners is the context and try to read it back into Romans 2:1-16. Your problem is that in the Romans 1:18-3:8 context Paul is inditing the whole human race according to how they are found in their NATURAL CONDITION and that is precisely why he can use the word "ALL" in Romans 3:9 and "NOT ONE" and "NONE" in Romans 3:10-11.

Paul's own conclusion of Romans 1:18-3:8 is found in Romans 3:9 where he claims in the past tense to have "before proven". However, you are going forward into the section dealing with those who are no longer in their NATURAL CONDITION but are justified and then you try to read it back in Romans 2:1-16 which is smack in the middle of UNJUSTFIED mankind in their NATURAL CONDITION thinking they will be alright before God. Romans 2:1-16 is designed to demonstrate that God's judgement is perfectly just when it occurs. It is the Jew in his natural state that this is applied to in Romans 2:17-29 as it is the Jew who thinks he will be the one granted immortality, blessings BECAUSE HE IS A LAW KEEPER in the legend of his own mind.

Romans 2:6-7 does not confer eternal life or eternal death upon anyone specifically named but simply declares what will be confered IF certain characteristics and actions apply. It is nothing a but general principles stated without any SPECIFIED APPLICATION to anyone in particular but contextually is to demonstrate to the NATURAL LAW KEEPING CIRCUMCISED JEW that he cannot expect justification by God at judgement day by his claim of law keeping.

No flesh shall be justified by personal obedience to God's Laws - none, nada, zip. No Jew, No gentile - "none, not one."

The means of justification is spelled out in Romans 3:21-5:21 and it isn't by or inclusive of personal law keeping by sinners but by Christ alone IN BEHALF OF SINNERS and received by FAITH through imputation not impartation for justification "before God" (does not deal with before men). Those who trust in Christ for justification by His righteousness "shall not come into condemnation but are passed from death to life" and so it is not their lives that are examined on judgement day as the only ones standing in this judgement are the lost.

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.


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.


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.

 

[DHK]

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.

That wasn't Paul's purpose is writing this epistle, and nowhere does he indicate that it was.

The material that follows 2:8-10 makes no sense if "good works" are in view in 2:9.

It makes perfect sense. Paul goes from one topic to another.

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?

1. You presume too much and have set forth some false presuppositions.
2. The "therefore," is simply an indication of another topic. He has finished one topic and is going on to another. "Therefore...(having said all that I am going to say on that topic), let me go on to say this..." He has laid a groundwork for the next topic that he is going to present.
3. There is no justification value of good works--none. We are not justified by good works. That is the whole point of verses 8 and 9 which you seem to want to deny. Your need to twist Scripture is based on your premise that justification is by works. It is not. That is precisely what Paul is denying. He explicitly says ...not of works, but you don't want to believe him.
Paul does not deny the rest of Scripture.

He wrote himself:
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

He knew what the prophets had written:
Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
--all our righteousnesses (our good works) are like filthy rags in God's sight.

Salvation has nothing to do with good works. Thus he wrote:
Ephesians 2:8-9 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.

After all, the dividing line is, of course, not the “good works” line, it is the “works of the Law of Moses” line.

You have no evidence for this. It is just your opinion and nothing else. Scripture supports good works in contradistinction to "the gift of God."

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.

Nothing written by the Holy Spirit is irrelevant. Both the Jewish and Gentile believers needed to be reminded what salvation was:
It was by grace alone in Christ alone received by faith alone.
And if one did not believe that they could not be saved. This was the gospel message. Paul was not confusing the gospel with the Law. That is what you are doing. If you put the Law into that verse you come out with a convoluted message. It is not simply one type of work (the Law), but all works that do not justify a person. That is not one work that you can do to please God.
God said that even the plowing of a field was wickedness in his sight.

Proverbs 21:4 An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.
--A farmer plowing his field to feed his family is sin. Why? Because God does not accept the good works of man, unless he is saved.

Mark 10:17-18 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
--There is none good...but God.
Jesus was referring to himself as God. If he was good then he was God; if he was not good then he was not God.
The point here is that no man is good in God's sight. Only God is good. There is no such thing as a "good man." If there is no "good man" there are "no good works." "Good works" cannot save or 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 he wasn't saying that at all. He was speaking to them of a mystery. Paul uses the word "mystery" in the book of Ephesians six times, more than any other book in the NT. A mystery is simply a truth that in the past was hidden, but now is revealed. He was speaking that both Jews and Gentiles were one. The barrier between them was broken down. They were one in Christ.
Your above presupposition is wrong. Good works never could save anyone. They didn't in the past and they won't now. This is the emphasis of Paul. It has nothing to do with the Jews. Good works, not matter what kind they are, do not save.

But, of course, Paul does not believe this - he believes that Jew and Gentile alike are in sin.

And so they are. Thus good works cannot save, no matter who you are--Jew or Gentile--whether they be the works of the Law or works of righteousness. Works of any kind cannot save.

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.

Having laid the foundation of salvation he goes on:
The Gentiles are described:

Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

--Their condition before salvation is described:
Ephesians 2:12-13 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

What Christ has done.
Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

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.

Now I have taken us up to verse 14. There is not a single reference to the Law of Moses, not one.
The reference in verse 10 is to the good works that a believer does after he is saved. It is the fruit of the Spirit described in Gal.5. It is the result of a changed life in Christ. That is not the result of a saved man. It is the opposite. A saved man has nothing to do with the law of Moses. You are perverting the Scriptures to try and make it fit your own presuppositions.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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.


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.


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.

What I believe you are completely failing to understand is two basic truths. The Jews immediately addressed in Romans 2:17-29 believe they will be justified by their works on judgement day because of their strict observance of the Law of God. The second basic truth I believe you are completely missing is that Paul is denying that law keeping (good works by their perceived understanding of the law's standard) is good enough.

Indeed, this is the problem with all natural born mankind. They define "good" one way and God defines it another way.

Every theologion who believes that any human can be ultimately justified by their works defines "good" different than God's law defines "good." God's law defines "good" by not failing in ONE POINT and thus being perfect "even as God is Perfect." According to this standard both lost and saved "come short" of the glory of God's goodness.

Therefore, those who believe in justification according to "good works" define "good" on a lower scale than ultimate perfection.

However, Paul used "good" in regard to "works" for the justified only in the area of sanctification not justification. A person who has a sinless standing before God due to the good works of Christ imputed to him also has a born again sinless nature within him. However, the manifest life is not SINLESS but mixed with works of the flesh and works produced by the Indwelling Spirit from the regenerate nature. Therefore our life is not for justification before God. Sanctification does not require an unmixed life or a life of sinless perfection as it is progressive and never absolute here and now. Sanctification is for a witness to God, God's glory, usefulness here and now, present blessings and future rewards. The only LIFE of good works that can merit the Law's approval as "good" enough for justification before God is the substitutionary life of Christ received through faith by imputation NOT by IMPARTATION.

 

[Andre]

Istead of attempting to interpret Romans 2:1-16 by its immediate context like a capable exegete you do the eisgetical norm.

I really hope you can drop the insulting tone. There really is no need for it. How is your case advanced by suggesting that I am not a capable exegete. I suggest that you abandon this approach - it is not constructive and it certainly will not deter me from making exegetical arguments.

You jump ahead to Romans 3:24-8:39 where justification and salvation of sinners is the context and try to read it back into Romans 2:1-16.

Well I disagree with your characterization of what 3:24 - 8:39 is really all about. No doubt we will get into that in some detail.

Your problem is that in the Romans 1:18-3:8 context Paul is inditing the whole human race according to how they are found in their NATURAL CONDITION and that is precisely why he can use the word "ALL" in Romans 3:9 and "NOT ONE" and "NONE" in Romans 3:10-11.

I entirely agree that Paul is saying that, in his natural condition, man is hopelessly mired in sin.

Paul's own conclusion of Romans 1:18-3:8 is found in Romans 3:9 where he claims in the past tense to have "before proven". However, you are going forward into the section dealing with those who are no longer in their NATURAL CONDITION but are justified and then you try to read it back in Romans 2:1-16 which is smack in the middle of UNJUSTFIED mankind in their NATURAL CONDITION thinking they will be alright before God.

It appears that you are arguing that just because the stuff in Romans 2 appears in the middle of a treatment of sinful man in his natural condition, that Paul cannot, in Romans 2, be speaking of a future judgement where people will be granted eternal life based on their good works. You seem to think that Paul's argument is purely "linear" and that if, in chapters 1 and 3, he is talking about man in his natural state, then chapter 2 must likewise be dealing with that topic.

I suggest that the evidence shows otherwise - the structure of the letter is more complex than that.

I will make my argument about the "non-linear" structure of Romans by showing Romans 9 is really an elaboration of Romans 3, not Romans 8. Romans is structured as an ascending spiral – Paul introduces an idea and later returns to elaborate it. What this means is that in later parts of the letter, we should be able to “look down” in the spiral and understand that the material we are now reading is an elaboration of earlier material directly below us in the spiral (that is, “one full turn” below us).

At the beginning of Romans 3, Paul asks these questions about God and his treatment of Israel:

1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?

3What then? If some {***Jews, by context} did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

5But if our unrighteousness {***i.e. Israel’s unrighteousness by context} brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us?

These are the very same questions that are picked up in Romans 9 after an introduction that clearly focuses on the plight of Israel:

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

Now I understand that we are not talking about Romans 9. But the point is this: here we have an example of the non-linear structure of Romans. In Romans 9, Paul picks up, and expands on, questions he has put on the table in Romans 3.

So it really is an oversimplification to suggest that because the material in Romans 2 is located between two treatments of the state of sinful man, that Paul must therefore be talking about lost sinners in chapter 2.

There are many other problems with your analysis here, not least the fact that you have Paul saying that people will be saved according to their works when he believes that, in fact, this is not possible.

Again, this is not something a competent writer would do. In 2:7 Paul writes of people getting eternal life according to deeds. And in 2:13, he writes that the doers of the law will be justified. You have Paul in the odd position of making statements about a path to justification that zero people can take. That is decidedly odd and suspicious.

The fact that, in chapter 1, Paul has described the hopeless state of natural man does not mean that he cannot go on to hint at a "way out" in Romans 2. And, as I plan to show in a future post, there is every reason to see Romans 2 not as a "continuation" of Romans 1, but rather as a fore-taste of the Romans 8 where he writes of people getting life, yes eternal life, through living according to the Spirit.

I want to be clear here - by showing the connection between Romans 3 and Romans 9, I am showing that the "linear" presumption simply is not workable. Paul raises questions about God and Israel in Romans 3 and then only returns to them in Romans 9, even though a lot of different topics lie between.

If we used your "linear argument", we would reason that all that stuff between Romans 3 and Romans 9 is about Israel since it is "smack-dab" between two treatments of Israel.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Dr Walter. I was reading this statement and something occured to me. On your statement here do you classify yourself as a Nominalist?

Every theologion who believes that any human can be ultimately justified by their works defines "good" different than God's law defines "good." God's law defines "good" by not failing in ONE POINT and thus being perfect "even as God is Perfect." According to this standard both lost and saved "come short" of the glory of God's goodness.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Lk. 10:25 ¶ And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Now here is an unbeleiver in Christ that asked Christ what can he "do" to inherit eternal life. Christ directed him to the Law and asked how he read or interpeted it. He gave Christ an Old Testament quotation to answer Christ. Christ told this Jew who did not believe in Christ "this do, and thou shalt live."

Now, was Christ lying? He told a person who did not profess faith and in Christ that if he kept the law with all of his being he would inherit eternal life.

Is that true?


Eze 20:11 And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them.

Ga 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Yes, if a man is capable of obeying the Law of God with his whole being he will be justified and granted eternal life without believing in Christ because the law "is not of faith."

Romans 2:1-16 deals with this kind of justification before God on judgement day as this is the very claim of the Jews immediately addressed in Romans 2:17-29.

However, there is no such man, whether a unbeliever or a believer who can do that and so it is impossible to be justified by law keeping.

Paul merely states in Romans 2:6-7 what Jesus states to the scribe. If you can do it you can be justified and receive all the blessings without ever believing in Christ at all.

 

[Andre]

It is the Jew in his natural state that this is applied to in Romans 2:17-29 as it is the Jew who thinks he will be the one granted immortality, blessings BECAUSE HE IS A LAW KEEPER in the legend of his own mind.

True enough. However, just because Paul says that the Jew in his natural state will not get eternal life by doing the Law of Moses does not mean that Paul is saying something true of zero persons when, in verse 6-7, he writes of people getting eternal life through their works. Besides, we have the same assertion made in Romans 8 where it is clear that Paul connects the attainment of eternal life to how we live - putting to death the misdeeds of the body:

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. 12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For 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,

Is Paul, again, something that is true of zero persons? It appears that this is what you believe.

So can you explain to us precisely why there will be zero persons to put to death the misdeeds of the body and thereby attain life?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Dr Walter. I was reading this statement and something occured to me. On your statement here do you classify yourself as a Nominalist?

That is one of the cheif problems with Roman Catholic theology, it is more of an expression of Plato and Aristotle and paganism in general than it is of the Bible. I am a Biblicist.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is one of the cheif problems with Roman Catholic theology, it is more of an expression of Plato and Aristotle and paganism in general than it is of the Bible. I am a Biblicist.

I think its on these grounds that the Catholic Church is failed to be understood in that they use established philisophical terms to express ideas. Whrere as if you understood these terminology you would understand Catholicism better. Not agree with it mind you. Of course I don't. However, it would makes things a lot more explainable. However, it is the language which they converse in.

Now you claim to be a biblicist. Which, has the air of loftily seeming knowldege. However, when described I doubt its really anything of value. When you say biblicist what is it that you mean? The fact is depending on your background and educational discipline allows you to approach the bible from that arena. And limits a person to that perspective. So define biblicist as you understand it. and within the realm of how you understand the bible are you a Nominalist? Note the Catholics weren't the first to understand scritpures this way. Paul in some respects does this and Philo to a greater extent does this.

 

[Andre]

Romans 2:6-7 does not confer eternal life or eternal death upon anyone specifically named but simply declares what will be confered IF certain characteristics and actions apply. It is nothing a but general principles stated without any SPECIFIED APPLICATION to anyone in particular but contextually is to demonstrate to the NATURAL LAW KEEPING CIRCUMCISED JEW that he cannot expect justification by God at judgement day by his claim of law keeping.

No flesh shall be justified by personal obedience to God's Laws - none, nada, zip. No Jew, No gentile - "none, not one."

Two problems. At least twice in Romans 2 Paul refers to people getting eternal life based on "what they do" (verse 7 and verse 13). Now you are arguing that Paul believes that zero people will indeed "make the grade" and get eternal life that way. Well, as I have pointed out, that would be a very odd thing for a competent writer to say. Imagine that someone has foreknowledge that zero people will pass the entrance exam to Harvard. Would that person then write "to those who pass the entrance exam, admission to Harvard will be granted"?

Not likely - surely this would be a misleading statement.

But the bigger problem is that, despite what you assert, when Paul denies the power of "works" or "law" to justifyl, he is demonstrably always referring to the Law of Moses, not to the more general category of good works.

And denial that the Law of Moses justifies does not logically lead us to the conclusion that "good works" do not justify.

 

[Dr. Walter]

True enough. However, just because Paul says that the Jew in his natural state will not get eternal life by doing the Law of Moses does not mean that Paul is saying something true of zero persons when, in verse 6-7, he writes of people getting eternal life through their works. Besides, we have the same assertion made in Romans 8 where it is clear that Paul connects the attainment of eternal life to how we live - putting to death the misdeeds of the body:

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. 12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For 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,

Is Paul, again, something that is true of zero persons? It appears that this is what you believe.

So can you explain to us precisely why there will be zero persons to put to death the misdeeds of the body and thereby attain life?

Your mixing apples with oranges. Romans 8 is concerned about the life of the Christian being victorious over the situation described in Romans 7:18-21. It is the present tense born again man Paul in Romans 7:18-21 who has no will power to overcome indwelling sin as that power is in the Spirit not inherent in the "inward man" or the flesh. When a child of God operates in the flesh trying to live the Christian life it is like a "BODY OF DEATH" fasten to them.

The Romans used to take a dead body and fasten the body to a living prisoner, face to face, hand to hand, arm to arm and leg to leg. Thus a child of God trying to live the spiritual life in the power of the flesh experiences DEATH or separation from the power of God and thus everything he does is in the flesh. In Romans 8 Paul demonstrates how the Christian can have victory over this life of death that is present in the Christian experience due to indwelling sin. We must resist and put to death indwelling sin by the power of the Indwelling Spirit by faith reckoning it dead. This has nothing to do with gaining or losing heaven but rather gaining or losing victor over the "body of death" that clings to us in this present unglorified state. Notice that Romans 7:25 clearly and explicity state that both experiences are involved in the Christian life. When you submit to the law of the flesh death is experienced in your life. When you live in keeping with the law after the mind you experience victory over that "body of death."

However, in Romans 2:1-16 we are talking about the unregenerated man who feels he might be good enough because his attempts to keep the law while in an unregenerated nature absent of faith in Christ or the indwelling Spirit. Romans 2:1-29 is parallel with Christ's discussion with the scribe in Luke 10:25-28.

The scribe, who did not believe in Christ, asked what he could "DO" to inherent eternal life. The word "do" caused Christ to direct him to the Law of God and how he read or understood its demands. This lawyer rightly quoted a text from the Old Testament that gave the correct interpretation of what the law demands in order to obtain eternal life. Jesus said, he had rightly answered it, and said "do this" and in his unregenerate unbelieving state he would be justified before God by keeping the law.

This is exactly what Paul is telling those Jews in Romans 2:1-29. Here is God's criteria for granting eternal life by the works of the law. Do this and you will obtain eternal life. Paul tells the Galatians that the doing law is not of faith. If you can obtain eternal life by the works of the law you don't need faith, you don't need Christ, you don't need to be born again because YOU HAVE MEASURED UP TO ITS STANDARD OF GOOD.

This doctrine of the Jews is the doctrine of SDA, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, Roman Catholics and every other denomination that believes that we must do the works of the law - works the law defines as "good" in order to be justified by God.

This soteriological nonsense repudiates Jesus Christ, His life, His death as needless and repudiates grace.

 

[Andre]

That wasn't Paul's purpose is writing this epistle, and nowhere does he indicate that it was.

It is clear from the material in verses 11 and following that Paul is keen to tell the Gentile Ephesians that they are, in fact, now members of God 's family. And this is precisely the goal of telling them that the works of the Law of Moses do not justify. If the works of the Law of Moses did justify, then Gentiles would still be on the outside since the Law of Moses was ever only for Jews:

remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

This statement strongly supports the argument that Paul is indeed concerned with countering the concern that Gentiles might have that God's favour remains limited to Jews.

2. The "therefore," is simply an indication of another topic. He has finished one topic and is going on to another.

No. This is not what "therefore" means. If I assert A and then add "therefore B", I am working out the implications of A. I am not introducing a new topic.

 

[Andre]

are perverting the Scriptures to try and make it fit your own presuppositions.

It is unfortunate that you, especially in your function as a moderator, take this insulting and dismissive tone. Let's stick with the arguments and forego the insulting rhetoric please.

 

[Andre]

Your mixing apples with oranges. Romans 8 is concerned about the life of the Christian being victorious over the situation described in Romans 7:18-21. It is the present tense born again man Paul in Romans 7:18-21 who has no will power to overcome indwelling sin as that power is in the Spirit not inherent in the "inward man" or the flesh. When a child of God operates in the flesh trying to live the Christian life it is like a "BODY OF DEATH" fasten to them.

It appears that you are trying to argue that Paul is not saying that how we live is connected to getting eternal life. Well Paul says what he says. And I suggest it is clear that the following text entails an assertion that enternal life (immortality) is indeed causally connected to how we actually live:

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. 12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For 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,

In Romans 8 Paul demonstrates how the Christian can have victory over this life of death that is present in the Christian experience due to indwelling sin.

Indeed, but Paul makes the very specific claim that victory over mortality - eternal life - is the specific result of doing so.

This has nothing to do with gaining or losing heaven but rather gaining or losing victor over the "body of death" that clings to us in this present unglorified state.

I am not sure how to argue this except to point out what Paul actually says. He says that if, repeat if, you put the misdeeds of the body to death you will get, yes, life.

And as the text above shows, this is clearly an allusion to eternal life. So I am not really sure what your argument is.

I am aware of the Romans 7, but I see no reason why that material changes things - Paul says what he says: Put the misdeeds of the body to death and you will get eternal life.

This is exactly what Paul is telling those Jews in Romans 2:1-29. Here is God's criteria for granting eternal life by the works of the law. Do this and you will obtain eternal life. Paul tells the Galatians that the doing law is not of faith. If you can obtain eternal life by the works of the law you don't need faith, you don't need Christ, you don't need to be born again because YOU HAVE MEASURED UP TO ITS STANDARD OF GOOD.

I believe that I have been clear: I agree that Paul denies the power of the Law of Moses to give eternal life. But that is not the same thing as denying that good works lead to eternal life. We can hash this out if you like.

This soteriological nonsense repudiates Jesus Christ, His life, His death as needless and repudiates grace.

The assertion, made by Paul, that eternal life is awarded according to good works does not repudiate grace. It is still grace precisely because it is only through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that people are enabled to "pass" the Romans 2 good works judgement. If I were asserting that unaided self-effort was involved then, yes, it would be a repudiation of grace.

 

[Andre]

Romans 2 poses great challenge for many in the reformed tradition. It includes the first treatment of justification in the book and, to the surprise and consternation of many, Paul affirms, yes, justification by good works:

you are storing up wrath for yourself (J)in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6(K)who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8but to those who are (P)selfishly ambitious and (Q)do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9There will be (R)tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew (S)first and also of the Greek, 10but (T)glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew (U)first and also to the Greek. 11For (V)there is no partiality with God. 12For all who have sinned (W)without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is (X)not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

What are we to do with this passage? Ignore it? Some do. Claim it is a description of a hypothetical path to justification? Many do, improperly reading Romans 3 and its rejection of justification by “works” as proving that Paul is speaking hypothetically in chapter 2 when he claims that good works matter in respect to ultimate justification. Others will try to morph the many references to “doing good” into allusions to “having faith” – an odd an awkward exegetical move.

The better alternative is to take Paul at his word – we are indeed ultimately justified by the content of the works that our lives manifest. How can we square this with Paul’s many statement about being “justified by faith”?

Paul himself gives us the answer in Romans 8:

Therefore there is now no (A)condemnation for those who are (B)in (C)Christ Jesus………
……..
13for (Y)if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are (Z)putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Paul’s argument is this: the Christian who demonstrates faith alone will indeed be ultimately justified precisely because he will be given the Spirit, and the Spirit, not the man’s moral self-effort, will be engine that transforms the man into the kind of person who will most assuredly pass the Romans 2 “good works” judgement.

The point is that we can take Romans 2 seriously – without ignoring it or mangling it beyond recognition – and still integrate its teaching with a serious embracing of the doctrine of justification by faith.

 

[BillySunday1935]

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

What we have here ladies and gents is someone who, when challenged with the facts and asked to provide validation for their statements, goes off on a rant, shifts the topic, and then attacks the person who puts forth the challenge. However, what can one expect from a person who holds to the position that their Anabaptist forefathers can be traced back though history only via various heresies, some of which even denied the divinity of Christ. That's certainly a proud lineage there doc.

Peace!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Dr. Walter you still haven't answered my post 109 though I understand you are in a strong debate over the meaning of the Book of romans with regard to justification. So, I understand.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What we have here ladies and gents is someone who, when challenged with the facts and asked to provide validation for their statements, goes off on a rant, shifts the topic, and then attacks the person who puts forth the challenge. However, what can one expect from a person who holds to the position that their Anabaptist forefathers can be traced back though history only via various heresies, some of which even denied the divinity of Christ. That's certainly a proud lineage there doc.

Peace!

I disagree. I think he has done a fine job and really been too kind. I'd like to see some more old fashion Martin Luther sarcasm.

The facts are that there have always been true Christians who rejected the papacy and recognized it for what it is. The Lord Jesus always keeps for Himself a remnant.

And there is no way the Roman Catholic church is a Christian church.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It appears that you are trying to argue that Paul is not saying that how we live is connected to getting eternal life. Well Paul says what he says. And I suggest it is clear that the following text entails an assertion that enternal life (immortality) is indeed causally connected to how we actually live:

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. 12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For 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,


Indeed, but Paul makes the very specific claim that victory over mortality - eternal life - is the specific result of doing so.


I am not sure how to argue this except to point out what Paul actually says. He says that if, repeat if, you put the misdeeds of the body to death you will get, yes, life.

And as the text above shows, this is clearly an allusion to eternal life. So I am not really sure what your argument is.

I am aware of the Romans 7, but I see no reason why that material changes things - Paul says what he says: Put the misdeeds of the body to death and you will get eternal life.


I believe that I have been clear: I agree that Paul denies the power of the Law of Moses to give eternal life. But that is not the same thing as denying that good works lead to eternal life. We can hash this out if you like.


The assertion, made by Paul, that eternal life is awarded according to good works does not repudiate grace. It is still grace precisely because it is only through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that people are enabled to "pass" the Romans 2 good works judgement. If I were asserting that unaided self-effort was involved then, yes, it would be a repudiation of grace.

The same Holy Spirit that gives victory over indwelling sin and this "body of death" is the same Holy Spirit that provides ultimately victory over death by resurrection of our bodies from the grave.

What you are failing to acknowledge is that Christ said this unbelieving scribe could otain eternal life by keeping the commandments (Lk. 10:28 - "do this, and THOU SHALT LIVE"

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The same Holy Spirit that gives victory over indwelling sin and this "body of death" is the same Holy Spirit that provides ultimately victory over death by resurrection of our bodies from the grave.

What you are failing to acknowledge is that Christ said this unbelieving scribe could otain eternal life by keeping the commandments (Lk. 10:28 - "do this, and THOU SHALT LIVE"

Dr. Walter, I am confused. Do you think the Bible teaches that an unbeliever by obeying the commandments of God, i.e. 10 Commandments, may obtain eternal life?

Or in Luke 10, are you suggesting that Jesus is teaching that eternal life is of the Law of God?