Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

[Dr. Walter]

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.

Luke 10:25b destroys your whole interpetation as Jesus tells an UNBELIEVING Jew "this do, and thou SHALT LIVE." You repudiated Christ's words to this UNBELIEVING Jew.

This is exactly what Paul is telling UNBELIEVING Jews in Romans 2:17-29 in reference to the judgement in Romans 2:6-16. Paul is telling them IF they correctly keep the law then this is a true expectation for all law keepers or doers of works that the law prescribes as "good" in contrast to what the law defines as "bad" or sin.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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.

Thanks. I could use some back up. Exegesis is something these fellows don't practice.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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.

I did respond to post #190 just look after it. Perhaps you mean another post?

 

[Andre]

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"

Paul means what he writes in Romans 2 and Romans 8 (and elsewhere for that matter) - eternal life is granted according to works.

Now let's talk about Jesus in Luke 10: You seem to presume that Jesus' answer does not allow for the possibility that this scribe could be given the Spirit and then indeed attain life through his "good deeds". Paul indeed denies that it is possible to attain eternal life through doing the works of the Law of Moses. But this is because the Law of Moses is working on fallen man - and fallen man cannot keep the Law.

So in short, my position on this is as follows:

1. We need to take Paul at his word in Romans 2, 8, and elsewhere - there will be a final judgement at which eternal life will be granted according to good works;

2. As per Romans 7 and 8, the Law of Moses cannot be obeyed by man in his natural state. But, when the Spirit is given, man escapes from his slavery to sin and could indeed keep the Law of Moses (if it remained in force after the cross, but that's another debate). The point being: a man with the Spirit is able to do good that he otherwise cannot do;

3. While Jesus does not explicitly say "with the Spirit, you will be enabled to do love God and neighbour and get life", His statement is not closed to this possibility.

So we can indeed make all this work together if we assume that Jesus is not telling "the whole theological story" to the man. That is, while Jesus is not explaining to the man how it is that the gift of the Spirit would enable him to love God and neighbour and get life, this does not mean that Jesus does not know this.

 

[DHK]

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.

In fact they didn't need to know that. They already did. The Scriptures were written for our benefit. However, in a local sense Paul is leading up to a point that he is making. But be reminded. Just because one reminds another that he is a Christian, doesn't mean that that person doesn't know the fact already. The Gentile believers knew that they were saved. One cannot make the assumption, that because of the wording in the epistle Paul is writing to unsaved individuals, which is what you are inferring.

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:

The word "remember" is put there for a reason. They already knew this. Paul is calling to their attention something that they knew. It is a method of teaching. Again, he is not writing to unsaved individuals. It is not simply the works of the Law of Moses that do not justify; no works--good works, righteous works, etc. justify. Faith alone justifies.

Rom.5:1 Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God.

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

[/quote]The wording seems to indicate that they already knew this fact.

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.

Not at all. The word "remember" is important. It is there for a purpose. "Be reminded." It was something that they had already been taught. Every true believer in Christ has been taught this. The basic truth is this: Once I was a sinner separated from God (alienated). Now through Christ I have eternal life, and all of His promises that are applicable to me are mine. That means forgiveness of sin and the eternal security of the believer.

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.

Not always. The verse starts out "Wherefore remember." He is going back to another topic that was previously taught them. It is not entirely new.

 

[Andre]

Luke 10:25b destroys your whole interpetation as Jesus tells an UNBELIEVING Jew "this do, and thou SHALT LIVE." You repudiated Christ's words to this UNBELIEVING Jew.

As I have just posted, you appear to assume that Jesus believes that this unbelieving Jew will necessarily remain in that state. I see no justification (no pun intended) for such a supposition.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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?

No, I don't and neither did Jesus in Luke 10:25-28. However, he answered in keeping with the scribes question "what can I DO". He didn't ask whom can I trust. So Jesus directed him to the law and asked the scribe how he understood the demands of the law. He answered correctly. Thus, Jesus said "do this, and THOU SHALT LIVE" knowing it was impossible for any man to do it, although if it were possible then the law would reward him the opposite of condemnation and death which would be justification of life. IF any man could keep the works of the law, they would not need Jesus, or faith or new birth or salvation.

This is exactly the mind set of the jews Paul is addressing in Romans 2:17-29.

In Romans 2:6-16 Paul simply sets forth the standard and qualfiications for those Jews to obtain justification by the works of the law. In Romans 2:17-29 he demands their good works must measure up to the laws standard or else they would be condemned by the law. Jesus said the same to the Scribe. Jesus confirmed the standard for DOING to be good as 100% percent committment 100% of the time - sinless perfection - not failing in one point - but total and complete life of "good" works. IF YOU CAN DO THAT you don't need faith, don't need Christ, don't need new birth, don't need salvaton because your works prove your as good as God.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No, I don't and neither did Jesus in Luke 10:25-28. However, he answered in keeping with the scribes question "what can I DO". He didn't ask whom can I trust. So Jesus directed him to the law and asked the scribe how he understood the demands of the law. He answered correctly. Thus, Jesus said "do this, and THOU SHALT LIVE" knowing it was impossible for any man to do it, although if it were possible then the law would reward him the opposite of condemnation and death which would be justification of life. IF any man could keep the works of the law, they would not need Jesus, or faith or new birth or salvation.

This is exactly the mind set of the jews Paul is addressing in Romans 2:17-29.

In Romans 2:6-16 Paul simply sets forth the standard and qualfiications for those Jews to obtain justification by the works of the law. In Romans 2:17-29 he demands their good works must measure up to the laws standard or else they would be condemned by the law. Jesus said the same to the Scribe. Jesus confirmed the standard for DOING to be good as 100% percent committment 100% of the time - sinless perfection - not failing in one point - but total and complete life of "good" works. IF YOU CAN DO THAT you don't need faith, don't need Christ, don't need new birth, don't need salvaton because your works prove your as good as God.

I thought that was what you meant, but I wanted to ask first. Good reply. Am I understanding the others correctly that they are saying the Scripture is teaching that keep the Law is possible and that people (Jew or Gentile) may obtain eternal life by the Law?

It seems that is what Andre and others might be saying.

 

[Andre]

I thought that was what you meant, but I wanted to ask first. Good reply. Am I understanding the others correctly that they are saying the Scripture is teaching that keep the Law is possible and that people (Jew or Gentile) may obtain eternal life by the Law?

It seems that is what Andre and others might be saying.

Things are humming along pretty fast here and I would to think a bit before fully responding to your question. But, at the very least, I am indeed asserting that Paul teaches a soteriology where final salvation is based on the "good deeds" that a person's life manifests. Now I want to be clear - Paul never says that "perfection" is required. Note how in this text, the emphasis seems to be on the "direction" one is heading in, not perfect obedience to some moral standard:

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.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is very difficult to deal with a person who reads into a text what he wants and ignore what is said and that is precisely what you do.

I do not read anything in this text that says a word about the Holy Spirit being given, promised, or implied. He is talking to an unrepentant, unregenerated Jew that continues in unbelief even after this discussion.

The question is simple and direct, and the Lord's response is simple and direct. Jesus did not condition law keeping upon receiving the Spirit here! Not a word of conditions except for a direct answer to the original question "What can I do" to inheret eternal life. Jesus never said, repent and believe in me. Jesus never said, IF you are given the Holy Spirit you can obtain eternal life by law keeping.

Jesus simply asked a question - "how do you read the law" and the scribe answered that question by a text that required 100% obedience 100% of the time.

Jesus simply answered the question "thou hast answered rightly, DO THIS and that SHALT LIVE."

The context demonstrates this is an unregenerate and unbeliever in Christ and yet Christ doesn't condition his answer upon "repent and believe in me" nor "when you receive the Holy Spirit through law keeping" none of this mumbo jumbo heresy that you espouse. He flatly tells a lost religious man that YES, If you can keep the law 100% of your committment 100% of time you can have eternal life. Why? Because anyone that can do that is as good as God and God don't need saving, God don't need to believe in a gospel to be saved, and God don't need to repent.


This is the same message Christ had for the rich young ruler who came to him on the very same premises "GOOD master what GOOD thing can I DO to inherit eternal life?

Jesus zeroed in on the underlying problem - Why do you call me GOOD? For there is NONE GOOD BUT ONE and that is God. However, he went on to answer the lost man according to his lost idea that he could by good works find justification in God. Have you kept the law? This man was so spiritually dead in sin that he actually thought he had kept it from his youth up. However, when Christ challenged his profession by forcing to express 100% committment to God and man 100% of the time beginning with his wealth he demonstrated he was not "GOOD" enough.

However, IF anyone could measure up to 100% committment 100% of the time the verdict is "this do and THOU SHALT LIVE."

You can't take this simple question, simple qualfication and simple answer because it destroys your whole soteriological framework and the false gospel you believe in and teach. If utterly destroys your interpretation of Romans 2:6-7 becuase Paul is simply setting forth the same potential to those who believed that by law keeping they could obtain eternal life (Rom. 2:17-29).

Paul means what he writes in Romans 2 and Romans 8 (and elsewhere for that matter) - eternal life is granted according to works.

Now let's talk about Jesus in Luke 10: You seem to presume that Jesus' answer does not allow for the possibility that this scribe could be given the Spirit and then indeed attain life through his "good deeds". Paul indeed denies that it is possible to attain eternal life through doing the works of the Law of Moses. But this is because the Law of Moses is working on fallen man - and fallen man cannot keep the Law.

So in short, my position on this is as follows:

1. We need to take Paul at his word in Romans 2, 8, and elsewhere - there will be a final judgement at which eternal life will be granted according to good works;

2. As per Romans 7 and 8, the Law of Moses cannot be obeyed by man in his natural state. But, when the Spirit is given, man escapes from his slavery to sin and could indeed keep the Law of Moses (if it remained in force after the cross, but that's another debate). The point being: a man with the Spirit is able to do good that he otherwise cannot do;

3. While Jesus does not explicitly say "with the Spirit, you will be enabled to do love God and neighbour and get life", His statement is not closed to this possibility.

So we can indeed make all this work together if we assume that Jesus is not telling "the whole theological story" to the man. That is, while Jesus is not explaining to the man how it is that the gift of the Spirit would enable him to love God and neighbour and get life, this does not mean that Jesus does not know this.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Things are humming along pretty fast here and I would to think a bit before fully responding to your question. But, at the very least, I am indeed asserting that Paul teaches a soteriology where final salvation is based on the "good deeds" that a person's life manifests. Now I want to be clear - Paul never says that "perfection" is required. Note how in this text, the emphasis seems to be on the "direction" one is heading in, not perfect obedience to some moral standard:

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.

Let me be sure I am understanding you. You think the apostle Paul is teaching that on the grounds of our own good works, those seeking eternal life, will recieve it on the merit of their own persistence in doing good?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Things are humming along pretty fast here and I would to think a bit before fully responding to your question. But, at the very least, I am indeed asserting that Paul teaches a soteriology where final salvation is based on the "good deeds" that a person's life manifests. Now I want to be clear - Paul never says that "perfection" is required. Note how in this text, the emphasis seems to be on the "direction" one is heading in, not perfect obedience to some moral standard:

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.

Persisting in doing "good" is defined by Christ in Luke 10:26-27 to be 100% committed 100% of the time. God's law has no other standard of good but faultless to a "point" (James 2:10).

All works for salvationists have to redefine God's standard of "good." All who believe in living above sin have to redefine God's standard of "good" to "almost perfect.'' "Be ye therefore ALMOST perfect EVEN AS God is ALMOST perfect." This is as sensible as your doctrine of justification by works.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Things are humming along pretty fast here and I would to think a bit before fully responding to your question. But, at the very least, I am indeed asserting that Paul teaches a soteriology where final salvation is based on the "good deeds" that a person's life manifests. Now I want to be clear - Paul never says that "perfection" is required. Note how in this text, the emphasis seems to be on the "direction" one is heading in, not perfect obedience to some moral standard:

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.

Off topic question here, but do you believe the Scriptures to be God-breathed, thus without error, divine and the only and final authority to the Church?

 

[DHK]

Now let's talk about Jesus in Luke 10: You seem to presume that Jesus' answer does not allow for the possibility that this scribe could be given the Spirit and then indeed attain life through his "good deeds". Paul indeed denies that it is possible to attain eternal life through doing the works of the Law of Moses. But this is because the Law of Moses is working on fallen man - and fallen man cannot keep the Law.

So let's talk about this passage in Luke 10, Andre. If it applied then, it certainly applies today:

Luke 10:27-28 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.

This do and thou shalt live.
Will you (according to THIS) live, Andre? This is your premise. Let's consider it.
1. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. Do you love God with all your heart--all the emotion and passion, the zeal that you have? Do you follow him zealously all the time with all your heart. 100% of your heart is given to him 100% of the day, nothing lacking. Is this your testimony?

2. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul. In this context, the spirit. All of your spiritual life is devoted to God. In fact your whole life is spiritual. Like Paul you can say: "I die daily." "I am crucified with Christ." You can testify yes, with Christ, that you have taken up your cross, and denied yourself daily just to follow him. Your entire spirit belongs to him, for you are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Everything you do is for Him and of Him. Nothing you do is carnal, for the carnal things are the enemy of God. Sin is cast out of your life. You are dead to sin; alive to Christ. You live as though sin did not exist. Is this your testimony?

3. Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your strength?
This of course refers to the body. Do you spend time praying and fasting? Do you allow your body to be used for God and His service alone. The Bible says that we must use the members of our body as instruments of righteousness unto righteousness. Whether it be our hands, feet, eyes, or whatever, they must always used for the Lord. Are you willing to use your body to go wherever God wants you to go: To the highest mountain, the lowest sea, the driest desert, etc. To be bound, tortured, persecuted, afflicted, stoned; to allow whatever God will allow Satan to do with your body. Remember what Paul went through. Remember what Job went through. What are you willing to allow your body to suffer for the Lord's sake?

4. Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your mind.
The mind is the intellect. Often the battle is in the mind.
Paul says:
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
--Is every imagination cast down?
Every high thing that exalts itself against God brought into captivity?
Every thought subject to the obedience of Christ?

Again, Paul said:
Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
--It is easy to allow our carnal flesh to sit in front of the TV and disregard the spiritual activity of reading the Bible. Usually the carnal wins over the spiritual. The battle is in the mind. With my mind I serve the law of God.
It is an every day battle to give my mind, my intellect, all that my mind is capable of over to the Lord and allow him to control it.

Paul makes a contrast:
"Be not drunk with wine, but be filled with the Holy Spirit.
A drunk is so controlled with an intoxicating "spirit" that the next morning he awakes to find out that he said things he never would have said otherwise. He did things he never would have done otherwise. There was something controlling him--another spirit--an alcoholic beverage that we sometime refer to as "spirits," strangely enough.
In that same comparison Paul said let the Holy Spirit so control your life that you cannot but help but doing good, that is the good of the fruit of the Spirit, instead of the works of the flesh. The contrast is given in:
Gal.5:19-24.

The command you referred to in Luke 10:28 is the first of two great commands is a summary command of the first six commandments of the Law. Do you keep it? My guess is no.

 

[Andre]

It is very difficult to deal with a person who reads into a text what he wants and ignore what is said and that is precisely what you do.

It is a shame that you take this nasty tone, making this into something personal. Of course, you have precisely zero evidence of what is going on in my head, so why speculate about it?

I do not read anything in this text that says a word about the Holy Spirit being given, promised, or implied. He is talking to an unrepentant, unregenerated Jew that continues in unbelief even after this discussion.

Again, you simply assume that Jesus believes that this man will live out the rest of his life in unbelief. Can you please justify this assumption? I fully understand that, as the conversation takes place, Jesus is talking to an unbeliever. But that certainly does not close the door on the possibility that this man will become a believer.

IThe question is simple and direct, and the Lord's response is simple and direct. Jesus did not condition law keeping upon receiving the Spirit here! Not a word of conditions except for a direct answer to the original question "What can I do" to inheret eternal life. Jesus never said, repent and believe in me. Jesus never said, IF you are given the Holy Spirit you can obtain eternal life by law keeping.

This is not really a good argument. It seems that you are expecting Jesus to give this man a full theological treatise. This is just like the Romans 2 material. I believe that Paul means what he says there even though he waits to Romans 8 to explain precisely how the Spirit is the agent that makes it possible to pass the Romans 2 judgement. So you seem to apply a kind of exegetical rule that all conditions must be stated everytime Jesus or Paul make any kind of statement. Well Paul certainly does not write that way. In fact, it is characteristic of Paul to hint at something he only later explains in full.

So I see no reason for your expectation that Jesus would necessarily "lay it all out on the table". In fact, Jesus characteristically speaks in a riddling, almost intentionally obscure fashion.

 

[Andre]

Off topic question here, but do you believe the Scriptures to be God-breathed, thus without error, divine and the only and final authority to the Church?

Absolutely. And I find it somewhat ironic that so many people who make this same claim seem to think that Paul does not mean exactly what he writes.

In Romans 2 he writes of eternal life being granted according to works. In Romans 8, he says the same thing again.

So I am not sure why people do not believe him. Now I am not a fool - I understand that there is always the possiblity that Paul is using a kind of literary device - asserting something he knows to be false in order to then go and tell us what he believes to actually be the case.

But I see no evidence for this at all. Many people see the "you are not justified by works" teachings as showing that Paul is engaging in a pure hypothetical in Romans 2. Well, I claim that when Paul makes such statements about "works not justifying" he is talking about the works of the Law of Moses as attempted by an unredeemed Jew.

In fact, I suggest that the door is closed on the "In Romans 2, Paul is speaking of a good works justification that is impossible to actually attain" argument by these words from Romans 8, where it seems clear that Paul is talking about how walking in the Spirit leads to, yes, eternal life:

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,

What do you think Paul is saying here, if not that eternal life is ultimately based on how we live in the Spirit?

 

[Andre]

Persisting in doing "good" is defined by Christ in Luke 10:26-27 to be 100% committed 100% of the time. God's law has no other standard of good but faultless to a "point" (James 2:10).

No on both counts.

Here is the Luke text:

And He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" 27And he answered, "(AG)YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." 28And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; (AH)DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE."

This is not a statement requiring perfection - it is too open-ended to justify such a conclusion. I can truthfully say that I love my wife with my heart and soul even if there are times when I treat her poorly.

Now to the James text:

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

Yes, it is indeed true that if you violate the Law of Moses at one point, you are indeed guilty of breaking all the items in the Law. But, and one needs to be clear about this: An assertion that someone has broken all the elements of the Law of Moses does not imply that this person is an especially wicked person or that they are not otherwise "acceptable" for salvation.

Paul means what he says in Romans 2 and Romans 8 - ultimate salvation is based on good works. The fact that we are ehxorted to be perfect does not contradict that. And, interestingly enough, neither does the bit about being guilty of breaking the whole Law.

 

[Andre]

Let me be sure I am understanding you. You think the apostle Paul is teaching that on the grounds of our own good works, those seeking eternal life, will recieve it on the merit of their own persistence in doing good?

Yes, with the following qualification: the only people who will in fact do this are those who have the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is given on the basis of one things only: faith in Jesus as Lord.

I think Paul means what he says. Do you believe that what Paul says in Romans 2:7 about people getting life based on good works is attainable by no one? If so, what precisely is your argument as to why Paul would take the extraordinary step of saying something that is true of zero persons?

I could buy this if Paul in some way prefaced his treatment with some kind of statement like "I am about to tell you how you would be saved by good works if you could be saved by good works". But I see absolutely no case for this.

When Paul denies "justification by works" he is always telling Jews that their ethnic charter of the Law of Moses does not automatically justify them.

 

[BillySunday1935]

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.

The facts? Well, how about some historical evidence. I mean, surely that "remnant" must have written something down for posterity. Oh wait - I almost forgot. That "remnant" was persecuted down through history and those documents were conveniently destroyed by that evil Roman church while those poor individuals were forced to exist underground, cowering in their hovels while history passed them by.

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

Well, I think that the Catholics here might actually agree with that statement - there is no way the Roman Catholic church is A Christian church; rather, it is THE Christian Church - you know - the one founded by Jesus upon Peter? At least they have the historical documents to back it up in lieu of speculation, rumor, and imaginative vagaries.

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

This is not a nasty tone! It is a factual tone. You are accusing me of the very thing you are doing. I have assumed nothing more than what you literally read in the text and context, however, you are the one assuming something the text says nothing about - nothing!

Can you find any statement in this context that this man ever believed in Christ? Then why charge me for assuming something different than what it says?

The only reason this is not a good argument in your twisted mind is because it totally destroys your whole soteriological position. It is exactly parallel to Romans 2:1-29. Jesus is dealing with the same mentality that Paul is and promises the same conclusion that Paul does based upon fulfilling what the law demands - 100% committment 100% of the time. Not PART of your heart, mind, strength but "ALL".

Your respnse to James 2:10 is a direct contradiction to the text. What standard do you think Paul is judging mankind by in Romans 3:9-18 so he can come to the comphrensive and universal conclusion "there is NONE GOOD, no, NOT ONE"?????????? Certainly not according to how you define James 2:10 or how Christ defines the righteous standard demanded by God's Law! What do you think Jesus meant when he told his disciples that a person's righteousness had to EXCEED the righteousness of the best of religious men of his day (Mt. 5:20) in consideration of your interpretation of James 2:10? If you have any question Christ what kind of righteous required to enter heaven he tells you bluntly in Matthe 5:46 - "be ye therefore perfect EVEN AS your father in heaven IS PERFECT." Your interpretation of James 2:10 perverts the character of God's righteousness to something "almost perfect." What do you think Jesus meant when he told the rich young ruler "THERE IS NONE GOOD BUT ONE and THAT IS GOD" in regard to how you define James 2:10 and "goodness."

My friend, if God's standard for "good" enoung to enter heaven is how you defined James 2:10 then Jesus lied to the rich young ruler, lied to his disciples in Matthew 5 and Paul lied about the meaning of "good" in Romans 3:10.

Ask yourself this question. "IF failing in one point breaks all the law then how many points are required to KEEP the law"?

Every heretic that teaches justification by works or living above sin must LOWER the God's standard of "good" - lower his the standard of God's law to defined "righteousness."

It is a shame that you take this nasty tone, making this into something personal. Of course, you have precisely zero evidence of what is going on in my head, so why speculate about it?


Again, you simply assume that Jesus believes that this man will live out the rest of his life in unbelief. Can you please justify this assumption? I fully understand that, as the conversation takes place, Jesus is talking to an unbeliever. But that certainly does not close the door on the possibility that this man will become a believer.


This is not really a good argument. It seems that you are expecting Jesus to give this man a full theological treatise. This is just like the Romans 2 material. I believe that Paul means what he says there even though he waits to Romans 8 to explain precisely how the Spirit is the agent that makes it possible to pass the Romans 2 judgement. So you seem to apply a kind of exegetical rule that all conditions must be stated everytime Jesus or Paul make any kind of statement. Well Paul certainly does not write that way. In fact, it is characteristic of Paul to hint at something he only later explains in full.

So I see no reason for your expectation that Jesus would necessarily "lay it all out on the table". In fact, Jesus characteristically speaks in a riddling, almost intentionally obscure fashion.