Justification and Law in Paul

[Andre]

You are the one that demanded that a competent writer would not veer off course when dealing with a specific focus are you not?????

Indeed I am.

The solution (Individual salvation) to this objection (national salvation) is the specific focus of Paul in Romans 9:6-24. Salvation is INDIVIDUALISTIC with identifying CHARACTERISTICS in contrast to the nation and to individuals within the nation with contary characteristics.

I do not think you are accurately capturing Paul's intent. Yes, it is clear that individuals are saved, nations are not. But this does not prevent God from implementing a plan of salvation where individuals from one race - Jews - are hardened in support the redemption of the broader human race.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You are the one that demanded that a competent writer would not veer off course when dealing with a specific focus are you not?????

The solution (Individual salvation) to this objection (national salvation) is the specific focus of Paul in Romans 9:6-24. Salvation is INDIVIDUALISTIC with identifying CHARACTERISTICS in contrast to the nation and to individuals within the nation with contary characteristics.

These individual characteristics cannot be restricted to JEWISH character any more than salvation can be restricted to NATIONAL character. But that is exactly what you do by your interpretation.

The INDIVIDUAL characteristics that distinguish between LOST Jews and SAVED Jews are the same exact characteristics that distinguish between LOST gentiles (Pharoah) and saved gentiles (Rom. 9:24) just as the very same writer using the very same initial example (Rom. 9:6-8) and applying it to both THEN and NOW demonstrates clearly:

Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

You deny that Paul applies the above to "then" of Romans 9:6-13 as he does to now!!!! If you admit it then your whole position sinks as that proves the focus is upon GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUAL SALVATION.

However, you have substituted the INDIVIDUAL CHARACERISTIC SALVATIONAL FOCUS for a NATIONAL focus in your interpretation of Romans 9:19-24. Thus you have a competent writer veering off his original focus which is not NATIONAL but INDIVIDUAL salvation characteristics.

The "mercy" in Romans 9:16-18 is the same "mercy" in Romans 9:20-24 and thus the same hardening in Romans 9:16-18 is the same hardening in Romans 9:20-22. These are SALVATIONAL characteristics continued from Romans 9:6-8 where the primary distinction and subject is not NATIONAL but salvational "children of the flesh" versus "children of God" just as Paul applies the same passage in Galatians 4:28-29:

Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

However, your interpretation has a competent writer not only veering off coruse but taking a position that repudiates his own solution to the initial objection of NATIONALISM.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Indeed I am.


I do not think you are accurately capturing Paul's intent. Yes, it is clear that individuals are saved, nations are not. But this does not prevent God from implementing a plan of salvation where individuals from one race - Jews - are hardened in support the redemption of the broader human race.

What in the world do you think the condition of the Gentiles were BEFORE God turned away from Israel????????????? For example - Pharoah?????????

To say that the potter analogy is restricted to the Jewish race is repudiated by its direct application to gentiles in verse 24, therefore to restrict "vessels of wrath" to the Jewish race is equally absurd and contradictory as individual salvation was NEVER restricted to ethnic Israel and so God's Potter illustration can no more exclude gentiles in part (v. 24) as it can in whole (Rom. 11:20-25) as Paul's contrast from the beginning has been a contrast between saved and lost and the characteristics that define that differnce. Paul deneis such a restriction "in Christ" (neither Jew or Gentile) and there is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ!

Your position contradicts immediate as well as overall Biblical context. It is rediculous to argue that since Paul is specifically dealing with such distinctions within national Israel that he is restricting such distinctions within national Israel since the distinctions are UNIVERSAL and since the context explicitly uses GENTILES as illustrative of such distinctions (Pharoah as a vessel of wrath - hardening/gentiles as vessels of mercy).

 

[Dr. Walter]

Just because the immediate application is Jewish does not mean it is restricted to Jews especially if the immediate and overall context apply the very same characteristics beyond Judaism.

This is a common eisgetical error that is committed not only with this subject but with other subjects in the Bible.

For example, most of the episltes are written to believers as local church members. Should we take the position that everything in the epistle must be restricted to only Christians in local assemblies becuase the application and immeidate focus of the entire letter is addressed to such? Surely you can see the falacy in taking such a position??????

However, that is the same erroneous position you are taking here, when the very context includes Gentiles as objects of mercy (Rom. 9:24) and objects of hardening (Rom. 11:20-25)

The INDIVIDUAL characteristics that distinguish between LOST Jews and SAVED Jews are the same exact characteristics that distinguish between LOST gentiles (Pharoah) and saved gentiles (Rom. 9:24) just as the very same writer using the very same initial example (Rom. 9:6-8) and applying it to both THEN and NOW demonstrates clearly:

Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

You deny that Paul applies the above to "then" of Romans 9:6-13 as he does to now!!!! If you admit it then your whole position sinks as that proves the focus is upon GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUAL SALVATION.

However, you have substituted the INDIVIDUAL CHARACERISTIC SALVATIONAL FOCUS for a NATIONAL focus in your interpretation of Romans 9:19-24. Thus you have a competent writer veering off his original focus which is not NATIONAL but INDIVIDUAL salvation characteristics.

The "mercy" in Romans 9:16-18 is the same "mercy" in Romans 9:20-24 and thus the same hardening in Romans 9:16-18 is the same hardening in Romans 9:20-22. These are SALVATIONAL characteristics continued from Romans 9:6-8 where the primary distinction and subject is not NATIONAL but salvational "children of the flesh" versus "children of God" just as Paul applies the same passage in Galatians 4:28-29:

Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

However, your interpretation has a competent writer not only veering off coruse but taking a position that repudiates his own solution to the initial objection of NATIONALISM.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Yes, it is clear that individuals are saved, nations are not. But this does not prevent God from implementing a plan of salvation where individuals from one race - Jews - are hardened in support the redemption of the broader human race.

There is no different "plan of salvation"! God did not implement ANOTHER plan of salvation. There has been only one gospel of salvation (Heb. 4:2). Only one name given under heaven among men (Acts 4:12) and it is the very same gospel that all prophets preached in that one name (Acts 10:43) as there has only been one way (Mt. 7:13-14) and that is the way through Christ (Jn. 14:6) as there is no other gospel (Gal. 1:6-9) and it is the same gospel preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:6-8) providing the basis of justification by faith for Abraham (Rom. 4:11) as for us (Rom. 4:23-25).

Paul repudiates this unique plan (Gal. 4:28-29) as the individual characteristics of the saved have always been the same (Gal. 4:29).

The Broader human race had been HARDENED previous to Israel's rejection of Christ. Previously there was a remnant among the Gentiles (Rahab, Ruth, Ninevah, etc.) but the Nations were as a whole HARDENED. Now, there is a remnant among the Jews but Israel as a nation is HARDENED.

Hence, there is no different plan of salvation, there is only a different PRIMARY VENUE for calling out God's vessels of mercy.

 

[Andre]

There is no different "plan of salvation"! God did not implement ANOTHER plan of salvation. There has been only one gospel of salvation (Heb. 4:2).

I never posted anything that would legitimately lead to the conclusion that I believe there is more than one plan of salvation.

Paul is arguing that the hardrening of Jews is part of the single plan of salvation that was brought to its climax on the cross.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Dear Reader,

Romans 1-8 has made it very clear there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ. Therefore, this leads to the natural objection in Romans 9-11 about National Israel. Since all the promises, covenant, scriptures were given to Israel and since they have rejected Christ does that mean that God's promise to Abraham concerning a nation from his own loins through Isaac is violated?

Paul approaches this objection in a threefold manner. First, he makes sure the reader knows that salvation is never a matter of physical relationship through physical birth or ethnic nationality but indivdiualistic, supernatural birth (Rom 9). Second, salvation comes through the preaching of the gospel (Rom. 10). Third, the fall of National Israel is temporary not permenant, she has stumbled but has not utterly fallen in regard to God's redemptive plan.

Furthermore, Romans 9:6-8 demands that Isaac provides the charactaerization for defining the children of promise. Isaac provides a two-fold characterization. He was chosen over Ishmael - elective choice. Second, his birth was supernatural without the assistance of either Abraham or Sarah as in the case of Ishmael.

The case of Jacob and Esau further characterizes God's elective choice. As with Isaac, the choice of Jacob over Esau as with Isaac over Ishmael was not based upon foreseen good or evil works by either. It was based solely upon God's elective "grace" or redemptive love.

God has the right to choose whom he wills as objects of His mercy versus objects of wrath (Rom. 9:15-18) becuase both "mercy" and "wrath" demand that the objects are being considered in a fallen and thus a condemned condition. Thus real justicie would simply call for the complete eternal punishment of all fallen mankind.

Not only so but election is unto salvation never unto damnation because they come into this world condemned already by their fall in Adam (Rom. 5:12) through ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE MANY WERE MADE SINNERS (Rom. 5:15-19). Hence, God merely leaving Ishmael, Esau, Pharoah to their own depraved choices will naturally harden them the more they are exposed to light just as wet clay is more exposed to light hardens naturally in response to the sun.

Thus the illustration of the potter and the lump of fallen mankind as a lump of moist clay is a perfect analogy. The clay vessels of wrath fitted to destruction naturally harden by being left to themselves to go their own way. However, the vessels "afore prepared unto glory" are special objects of God's mercy.

Who are they? The preaching of the gospel in Romans 10 will make them manifest. You can know the elect by their response to the gospel (2 Thes. 1:4-5; Rom. 10:8-10). You can know the vessals of wrath by their persistant response to whatever light they are given (light of conscience, light of nature or light of the gospel). However, the elect or vessels "afore prepared unto glory" also come to salvation through the chosen means of preaching the gospel (2 Thes. 2:13-14) and that is precisely why we are called upon to go preach the gospel among all nations as that is the means that God makes effectually in calling out his elect.

God is perfectly just in permitting god hating creatures to continue in their own depraved choices but purely merciful in saving any of such.

The bottom line question in this debate will always come back to two questions:

1. Can God have mercy upon whom He wills among fallen mankind?

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.....18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

2. Can God do what he wills with fallen humanity?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I never posted anything that would legitimately lead to the conclusion that I believe there is more than one plan of salvation.

Paul is arguing that the hardrening of Jews is part of the single plan of salvation that was brought to its climax on the cross.

I can agree with you here in regard to the cross being the climax of God's plan of salvation. However, you made the mistake of saying:

But this does not prevent God from implementing a plan of salvation where individuals from one race - Jews - are hardened in support the redemption of the broader human race.

There is only one plan of salvation but there are various applications of that plan. It is THE plan not "a" plan. The move from Israel to Gentiles as the venue of primarily applying that plan is not another plan or another aspect of that plan. From eternity God had predetermined that He would save people when there was no Israel or pre-Israel (Gen. 1-36). When Jacob provided the twelve sons (Gen. 37) to make the nation of Israel God had determined to primarily save people out of this nation. When Israel rejected Christ God had already determined to move from Israel as the primary venue to call out a people to the Gentiles. At His return God will return to Israel as the primary venue to complete his elective work of salvation.

So you see God plan of salvation has always been the same but his venue of calling out a people has varied from pre-Israel to Israel to post Israel back again to Israel.

 

[Andre]

The INDIVIDUAL characteristics that distinguish between LOST Jews and SAVED Jews are the same exact characteristics that distinguish between LOST gentiles (Pharoah) and saved gentiles (Rom. 9:24) just as the very same writer using the very same initial example (Rom. 9:6-8) and applying it to both THEN and NOW demonstrates clearly:

Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

You deny that Paul applies the above to "then" of Romans 9:6-13 as he does to now!!!! If you admit it then your whole position sinks as that proves the focus is upon GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUAL SALVATION.

I have no idea what your argument is here. Yes, there are Jews who are "Jews in the flesh" but not "children of promise". And yes, there are Jews who are both "Jews in the flesh" and also "children of promise". And yes there are Gentiles who are "children of promise".

But there are no Gentiles who are "Jews in the flesh". You seem, and I say "seem" since I have some difficulty following your argument, to be arguing thus:

1. There are lost Jews who are "of the flesh" but not "of the promise" - these must be vessels of destruction;

2. There are lost Gentiles;

3. Since a lost Gentile cannot be a "child of the promise", he must therefore be a child of the flesh;

4. Since he is a child of the flesh, he must be in the "vessels of destruction" category along with some Jews.

Points 1 and 2 are clearly true. But point 3 is not. I cannot emphasize this enough: Paul is using the term "flesh" in Romans 9 to denote Jewish ethnicity, not fallen man in general. I have already shown this. So while it is indeed true that a lost Gentile is not a "child of the promise", it simply does not follow that he is a "child of the flesh", in the sense that the word "flesh" is being used here in Romans 9.

So even if you can justify concluding that Paul places all "children of the flesh" in the "vessels of destruction" category, this does not justify a conclusion that Gentiles are in the vessels of destruction category.

 

[Andre]

However, you have substituted the INDIVIDUAL CHARACERISTIC SALVATIONAL FOCUS for a NATIONAL focus in your interpretation of Romans 9:19-24.

I suggest you are "begging the question" here - the very thing we are talking about is whether Paul is making an argument that is, in some sense at least, a national one.

And I believe that he is and suggest that he is arguing that a set of Jewish individuals have been hardened to benefit true "Jew + Gentile" family of God.

I will not tire of pointing out how this interpretation fits perfectly in the middle of what is otherwise clearly an historical treatment of Israel (chapters 9 to the middle of 10). If the potter metaphor has no Israel specificity at all - and it doesn't if both categories contain both Jews and Gentiles, then we have Paul veering off his Israel history to make what is a general theological point about all mankind.

I suggest Paul is a better writer than that.

 

[Andre]

The "mercy" in Romans 9:16-18 is the same "mercy" in Romans 9:20-24 and thus the same hardening in Romans 9:16-18 is the same hardening in Romans 9:20-22. These are SALVATIONAL characteristics continued from Romans 9:6-8 where the primary distinction and subject is not NATIONAL but salvational "children of the flesh" versus "children of God" just as Paul applies the same passage in Galatians 4:28-29:

Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

However, your interpretation has a competent writer not only veering off coruse but taking a position that repudiates his own solution to the initial objection of NATIONALISM.

As I suspected, you seem to see "children of the flesh" as a kind of universal term to denote all people, whether Jew or Gentile, who are not "children of promise".

But, as I have already shown, there is a big problem with this. First, in all the uses of the term "flesh" in Romans 9, it is clear that Paul is referring to Jews - his kinsmen according to the flesh. So I suggest you are not following Paul in generalizing this category.

Second, your text from Galatians uses flesh to refer to Abrahamic descent, just as I am saying Paul is doing in Romans 9. Who is the child who is persecuting Isaac? It is Esau, a "child of the flesh" of who?

Abraham. So even in Galatians, Paul is not talking about a "child of the flesh" category that includes people who are not of Abrahamic descent.

We must honour the details and not use the terms in ways other than Paul uses them. Here in Romans 9, the notion of a "child of the flesh" denotes someone of Abrahamic lineage - it is not a general category meant to refer to "the pre-destined lost" in general.

 

[Andre]

I can agree with you here in regard to the cross being the climax of God's plan of salvation. However, you made the mistake of saying:

But this does not prevent God from implementing a plan of salvation where individuals from one race - Jews - are hardened in support the redemption of the broader human race.

I made no mistake - I chose the phraseology with great care. Proper reading of the above sentence is entirey consistent with the position that Jews were hardened as part of a single plan of salvation which Jesus brings to its climax.

 

[Andre]

What in the world do you think the condition of the Gentiles were BEFORE God turned away from Israel????????????? For example - Pharoah?????????

I do not understand the point of this statement.

To say that the potter analogy is restricted to the Jewish race is repudiated by its direct application to gentiles in verse 24,

No. All verse 24 does is assert that Gentiles are inlcuded in the "vessels of mercy" category. This does not logically force one to conclude that there are Gentiles in the "vessels of destruction" category. This has been demonstrated in some detail in an earlier post.

therefore to restrict "vessels of wrath" to the Jewish race is equally absurd and contradictory as individual salvation was NEVER restricted to ethnic Israel...

Circular argument - you presume, without argument, that Paul is intending to make a global theological statement about the salvation issue in respect to all human beings. As has already been pointed out, the potter metaphor appears smack-dab in the middle of a narrative of the history of Israel.

And, of course, a statement about how God has hardened Jews fits perfectly in such a narrative - it explains the lost state of the nation of Israel, the very issue that Paul puts on the table at the beginning of chapter 9.

 

[Dr. Walter]

As I suspected, you seem to see "children of the flesh" as a kind of universal term to denote all people, whether Jew or Gentile, who are not "children of promise".

But, as I have already shown, there is a big problem with this. First, in all the uses of the term "flesh" in Romans 9, it is clear that Paul is referring to Jews - his kinsmen according to the flesh. So I suggest you are not following Paul in generalizing this category.

Second, your text from Galatians uses flesh to refer to Abrahamic descent, just as I am saying Paul is doing in Romans 9. Who is the child who is persecuting Isaac? It is Esau, a "child of the flesh" of who?

Abraham. So even in Galatians, Paul is not talking about a "child of the flesh" category that includes people who are not of Abrahamic descent.

We must honour the details and not use the terms in ways other than Paul uses them. Here in Romans 9, the notion of a "child of the flesh" denotes someone of Abrahamic lineage - it is not a general category meant to refer to "the pre-destined lost" in general.

The contrast is between that which is born of "flesh" vesus that which is born of "spirit" in Galatians 4:28. It is not a contrast between that which is born of Gentile versus that which is born of Jews as both Isaac and Ishmael are "kinsmen after the flesh" of Abraham! Moreover, both Galatians 4:28 and Romans 9:5-7 are speaking of the same two sons. In Romans 9 the contrast is that which is born after "the flesh" versus that which is born after "the promise" while in Galatians one is born "after the flesh" and the other "after the Spirit."

Therefore, in both passages those being birthed are both the children of Abraham from his own loins or "flesh" and both are his "kinsmen" by "flesh." Wherefore, the distinction of birth "after the flesh" verus after the "spirit" or "promise" cannot mean "kinsmen after the flesh."

He is talking about a distinction between Jews who are his kinsmen that go beyond physical birth as both were physically born to Abraham. He is talking about a distinction between kinsmen that contrasts flesh vesus spirit or flesh versus promise. He is talking about kinsmen who were ONLY natural born versus kinsmen who in addition to natural birth were also by elective promise supernaturally born.

This same distinction transcends Jews but is universal as Paul explicitly applies it to gentiles as well as Jews in Galations 4:28 or all who are called "brethren" or as in Galatians 3:6-7 all who are of beleivers in the gospel, and are thus the children of Abraham by faith.

It is impossible to limit this distinction to Jews only. In Romans 9 Paul applies it to Jews in order to prove that God's promise to Abraham did not fail among the Jews. Among the Jews there are those merely born after 'the flesh" versus those born according to Abraham promise or after the "spirit". This is exactly why Paul includes the Gentiles in Romans 9:24.

Likewise, those born merely "after the flesh" include Gentiles just as equally as it does Jews who have not the additional "spirit" birth. Such Jews and gentiles - THE NATURAL BORN are vessels of destruction just as the Jews and gentiles who are SUPERNATURAL BORN are vessels of mercy. Galatians 4:23-28 proves this applies equally to both Jews and Gentiles because it is a difference between NATURAL BORN human beings whether Jew or Gentile and SUPERNATURAL BORN human beings whether Jew or Gentiles.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I do not understand the point of this statement.

There was a time when God's redemptive work was primary among the Jews before he turned from the Jews to the Gentiles. During that period before he turned to the Jews, the gentiles were vessels of wrath equally as the Jews became vessels of wrath after God turned from the Jews to the Gentiles. If not, then it makes no sense that he turned away from the Jews to the Gentiles if God had not already turned away from the Gentiles previously before turning from the Jews to the Gentiles. If He had not turned from the Gentiles while working primarily among the Jews then how could he be said to turn to the Gentiles??????? You argue that the Jews will be called "vessels of wrath" because God is going to turn from the Jews to the Gentiles, therefore, the Gentiles must have been primarily "vessels of wrath" previous to God turning from the Jews.

Since "vessels of mercy" have to do with obtaining eternal life and heaven (Rom. 9:23) then "vessels of wrath" have to do with obtaining eternal destruction (Rom. 9:21-22) as they are in opposition to each other indicated by "mercy" versus "wrath." Mercy is explicitly explained to have heaven - "afore prepared to glory" and "wrath" is explicitly explained to have hell "destruction."

Here is the point. Before God turned to the Gentiles they were for the most part "vessels of destruction" while God primarily called out His elect from among the Jews as "vessels of mercy." Now, the Jews are primarily "vessels of wrath" while God is primarily calling out his people from among the Gentiles as "vessels of mercy."

No. All verse 24 does is assert that Gentiles are inlcuded in the "vessels of mercy" category. This does not logically force one to conclude that there are Gentiles in the "vessels of destruction" category. This has been demonstrated in some detail in an earlier post.

If those gentiles who are "afore prepared to glory" are included in the description of "vessels of mercy" AND THEY ARE in Romans 9:24 then Pharoah who is explicitly described and presented as an illustation of those whom God did not have "mercy" upon but rather was fitted to destruction is among those who are "vessels of wrath" fitted to destruction as the contrast is between HEAVEN and HELL rather than between Jew versus Gentile. If it were a contrast between Jew versus Gentile then Paul could not possibly include Gentiles as "vessels of mercy" who are AFORE PREPARED UNTO GLORY unless ALL GENTILES were "vessels of mercy " AFORE PREPARED UNTO GLORY.

You cannot take a GENERAL TRUTH that is applied to specific ethnicity and deny it has GENERAL application especially when the writer and context includes UNIVERSAL application (Rom. 9:24-32). If Gentiles are included in the HEAVEN application then they are included in the HELL application as well.

Circular argument - you presume, without argument, that Paul is intending to make a global theological statement about the salvation issue in respect to all human beings. As has already been pointed out, the potter metaphor appears smack-dab in the middle of a narrative of the history of Israel.

A Circular argument assumes its own conclusion. There is no assumption here and there is no circular argument here as Romans 9:24-32 explicitly apply the "vessels of mercy" to UNIVERSAL mankind and Romans 9:16-18 explicitly apply the contrast of "mercy" versus "hardeneth" to NON-JEWISH persons IN PRINCIPLE. You cannot successfully deny that Romans 9:16-18 is setting forth ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE with specific concreted negative application to a historic Gentile personage. Therefore the context provides both a positive and negative application of mercy and hardening to both Jews and Gentiles.

And, of course, a statement about how God has hardened Jews fits perfectly in such a narrative - it explains the lost state of the nation of Israel, the very issue that Paul puts on the table at the beginning of chapter 9.

Pharoah is hardened by God and he is not a Jew and therefore your restricted application of hardening to Jews only as "vessels of wrath" is absurdly rediculous when the preceding and following context explicitly applies the abstract truths to both Jews and Gentiles. You cannot restrict abstract and general truths simply because the immediate context has its focus primarily upon a specific ethnic group especially when that same context intentionally includes and applies it UNIVERSALLY (Rom. 9:24-31) to both Jews and Gentiles. The contrast is not between Jew versus gentile but between LOST versus SAVED or HEAVEN versus HELL or MERCY versus HARDENING or born flesh versus born of promise (Romans 9:6-7 with Galatians 4:28).

 

[Dr. Walter]

Sin and the Law

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? - Rom. 6:1


Rom. 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Paul is addressing both jews and Gentiles in these questions. What law applicable to both Jews and Gentiles that is in contrast to "grace"???? Paul does not say these Gentiles and Jews are not under plural "lawS" but singular "under law" in contrast to "under grace." Sin is not an ethnic issue but a universal and moral issue.

Paul's question is addressed to that which is neither Jew or Gentile but are ONE in Christ. It is not Jewish sin versus Gentile sin, but SIN against God's GLORY or RIGHTEOUSNESS regardless of ethnicity. It is not Jewish grace versus Gentile grace but SALVATION GRACE in general.

The Law here is not Gentile versus Jewis law when Paul addresses both GENTILES and JEWS as not "under the law" but "under grace, as the law described is that which is in contrast to grace. What law applicable to both Jews and Gentiles is in contrast to grace?

It is the law of God or God's righteousness as revealed by Moses or by Conscience. Jesus said that the whole law of Moses could be broken down to two laws - love God and love your neighbor as yourself. This is also the law written on conscience. The form may be different but the principle is the same and justification is by NEITHER as both demands "works" to satisfy the LEGAL demands as that is what a "LAW" is! It is LEGAL DEMANDS whether written on parchment/skins/rock or upon conscience.

Your interpretation of "the law" in passages that refer to justification before God is false as there is no JEWISH versus GENTILE ways of justification before God. There is "the law of works" versus "the law of faith" and the law of faith is a law that has LEGAL DEMANDS which is summed up in the EXLUSION OF YOUR WORKS and the INCLUSION OF ONLY CHRIST'S WORKS as the object of faith (Rom. 3:24-28). The law of works has its LEGAL DEMANDS and it is the rule of justification BY YOUR OWN WORKS (Rom. 2:6).

The law of faith excludes justification by your own works (Rom. 3:28) but is THE LAW for both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 3:29-30) that vindicates the righteousness of the Law of God through faith in Christ's works to have satisified it completely and forever (Rom. 3:31).

 

[Dr. Walter]

Justified by faith without any of your works

The issue is dealt with by Paul in a very technical manner in Romans 3:24-5:2 but in the issue of the Law of Moses as opposed to works is specifically dealth with in Romans 3:27-28.

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

There are several particulars that must be noted in this very technical and efficient treatise by Paul.


1. There is a question - "Where is boasting then?

This question has to do with the immediate preceding verses (vv. 23-26) where the problem and the provision for that problem is provided by God through the Person and work of Jesus Christ. The problem is found in verse 23. The provision is found in verses 24-26. In this provision there is absolutely nothing provided by the sinner to resolve the problem. Indeed the text begins with "freely by grace." The only part that involves the sinner in this provision is their faith and the only part their faith plays in this provision is in its OBJECT:

"through faith IN his blood,"
"believeth IN Jesus."

Hence, their faith plays no part, provides no provision but simply acts as a receiver of that provision by placing their faith IN the provision. In direct contrast "faithfulness" is what you do for God but justifying faith is receiving what God did for you through the shed "blood" and Person of "Jesus."

Therefore, the question that directly follows is "Where is boasting then?"


2. Paul introduces the use of the term "law" in verse 27 that has nothing to do with the Law of Moses or any other statutary human or divine law.

He introduces it in the sense of a PRINCIPLE or RULE in regard to his further developed question. The question is "where is boasting then?" and then the question is further developed to ask what "Law" or PRINCIPLE would provide boasting and what "Law" or PRINCIPLE would exclude boasting.

By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Paul does not use the plural "Laws" but the singular "law" asking by what PRINCIPLE or RULE would include or exclude boasting.


3. There is now provided the reader two contrasting PRINCIPLES to consider and to answer that question.

Those contrasting options are characterized by two words placed in opposition to each other:

1. The principle of WORKS
2. The principle of FAITH

These words characterize two opposing PRINCIPLES for justification. Hence, the question is which PRINCIPLE of justification excludes or includes boasting. Does the PRINCIPLE of justification by FAITH include or exclude boasting or does the PRINCIPLE of justification by WORKS include or exclude boasting?

Which PRINCIPLE excludes boasting (1) Works; (2) Faith


4. Paul does not leave this question without an answer but provides the answer:

of works? Nay: but by the law of faith

Hence, Paul addresses the issue by defining the underlying PRINCIPLE that characterizes ALL POSSIBLE WAYS of justification. He reduces all possible ways down to fit under one of two contrasting PRINCIPLES. You are either justified by the PRINCIPLE of works or you are justified by the PRINCIPLE of Faith and they are in placed in opposition to each other and therefore ruling out an syngerism of the two.


5. Hence, you are either justified by the principle of FAITH ALONE or you are justified by the principle of WORKS ALONE:

The principle of FAITH ALONE not only denies one can be justified by the law of Moses but any law that operates by the principle of works.

Romans 3:24-26 is justification "freely by grace" "through faith in his blood" believing "in Jesus" and therefore it is justification by the PRINCIPLE of faith without works:

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


6. Therefore, by this PRINCIPLE of justification the ground is made level for both Jews and Gentiles under One God because the law of Moses is by PRINCIPLE justification by works:

29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Note the repitition of "faith" in verse 30 "by faith" and "through faith" for both Jews and Gentiles.



7. Justification by faith without works does not invalidate the Law of God whether written upon stones (Rom. 2:12-13) or upon the conscience of man (Rom. 2:14-15) but is the ONLY WAY TO validate it

Paul is now taking the reader back to Romans 3:26 and the words:

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Jesus Christ in his own person satisfied (the propiation) the full demands of God. He satisfied the wrath of God by "his blood" (v. 25) and He satisfied fully the righteousness of God (v. 26). Therefore, that provision by Christ enabled God to be "Just" in imputing Christ's propitiation to the believer by faith and thus "the justifier of him" without violating His own righteous standard as Christ acted in behalf of the believing sinner and the believer received it "freely by grace."


8. Now, the same question "where is boasting then" is applied to Abraham:

1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

The word "glory" represents the very exact same word translated "boasting" in Romans 3:27. Paul proceeds in a very systematic way to prove that Abraham was justified "WITHOUT WORKS" of any kind coming from His person but was justified by the works coming from the Person of Christ through IMPUTATION.

1. Justified by faith without works by grace (imputation by faith) - vv. 3-5
2. Remision of sins without divine ordinances - vv. 6-12
3. Justified by the principle of faith not by the principle of law - vv. 13-15
4. Justified by faith without any kind of personal performance - vv. 16-21
5. Justified by faith as a completed action at the point of faith in the gospel - 4:22-5:2

CONCLUSION: Any doctrine of justification that is characterized by the principle of "works" is ANOTHER GOSPEL as the doctrine of justification by faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ is the essence of the gospel (Gal. 1:8-9).