Romans 7:14-25

[DHK]

I do not agree that unbelievers are "100 %" evil. Although I do not have the time right now to get into this in detail, I suggest the following:

1. Texts which speak of the lost as entirely evil are using a form of literary device - they are not intended to put forward the idea that lost people are incapable of doing no good whatsoever;

2. The empirical evidence of living in the real world shows that even the lost do indeed exhibits glimmers of goodness. Yes, we are all fallen, but a non-believer is not 100 % evil through and through.

Consequently we can plausibly assert that someone who, at some level delights in the Law of Moses could be a non-believer.

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.
--There is nothing good that we can do as far as "righteous" things go, that is things that we do to merit heaven. Jesus paid it all. The only "good" that a person does are those things as a mother nursing her baby, the example of the Good Samaritan. However it the Good Samaritan thought that he was doing those things to gain entrance to heaven then they were not "good" in the sight of God. That is the difference.

As always, the details matter. And the details show that, indeed, the Law of Moses is in view here.

1. Paul writes about "not serving according to the written letter".

What do you suggest this is, if not a reference to the written code of the Law of Moses? He must be referring to something written here - so what is it?

Paul has previously referred to God's moral law in general--that law which he imparts to every man.

Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
Within every man is the moral law of God:
1. The law of God is written in their hearts.
2. Their God-given consciences bears witness of their sin.
3. As a result of their sin they accuse others and excuse themselves.

2. Paul refers to the Law "coming" and then quotes from the Law of Moses. Do you not see how Paul is referring to the delivery of the Law of Moses at Sinai? To see it otherwise is to (1) have to change this: "I was once alive apart [from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died..." into something like "I was once alive apart from the Law; but when I became aware of the commandment, sin became alive and I died..." But Paul says what he says - a reference to a law coming, followed by a direct quote from the Law of Moses, on top of the earlier reference to a written code, together form a compelling case that it is, in fact, the Law of Moses that is in view here.

And there are other arguments for this as well. But that will have to wait.

Show me the direct quote from the Ten Commandments or from the Law of Moses. There was no quote. He said "when the law came." What do you mean he quoted from the law?? There is no quote! "But when I became aware of the commandment sin became alive and I died." That is his testimony. It is not a quote from the law either. If it is give a reference. You are confused.
The law is the moral law of God.
The law is that he was a sinner rebelling against God.
The law is that he thought he was doing the will of God by persecuting Christians when in fact he was committing murder. God opened his eyes to that, and it felt as if he died or his soul died within him, as the Holy Spirit opened his eyes to whom Christ really is, and how horrible his sin really was. At that moment in time he called upon Christ as Lord and submitted to him as Lord, asking him "Lord, what would you have me to do?"

 

[Moriah]

Where does it say we are set completely free from sin?

Here are scriptures explaining that we are free from sin:

Romans 6:7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

Romans 6:18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Romans 6:20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.

Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.

Now, I have shown you plainly by the scriptures that true believers are free from sin. Are you going to continue to deny the scriptures and go against the Word of God? Do you understand now that you teach falseness?

The Bible teaches we wage a war against sin?

Show me the exact scriptures that say what you teach, that we “war against sin.” You teach we war against sin and often loose! Where is that in the scriptures? Nowhere does it say that in the scriptures. That is the teaching you have been trying to teach us all here, and it is false.

Did the Lord provide us spiritual armor in vain?? (Eph.6:11-18)

You claim we war against sin and normally loose! I do not find your teaching in the Bible.

Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
--But you don't have a struggle against sin; just cut the verse out of your Bible. And you don't need the armor of God anymore do you?

Your reasoning is ridiculous, and your argument is nonsense.

1. Catholics--Go to confession once a week and act like the devil the rest of the week.
2. Islam--Being a suicide bomber or "martyr" is the way to paradise.
3. Jews--You don't remember: They crucified Christ.
4. Mormons--It was only a few years ago that they did away with polygamy, and still there are many sects that are doing it.
--Do they want to do right? NO! They want to enjoy their sin and have their religion so they can have an appearance of respectability.

Nothing you say here disproves what I said. You only write things to distract from the truth.

2 Peter 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
--The unsaved are the swine and the dog. They keep returning to their vomit, their sin. As ugly as it tastes, they love it.

You are not even staying on subject.

This is your little comment after I posted three passages of Scripture with much commentary on how Christians struggle with sin. You couldn't answer the Scripture could you?

How do you think the rude comment of yours disproves what I am saying? You may try to use many scriptures, but that does not prove your case. Just because you try to use many scriptures does not prove what you say. I can prove you wrong with just one scripture.

You said: "There are people who want to do good."
They can't do good. The Bible says "They love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil."

What you say here is more misuse of the scriptures. There are people who want to do good, and there are people who love darkness rather than light… You have not proven they are the same people! You only know what your religion has taught you, and the religion you adhere to is one that is not completely free of Calvinism.

It also says: "There is none righteous...There is none good; no not one."

You quote incompletely the original scripture. This is from Ecclesiastes who explains that there is no righteous man who does not ever sin. This is from the Old Testament, and Paul uses it to show that Jews are no better than anyone else, that they still sin like others, even though they were God's chosen people. Now, are you now going to admit error? I have explained the truth to you, now are you going to stop preaching error?

--They don't do good, and they don't want to do good.

That is your false preaching.

No need to make everything personal with so many ad hominems.

That is exactly what you do. You falsely accuse me of the very things you are guilty of.

Now with what you have said above one could only conclude the following:
1. That you would have no need of the armor of God. Eph.6:11-18
2. That you deny that we wrestle a spiritual warfare. Eph.6:11,12.
3. That you deny that we are in a spiritual war 2Cor.10:3-5
4. That you deny that the battle is in the mind 2Cor.10:3-5
--That all of the above speak of a struggle with sin that continues from day to day. And thus Paul says "I die daily."

You cannot see past the error you have bought into from your false teachers, and you might even be elaborating some of your own personal error.

The battle does get harder, but "he giveth more grace."

Is that how your false teachers explain it?

Let me give you an example.
1. Go into the bathroom and look into the mirror. But look into the mirror without any lights on. Make sure it is dark. That is what it is like for the unsaved. They love darkness rather than light. They don't see the light. They are blind to the truth.
2. Now turn on a nite-light on--two-five Watts. How well do you see yourself in the mirror now? That is the baby Christian. He has little knowledge of the Word of God, little light. He can't see his reflection very well, and spiritually can't understand the Bible well, nor does his sin show up very well as far as he can see himself. He probably is still quite worldly as a new Christian.
3. Now put a 20 Watt light bulb in. It is much brighter now. You see more. You are growing. You see the specks on your face. You see where you need to clean up more. The Bible calls God's Word a mirror. It reflects who we are to us. Keep growing.
4. Put a 60 Watt bulb in, and then 100W, and then finally two 100W bulbs in. When you have reached that stage you can see every little speck of dirt in your face; every spot that you have missed. In other words the light points to those places which are defiled. The brighter the light the more obvious are the defects.

What you say here proves nothing about the scriptures. Your wisdom is not about God's wisdom.

And so it is with Christians. The brighter the light the more obvious are the defects. The closer one lives with Christ, the more obvious is the sin in his life. The carnal Christian never sees the sin that the Christian who has a close walk with God does. One who has a holy walk realizes what a battle it is to walk a holy walk; to wage a daily war against sin; to keep every thought in captivity to the obedience of Jesus Christ; to realize that your words can act like arms of love or cut like a knife. The new Christian is oblivious of these things. He doesn't understand all that is in the Word of God. Thus the mature Christian has a much greater battle, for he has much greater light.

You speak of things that are NOT in God's word. Your wisdom is full of error concerning God's word. Read what God says about man’s wisdom. The world’s wisdom is foolishness to God (Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21; 1 Corinthians 1:7, 19-21, 25-27; 2:1, 4-7, 13; 3:18,19; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:8, 17; Colossians 1:9; 2:3; James 1:5; 2 Peter 3:15).

 

[The Biblicist]

What you are failing to see and understand is that the "righteousness of God" is the basis for all moral law. God made mankind (not merely the Jew) "upright" or according to a moral standard of righteousness.


Hence, the righteousness of God is not restricted to one kind of revelation.

1. The gospel reveals the righteousness of God - Rom. 1:17

2. The Mosaic law reveals the righteouness of God - Rom. 2:11-13

3. The Conscience reveals the righteousness of God - Rom. 2:14-15

The ultimate "law" of God is God's own glory - "For THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE for ALL have sinned and come short of THE GLORY OF GOD"

Furthermore, the righteousness of God manifested in the Mosaic Law is nothing more or less than a revelation of the same righteousness manifested in the gospel, the conscience or in moral human laws. Hence, "the law" in Romans 3:19-20 comprehends all "law" that reveals "THE GLORY OF GOD" or the "RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD" and that is precisely why "ALL THE WORLD" has violated it and that is precisely why "every mouth" is stopped by it and why there is "NO FLESH" justified by it because it is the SAME law, SAME righteousness revealed in various ways - the righteousness of God.

The man in Romans 7:22 that delights in "the law of God after the inward man" is a saved person as no lost person delights in God's righteousness but hates the light, loves darkness, is at enmity with God and is not subject to the law of God.

There is no possibility that this text can be restricted to Jews and Jewish law only. The immediate context will not permit it.

1. Both Jew and Gentile are under consideration as both are said to be EQUALLY “under sin” – v. 9

2. Romans 3:10-18 characterizes what it means to be “under sin” for both Jew and Gentile.

3. Romans 3:19-20 is inclusive of all who are “under the law” and both Jews (Rom. 2:17-22) and Gentiles (Rom. 2:14-15) have both been proven to be “under the law” of God whether by Moses or by Conscience.

4. Romans 3:19-20 uses UNIVERSAL language
a. “every mouth” NOT “every Jewish mouth”
b. “no flesh” NOT “no jews”
c. “ALL the world” NOT “all Israel”

5. The Righteousness of God is revealed more than by Mosaic Law – Rom. 3:21-22 – or else Paul cannot say “THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE; for ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God” – Rom. 6:23

a. If the Gentiles were not “under law” they could not be “under sin” for sin is the transgression of the law and thus THERE WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE!

b. The redemption in Romans 3:25-26 is not restricted to Jews only and therefore “THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE” for both Jew and Gentile has violated “the law of God.

CONCLUSION: The “law of God” equals “the righteousness of God” and that is manifested by both Moses and Conscience.

The Law of Moses cannot be restricted to merely Jews in regard to "moral righteousness" because God made all mankind "upright" or according to a righteous standard. The law that says "thou shalt not kill" had preceded Moses (Gen. 9:3-4) and moral law is inseparably united (James 2:10-11).

Rom. 3:27 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.

Paul had just stated that we are " justified freely by his grace" (v. 24). Now in verse 27 he challenges his readers to find any grounds for boasting. In this challenge "Where is boasting then" he immediately denies there is any grounds for boasting in justification "freely by his grace" by saying "IT IS EXCLUDED."

At this point he then considers only two contrasting alternatives and why one is based upon a principle (law) that would exclude all boasting while the other is based upon a principle (law) that would include boasting.

By what law? of works? Nay.

Justification based upon the "law" or "principle" of works promotes boasting because "works" by its very nature earns favor and makes the one you are working for indebted to you and this is precisely what Paul says a few verses later when he discusses the very same issue of boasting in regard to Abraham:

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.....4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

The same Greek word translated "glory" in Romans 4:2 is the very same word translated "boasting" in our text in Romans 3:27.

This is what Paul means by "the law" of works. The term "law" is used here to describe the underlying PRINCIPLE by which something operates. Justification based upon the PRINCIPLE "of works" promotes boasting because "works" by its very NATURE places the one you are working for in your "debt" and therefore it is not of grace:

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

That is the "law" or Principle that defines the nature "works".

Hence, the term "law" here has nothing to do with the Mosaic Law or the Law written upon the heart of Gentiles or any human law. Instead it is used here by Paul in the same sense we use the term "law" when we talk about the "law of gravity" or the principle by which gravity operates and thus what it is by nature.

Paul then denies that justification by the law "of works" excudes boasting:

By what law? of works? Nay.

By its very nature or according to the principle that characterizes it, Justification cannot be by works because "works" always incurs "debt" and therefore is not of grace:

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Hence, Paul has excluded all doctrines of justification based upon the principle or "law" of works. That would exclude justification by the Law of Moses because that is based upon the principle of works. That would exclude the Law written in the conscience of Gentiles because that is based upon the very same principle or law of works.

The only "law" or principle that can Justify sinners which excludes all boasting is justification by the law or principle of faith because "faith" excludes all grounds for boasting because it excludes all "works":

"5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Note that "worketh not" is contrasted "but" with "beleiveth on him" and that is "without works."

Hence, the only basis for justification that excludes boasting is justification by faith without works:

Rom. 3:27 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.

This is the only basis that provides LEVEL ground for both Jews and Gentiles alike before God because it excludes all works done by both in response to either the Law of Moses or the Law written on their conscience and equally provides justification based upon FAITH ALONE "without 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.

Moreover, this is the only way the Law of God whether it is revealed in the Mosaic Law or it is revealed in the conscience to Gentiles can be established by the believer and not be violated or made void. Because justification is by faith alone in another who acted as their substitute in keeping the law and satisfied it completely and fully in their behalf and that is what they embrace by faith in the gospel the finished work of Jesus Christ that satisfies all the laws requirement and imputes his righteousness, the righteousness of God, the righteousness revealed in the Mosaic law and the righteousness revealed in conscience, that righteousness is imputed to them by faith:


31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

In contrast, all others "have sinned and come short of the glory of God" therefore, "no flesh" can be justified by the law of works, "ALL the world" stands condemned by the law of works and "every mouth" is stopped from boasting that they have fulfilled the law by works. Hence, BY FAITH ALONE in the finished work and Person of Christ is the only "law" or "principle" that does not make "void the Law" but establishes the Law in behalf of the beleiver.

 

[Moriah]

Rom. 3:27 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.

Paul had just stated that we are " justified freely by his grace" (v. 24). Now in verse 27 he challenges his readers to find any grounds for boasting. In this challenge "Where is boasting then" he immediately denies there is any grounds for boasting in justification "freely by his grace" by saying "IT IS EXCLUDED."

At this point he then considers only two contrasting alternatives and why one is based upon a principle (law) that would exclude all boasting while the other is based upon a principle (law) that would include boasting.

By what law? of works? Nay.

Justification based upon the "law" or "principle" of works promotes boasting because "works" by its very nature earns favor and makes the one you are working for indebted to you and this is precisely what Paul says a few verses later when he discusses the very same issue of boasting in regard to Abraham:

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.....4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

The same Greek word translated "glory" in Romans 4:2 is the very same word translated "boasting" in our text in Romans 3:27.

This is what Paul means by "the law" of works. The term "law" is used here to describe the underlying PRINCIPLE by which something operates. Justification based upon the PRINCIPLE "of works" promotes boasting because "works" by its very NATURE places the one you are working for in your "debt" and therefore it is not of grace:

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

That is the "law" or Principle that defines the nature "works".

Hence, the term "law" here has nothing to do with the Mosaic Law or the Law written upon the heart of Gentiles or any human law. Instead it is used here by Paul in the same sense we use the term "law" when we talk about the "law of gravity" or the principle by which gravity operates and thus what it is by nature.

Paul then denies that justification by the law "of works" excudes boasting:

By what law? of works? Nay.

By its very nature or according to the principle that characterizes it, Justification cannot be by works because "works" always incurs "debt" and therefore is not of grace:

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Hence, Paul has excluded all doctrines of justification based upon the principle or "law" of works. That would exclude justification by the Law of Moses because that is based upon the principle of works. That would exclude the Law written in the conscience of Gentiles because that is based upon the very same principle or law of works.

The only "law" or principle that can Justify sinners which excludes all boasting is justification by the law or principle of faith because "faith" excludes all grounds for boasting because it excludes all "works":

"5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Note that "worketh not" is contrasted "but" with "beleiveth on him" and that is "without works."

Hence, the only basis for justification that excludes boasting is justification by faith without works:

Rom. 3:27 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.

This is the only basis that provides LEVEL ground for both Jews and Gentiles alike before God because it excludes all works done by both in response to either the Law of Moses or the Law written on their conscience and equally provides justification based upon FAITH ALONE "without 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.

Moreover, this is the only way the Law of God whether it is revealed in the Mosaic Law or it is revealed in the conscience to Gentiles can be established by the believer and not be violated or made void. Because justification is by faith alone in another who acted as their substitute in keeping the law and satisfied it completely and fully in their behalf and that is what they embrace by faith in the gospel the finished work of Jesus Christ that satisfies all the laws requirement and imputes his righteousness, the righteousness of God, the righteousness revealed in the Mosaic law and the righteousness revealed in conscience, that righteousness is imputed to them by faith:


31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

In contrast, all others "have sinned and come short of the glory of God" therefore, "no flesh" can be justified by the law of works, "ALL the world" stands condemned by the law of works and "every mouth" is stopped from boasting that they have fulfilled the law by works. Hence, BY FAITH ALONE in the finished work and Person of Christ is the only "law" or "principle" that does not make "void the Law" but establishes the Law in behalf of the beleiver.

We must believe and obey. We do not get the Holy Spirit unless we believe and obey. Believing and obeying are not the law of works. It is not the law of works to confess and repent. It is not a law of works to stop cheating on your wife with another woman. It is not a law of works to stop stealing.

 

[The Biblicist]

We must believe and obey. We do not get the Holy Spirit unless we believe and obey. Believing and obeying are not the law of works. It is not the law of works to confess and repent. It is not a law of works to stop cheating on your wife with another woman. It is not a law of works to stop stealing.

You complain about no one appreciating your thoughts and I will tell you why. It is because of the way you respond to detailed Biblical evidence!

You don't even try to respond to the mass of evidence in my post. You simply ignore it!

This is exactly why no one appreciates your comments because they are EMPTY of any substance, evidence or thoughtful content! I back up my position with God's Word while you back up your position with only YOUR OPINIONS!

My post was based on a very careful verse by verse almost word by word contextual exposition of Romans 3:27-31.

You could not respond to it because it is irrefutably grounded upon the Word of God. If you could you would have pointed out where I made expository errors, grammatical errors or misinterpretations of a word or verse.

Here is my advice. Don't give responses that are simply EMPTY of any substance unsupported by textual evidences. That is precisely why your responsese are not appreciated. Nothing personal, just the truth.

On the other hand, Andre at least attempts to deal with the evidence placed before him. That is the very reason he has stopped responding because he cannot deal with it honestly and objectively.

 

[Moriah]

You complain about no one appreciating your thoughts and I will tell you why. It is because of the way you respond to detailed Biblical evidence!

You don't even try to respond to the mass of evidence in my post. You simply ignore it!

This is exactly why no one appreciates your comments because they are EMPTY of any substance, evidence or thoughtful content! I back up my position with God's Word while you back up your position with only YOUR OPINIONS!

My post was based on a very careful verse by verse almost word by word contextual exposition of Romans 3:27-31.

You could not respond to it because it is irrefutably grounded upon the Word of God. If you could you would have pointed out where I made expository errors, grammatical errors or misinterpretations of a word or verse.

Here is my advice. Don't give responses that are simply EMPTY of any substance unsupported by textual evidences. That is precisely why your responsese are not appreciated. Nothing personal, just the truth.

On the other hand, Andre at least attempts to deal with the evidence placed before him. That is the very reason he has stopped responding because he cannot deal with it honestly and objectively.

I give detailed biblical evidence, yet you deny them. You say the same thing about everyone who goes against your beliefs. I have responded. I have been responding to the same stuff you keep repeating. I constantly give you scripture that explains the truth to you, but you do not accept it.

 

[DHK]

Moriah,
Biblicist is right:
He said concerning you:

You complain about no one appreciating your thoughts and I will tell you why. It is because of the way you respond to detailed Biblical evidence!

You don't even try to respond to the mass of evidence in my post. You simply ignore it!

You ignore the evidence and attack with ad hominems, and insults. That is not Christlike at all is it?

In my last post to you I gave your four statements, each one backed up with Scripture. Here was your answer to my Scriptural statements:

You cannot see past the error you have bought into from your false teachers, and you might even be elaborating some of your own personal error.

That is not a decent response to the Scripture I gave you. Again, what did Biblicist say:

"You complain about no one appreciating your thoughts and I will tell you why. It is because of the way you respond to detailed Biblical evidence!"

 

[Moriah]

Moriah,
Biblicist is right:
He said concerning you:
You ignore the evidence and attack with ad hominems, and insults. That is not Christlike at all is it?

In my last post to you I gave your four statements, each one backed up with Scripture. Here was your answer to my Scriptural statements:

That is not a decent response to the Scripture I gave you. Again, what did Biblicist say:

"You complain about no one appreciating your thoughts and I will tell you why. It is because of the way you respond to detailed Biblical evidence!"

DHK,

You do not like being corrected by me, so of course you will say things against me here. God is my judge, not you and other false judges.

 

[Moriah]

Moriah,
Biblicist is right:
He said concerning you:
You ignore the evidence and attack with ad hominems, and insults. That is not Christlike at all is it?

In my last post to you I gave your four statements, each one backed up with Scripture. Here was your answer to my Scriptural statements:

That is not a decent response to the Scripture I gave you. Again, what did Biblicist say:

"You complain about no one appreciating your thoughts and I will tell you why. It is because of the way you respond to detailed Biblical evidence!"

Biblicist, and DHK,

Would you like me to judge you and tell you what I think of you two personally? So what makes you think that what you say about me means anything?

 

[DHK]

Biblicist, and DHK,

Would you like me to judge you and tell you what I think of you two personally? So what makes you think that what you say about me means anything?

I would like you to attempt to answer my post to you with more than one-liner insults. Here, try again:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1800171&postcount=216

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, and DHK,

Would you like me to judge you and tell you what I think of you two personally? So what makes you think that what you say about me means anything?

Look, we are not attacking you but trying to help you. Go back to my post concerning Romans 3:27-31 and point out where in that post you think I misinterpreted any verse and give subsustant reasons from that text to support your response.

 

[Moriah]

I would like you to attempt to answer my post to you with more than one-liner insults. Here, try again:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1800171&postcount=216

I have answered all your questions with scripture.

If you are not happy with my answers, then maybe I can try again. Give me one at a time.

 

[Moriah]

Look, we are not attacking you but trying to help you. Go back to my post concerning Romans 3:27-31 and point out where in that post you think I misinterpreted any verse and give subsustant reasons from that text to support your response.

You are the one who complains about my answers. Tell me one thing you would like me to reply to, only one thing at a time, so you will not miss the answer. Go ahead.

 

[The Biblicist]

We must believe and obey. We do not get the Holy Spirit unless we believe and obey. Believing and obeying are not the law of works. It is not the law of works to confess and repent. It is not a law of works to stop cheating on your wife with another woman. It is not a law of works to stop stealing.

Above is your response to a detailed exposition I gave of Romans 3:27-31. There is not one statement above that is backed by one scripture nor is there one statement above that even deals specifically with any statement I made or any evidence I gave. you simply gave your personal opinion!

Go back and give me reasons that are based upon the very Text I used to show that I made any error in my interpretation of that text.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are the one who complains about my answers. Tell me one thing you would like me to reply to, only one thing at a time, so you will not miss the answer. Go ahead.

Ok, fair enough! Let's take my post piece by peice:

Rom. 3:27 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.

Paul had just stated that we are "justified freely by his grace" (v. 24). Now in verse 27 he challenges his readers to find any grounds for boasting. In this challenge "Where is boasting then?" he immediately denies there is any grounds for boasting in justification "freely by his grace" by saying "IT IS EXCLUDED."

At this point he then considers only two contrasting alternatives and why one is based upon a principle (law) that would exclude all boasting while the other is based upon a principle (law) that would include boasting.

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


Here the term "law" is equally applied to both "works" and "faith" but as contrasts. Paul's intent is to prove one excludes boasting while the other includes boasting. Thus the term "law" has the same meaning as when we use it in "law of gravity" or what characterizes gravity or its manifest nature. The character or manifest nature (law) of "works" necessarily includes boasting. In contrast, the character or manifest nature (law) of "faith" excludes boasting.

Ok, do you have any problems with my comments on Romans 3:27 above?

 

[Moriah]

Above is your response to a detailed exposition I gave of Romans 3:27-31. There is not one statement above that is backed by one scripture nor is there one statement above that even deals specifically with any statement I made or any evidence I gave. you simply gave your personal opinion!

Go back and give me reasons that are based upon the very Text I used to show that I made any error in my interpretation of that text.

My reply is the same answer to you every time you continually post the same thing about no works of the law to be saved. I usually always give you scripture to these same answers, but you still ignore them, so I did not give scripture this last time. I will give you the scriptures again here.

I answered according to what your post is about. I do not know how you cannot see it. You continually say we do not have to do anything to be saved. I tell you what the word of God says, and that is what we are to do to be saved.

Here is more details to my reply I gave you that you did not like.

We must believe and obey.

Acts 5:30-32 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead---whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

"...the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

We do not get the Holy Spirit unless we believe and obey.


John 14:23 Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.



Believing and obeying are not the law of works.

See Colossians 2:16. Works of the law are about eating and drinking, a religious festival, a New Moon celebration, a Sabbath day, and circumcision.

The works of the law are a written code with regulations, for worship, and an earthly sanctuary. Gifts and sacrifices were required for worship and the earthly sanctuary. They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washing---external regulations. See Hebrews 9:1,10.

Those things are the works of the law that God nailed to the cross. God forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. See Colossians 2:14.

It is not the law of works to confess and repent. It is not a law of works to stop cheating on your wife with another woman. It is not a law of works to stop stealing.

See Luke 6:9 Then Jesus said to them, "I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?"

 

[The Biblicist]

My reply is the same answer to you every time you continually post the same thing about no works of the law to be saved. I usually always give you scripture to these same answers, but you still ignore them, so I did not give scripture this last time. I will give you the scriptures again here.

Now, don't get mad at me, just listen to me! What you are doing is PITTING scripture against scripture rather than dealing with the text I presented. You have said NOTHING about the text or the arguments based on that text which I used. Instead you JUMPED to other scriptures and simply PITTED them against the text and comments I made on that text.

Why is your response wrong? It is wrong because what you are doing is PROOF TEXTING while what I am doing is given a contextual exposition demonstrating that I am not PROOF TEXTING but interpreting the text within its own context.

Why should I not respond to your prooftexting? Because in order to respond to your PROOFTEXTING I would have to do the same thing I have done with Romans 3:27-31. What is that? I would have to go to the PROOF TEXT you used and then place it back in its context and from that context prove you are misapplying it.

However, the biggest reason I should not respond to your proof texting is that you will simply do the same thing you did in response to Romans 3:27-28 and that is JUMP and run to another PROOF TEXT rather than prove you are rightly using that PROOF TEXT in its context!

Therefore, I am not going to play JUMP and RUN from text to text with you as there is no end of that game.

What you need to do is confront the text and context that I have provided and show me that I have misinterpreted it within its context. When we exhaust that avenue, then and only then will I move to another text and we will examine that text in its context to see if it supports how you are using it.

Do you understand what I am saying?

 

[Moriah]

Ok, fair enough! Let's take my post piece by peice:

Rom. 3:27 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.

Romans 3:27 is about having faith. If a man does all the works of the law, if he gives sin offerings, then what good is it if he is not sorry for his sins? So you see, it is about faith, and not works of the law.
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.

Paul had just stated that we are "justified freely by his grace" (v. 24). Now in verse 27 he challenges his readers to find any grounds for boasting. In this challenge "Where is boasting then?" he immediately denies there is any grounds for boasting in justification "freely by his grace" by saying "IT IS EXCLUDED."

If a person did a bunch of works in order for Jesus to save them, that would give them something to boast about concerning what they have done. Let us say, for instance, if someone had, more people circumcised than another person, than that would be something to boast about concerning being saved. However, if someone humbles him or herself and repents, then where is the boasting in that? Repenting is not a work of the law. Humbling oneself is the opposite of boasting. We are to humble ourselves when we want to be saved. That is not a work to boast about. See James 4:10.

At this point he then considers only two contrasting alternatives and why one is based upon a principle (law) that would exclude all boasting while the other is based upon a principle (law) that would include boasting.

By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith Here the term "law" is equally applied to both "works" and "faith" but as contrasts. Paul's intent is to prove one excludes boasting while the other includes boasting. Thus the term "law" has the same meaning as when we use it in "law of gravity" or what characterizes gravity or its manifest nature. The character or manifest nature (law) of "works" necessarily includes boasting. In contrast, the character or manifest nature (law) of "faith" excludes boasting.

If a person gives a sin offering, or is circumcised, or does not work on the Sabbath, does that mean he is sorry in his heart for sinning? No, it means he is following the law of works. If a person has faith, then that is telling us the condition of their heart. See Acts 15:8. God gives us His Holy Spirit when He accepts us.

Ok, do you have any problems with my comments on Romans 3:27 above?

I have replied to you with all biblical answers. I have shown with scripture that we do not receive the Holy Spirit unless we believe and obey.

I have shown with scripture that what the works of the law are, and humbling oneself and repenting of sin is not a work of the law.

Now, if you want to go against what I say, then do so one at a time like I did for you, and use scriptures.

 

[DHK]

I have answered all your questions with scripture.

If you are not happy with my answers, then maybe I can try again. Give me one at a time.

OK, let's try.
First you quoted me, (a partial quote)

Originally Posted by DHK
The Bible teaches we wage a war against sin?

Your answer was:

Show me the exact scriptures that say what you teach, that we “war against sin.” You teach we war against sin and often loose! Where is that in the scriptures? Nowhere does it say that in the scriptures. That is the teaching you have been trying to teach us all here, and it is false.

However, you only gave a partial quote.

Here is the entire quote from which you took the quote:

Where does it say we are set completely free from sin?

The Bible teaches we wage a war against sin?
Did the Lord provide us spiritual armor in vain?? (Eph.6:11-18)

Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
--But you don't have a struggle against sin; just cut the verse out of your Bible. And you don't need the armor of God anymore do you?

I provided Scripture for you, explained it to you, and then you come back and tell me I don't provide Scripture and my teaching is false. See how deceptive you were here. Instead of refuting the Scripture I gave you, you simply accused me of false teaching instead.

The other comments you made to the Scripture itself was:
You claim we war against sin and normally loose! I do not find your teaching in the Bible.
--That is why I gave you Scripture.

And again, after I quoted it, you said:
Your reasoning is ridiculous, and your argument is nonsense.
--What kind of response is this to the Word of God??

Another example from the same post.
You originally made a statement that said, "People who have faith in something, i.e., like the Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, etc., they want to do right. Do you not know that?"
Now that is not exactly a true statement. So this is what I said in my post:

posted by DHK
1. Catholics--Go to confession once a week and act like the devil the rest of the week.
2. Islam--Being a suicide bomber or "martyr" is the way to paradise.
3. Jews--You don't remember: They crucified Christ.
4. Mormons--It was only a few years ago that they did away with polygamy, and still there are many sects that are doing it.
--Do they want to do right? NO! They want to enjoy their sin and have their religion so they can have an appearance of respectability.

2 Peter 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
--The unsaved are the swine and the dog. They keep returning to their vomit, their sin. As ugly as it tastes, they love it.

Now after all that explanation, thought, and Scripture, I get one smart-alec one-line answer:

"Nothing you say here disproves what I said. You only write things to distract from the truth."
--Not much of a debate is it?
After the verse itself you then added:
You are not even staying on subject.
--The Scripture provided made the point exactly. Unsaved people are like dogs that go right back to their vomit, to their sin. They don't do good. You dismissed as not staying on topic. What kind of debate is that?

Continuing on, you had made another remark about how peoples of other religions do good. I replied once more:

This is your little comment after I posted three passages of Scripture with much commentary on how Christians struggle with sin. You couldn't answer the Scripture could you?

You obviously didn't like this, but in your response you almost admit that you don't study the Bible for yourself. See what you say:

How do you think the rude comment of yours disproves what I am saying? You may try to use many scriptures, but that does not prove your case. Just because you try to use many scriptures does not prove what you say. I can prove you wrong with just one scripture.
--Perhaps my comment was a bit on the sarcastic side. But you realized here that I use many Scriptures. You don't. And you are deceived into thinking that quoting one Scripture is going to refute the totality of what the Bible says.

I said:

You said: "There are people who want to do good."
They can't do good. The Bible says "They love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil."

You responded:
What you say here is more misuse of the scriptures. There are people who want to do good, and there are people who love darkness rather than light… You have not proven they are the same people! You only know what your religion has taught you, and the religion you adhere to is one that is not completely free of Calvinism.
--What did I say that makes you think I misused the Scriptures?
No Muslim is doing good in order to get to heaven. Islam loves darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. These are the words of Jesus that say that man, in general, loves darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. Is Jesus lying?

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

It also says: "Their hearts are deceitful above all things and desperately wicked."
It also says: "There is none righteous...There is none good; no not one."
--They don't do good, and they don't want to do good.

Here you answered:

[/i]You quote incompletely the original scripture. This is from Ecclesiastes who explains that there is no righteous man who does not ever sin. This is from the Old Testament, and Paul uses it to show that Jews are no better than anyone else, that they still sin like others, even though they were God's chosen people. Now, are you now going to admit error? I have explained the truth to you, now are you going to stop preaching error?

[/i]
First I never quoted from Ecclesiastes at all. The quote is from Romans 3, and from the parts that I quoted from it was fairly accurate.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Romans 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
--I quoted from memory that which I needed to quote. I took nothing out of context as you allege.
--The only thing that is proven here is your ignorance of Scripture.
It is not speaking of Israel at all. It is speaking of the whole human race, no one excepted. There is none righteous, no not one.

Context begins in verse 9:
Romans 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
--It can't get much clearer than that, can it?
Both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin. Men love darkness rather than light. Their deeds are evil. They have a depraved heart. As far as salvation is concerned they cannot do good.

Now don't just tell me I am preaching false doctrine. You have to demonstrate it from Scripture. BTW, I am not a Calvinist.

 

[Moriah]

Now, don't get mad at me, just listen to me! What you are doing is PITTING scripture against scripture rather than dealing with the text I presented. You have said NOTHING about the text or the arguments based on that text which I used. Instead you JUMPED to other scriptures and simply PITTED them against the text and comments I made on that text.

You are wrong. I am not pitting scripture against scripture. You just do not see the answers, because you do not want to be corrected.

Why is your response wrong? It is wrong because what you are doing is PROOF TEXTING while what I am doing is given a contextual exposition demonstrating that I am not PROOF TEXTING but interpreting the text within its own context.

I am not telling you anything that is wrong. That is your false accusations.

Why should I not respond to your prooftexting? Because in order to respond to your PROOFTEXTING I would have to do the same thing I have done with Romans 3:27-31. What is that? I would have to go to the PROOF TEXT you used and then place it back in its context and from that context prove you are misapplying it.

Stop calling what I do prooftexting. You never tackle any of my explanations.

However, the biggest reason I should not respond to your proof texting is that you will simply do the same thing you did in response to Romans 3:27-28 and that is JUMP and run to another PROOF TEXT rather than prove you are rightly using that PROOF TEXT in its context!

This is proof that you never tackle any of my explanations. You continually admit it here that you do not and will not reply to my replies.

Therefore, I am not going to play JUMP and RUN from text to text with you as there is no end of that game.

You cannot go against my explanations, because you cannot.

What you need to do is confront the text and context that I have provided and show me that I have misinterpreted it within its context. When we exhaust that avenue, then and only then will I move to another text and we will examine that text in its context to see if it supports how you are using it. Do you understand what I am saying?

I have answered very carefully and patiently, yet you answer by saying you will not answer. This you do all the time.