BobRyan
Well-Known Member
It includes the one where "The First commandment in it with a promise" is the 5th commandment. Eph 6:2
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Sola Scriptura and OSAS...again
- Thread starter Darrell C
- Start date
- Status
It includes the one where "The First commandment in it with a promise" is the 5th commandment. Eph 6:2
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Amen!
Theodore A. Jones
Member
Rom. 2:13 is referencing a law that must be obeyed, but if not obeyed there is no possibility of God declaring you righteous. What is that law?
He makes it clear:
Romans 2:13-15
King James Version (KJV)
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 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)
"Those who "hear the Law" would be those hearing the written Law, which cannot be divorced from either the Covenant or the principles written therein. So the "Law" in view would be first and foremost the Hebrew Scriptures (and we will see primarily a reference to the Pentateuch), though we can view this as "God's will for man as recorded by the Writer/s." The Hebrew Scriptures were divided by the Lord into three parts in the mind of the Jew, and this is maintained by the Lord Himself:
Luke 24:44-45
King James Version (KJV)
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
We see a division also mentioned by the Lord here:
Luke 16:27-29
King James Version (KJV)
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Note that the Lord's teaching has Abraham saying the brothers must "hear" Moses and the Prophets, which would refer to the Pentateuch (first five Books of Scripture credited to Moses) and the Books of Prophecy, which are distinguished from the Wisdom Books (i.e., Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, and Proverbs, for example).
So when we go back to our text...
Romans 2:13-15
King James Version (KJV)
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 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)
...the "Law" in view would primarily be the Pentateuch, because we would probably attribute a consistency to Paul in regards to terminology, and, we see a specific statement concerning the works of the Law being performed by Gentiles who had never "heard" the Law.
Secondly, we have to look at what that itself means (performing the works of the Law written on the hearts of men who had never heard either the Written Law or were exposed to the Covenant of Law). Basically, in view are the principles found in the Law which express one thing: God's will for mankind. So these Gentiles, though never having heard the Law, obeyed those principles which were internal, written on their hearts. Paul is basically making the point that it is within man's nature to know the principles of God's will (i.e., not stealing, lying, committing adultery, etc.) even though one has not been exposed to the Word of God.
We do not, though, make that a basis for Free Will in a salvific context, because we would then violate what is also taught in the Law as well as the New Testament, that no man seeks after God. We also do not equate a Gentile obeying those principles with one obeying the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or that those men were saved by their obedience. Justified, perhaps, as pertaining the flesh, but they will all stand before Christ and be judged according to their response to the Law written on their hearts:
Romans 2:15-16
King James Version (KJV)
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)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
So it is my opinion that these Gentiles will stand at the Great White Throne and be judged according to the Books (of the written Word). They were not made regenerate, as that did not begin until Christ came, and a failure to make that distinction confuses many when it comes to the question of whether "we have to keep the Law" or not. The Law is part of the Covenant of Law, which some do not realize was given distinctly as a means of relationship between God and the People He created to be in relationship with Him, Israel. It was not, as the New Covenant is, given for "all families of the earth," and even though one could become a proselyte that did not make them a part of Israel to where they enjoyed everything Israel did.
There are no Proselytes in Christianity. All who enter into New Covenant Relationship are made one with God and each other. There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile.
And we do not keep the Law to be saved, though we certainly, as Paul wrote, establish the Law. Meaning...we perform the works of the Law. Or in other words, we live according to those same principles given in the Law, and do not come into conflict with them. That is because God promised that would take place...
Ezekiel 36:27
King James Version (KJV)
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
God bless.
We have to distinguish between being declared righteous according to the Law (as James states Abraham was) and being declared righteous through Jesus Christ's Sacrifice:
Romans 3:20-25
King James Version (KJV)
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
First, we recognize the New Testament in many places makes it clear no-one will be justified on an eternal basis through the (works of) the Law.
Paul will now distinguish between the two dispensations:
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
The Hebrew Scriptures testify to what is now the means of righteousness...
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
We can distinguish between what Abraham did (believed, had faith, had works) because that is from a temporal perspective and what Christ did, and a difference between the righteousness imputed.
And Paul makes it clear how we are now justified...
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Abraham wasn't justified through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus...while he was alive. He was justified by faith and works, but not from an eternal perspective. He died still owing his sin debt, and the last sacrifice he would have offered up would have been that of an animal, which brought only temporal and temporary atonement.
We distinguish Abraham's righteousness (based on what he believed and did) and the Righteousness of Christ declared...
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Christ's righteousness was retroactively imputed to the justified saint of the Old Testament, and their sins, which they died still owing a debt for, was paid by Jesus Christ. We see that also here:
Hebrews 9:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Christ redeemed the transgressions that were under the Covenant of Law (and the implicit teaching would be this also applies to sins previous to the establishment of the Covenant of Law, but Hebrews is specific to the Hebrew people).
And the obvious fact is that no-one kept the Law, even when they were under it. Not to a point where they could be eternally redeemed, and therefore receive eternal life:
Galatians 3:21-22
King James Version (KJV)
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
That is why Christ came to bestow Life on men:
John 6:47-51
King James Version (KJV)
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
God bless.
Theodore A. Jones
Member
If you'll look to the right Rom. ch. 3 Paul stated than no person has been nor will be declared righteous by God through observing the written code i.e. "law written on stones". The fact you are misunderstanding is that Paul's writings cannot be understood if it is assumed that the word law in his writings is always referencing the written code. Rom. 2:13 specifies that it is mandatory to obey a law or you specifically will not be declared righteous by God. What is that law?
I think the Husband and wife in Acts that fell over dead disagree with you!
Those texts do NOT refer to loss of salvation, but to being disgraced and loss of eternal rewards!
NONE can or will ever be saved apart from the death of Jesus on the Cross as their sin bearer, period!
Jesus stated that God ONLY demands that one believes in the One that was sent as the Lord/messiah/Savior, correct?
There is sin that leads to physical death, but NONE that leads to spiritual death!
Adam and Eve were saved under what law then?
And if you would actually read the response you will see that I presented that fact...
If you keep reading from here, you will see that it is imputed righteousness which is in view.
Just saying I am "misunderstanding" isn't going to cut it. You are going to need to show why I am misunderstanding.
And so far the only misunderstanding is being presented by yourself, Theodore. I make it clear that no man is declared righteous through the works of the Law.
lol
Galatians 3:21-22
King James Version (KJV)
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.[/QUOTE]
I can't make you understand this, Theodore, not if you ignore what is already said.
The "Law" in view is primarily the Pentateuch (though I reiterate that in view are the principles of the Law as well), and if you read the fuller text you will see that. Do you think Paul switches to a "different Law" when he states...
Romans 2:17-24
King James Version (KJV)
17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
This is the Law, and the principles that is in Romans 2:13, Theodore. Paul does not switch to another Law.
God bless.
Theodore A. Jones
Member
I can't make you understand this, Theodore, not if you ignore what is already said.
The "Law" in view is primarily the Pentateuch (though I reiterate that in view are the principles of the Law as well), and if you read the fuller text you will see that. Do you think Paul switches to a "different Law" when he states...
Romans 2:17-24
King James Version (KJV)
17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
This is the Law, and the principles that is in Romans 2:13, Theodore. Paul does not switch to another Law.
God bless.[/QUOTE]
"there must also be a change of the law." Heb. 7:12b NIV
Theodore A. Jones
Member
I can't make you understand this, Theodore, not if you ignore what is already said.
The "Law" in view is primarily the Pentateuch (though I reiterate that in view are the principles of the Law as well), and if you read the fuller text you will see that. Do you think Paul switches to a "different Law" when he states...
Romans 2:17-24
King James Version (KJV)
17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
This is the Law, and the principles that is in Romans 2:13, Theodore. Paul does not switch to another Law.
God bless.[/QUOTE]
Look bud. I am not the author of Rom. 2:13 right? What you actually must do about what Rom. 2:13 states is rule it to be false in order to substantiate the soteriological paradigm you have faith in. But Jesus Christ was murdered by crucifixion. No! person can gain a direct benefit for himself from a sin.
I didn't know we were buds. Good to know!
I think we can say with some certainty that, no, you are not the Author.
Nor the Writer.
Seeing that you could not understand the simple post answering your question, which you incorrectly ascribed false statements about what I had said, I'm not sure you could understand the Soteriology I hold to.
If you would like to show you could, then you could begin by addressing what you see as error in the post. This time, try not to say I believe things I directly address in the post.
He was? That's funny, I was under the impression that it was God's Plan to take upon Himself a human body, go willingly to the Cross, and die in the stead of the sinner.
John 10:17-18
King James Version (KJV)
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Now I suggest to you that denying that it is the written Law in view as the primary intent of Paul (and again we do not divorce this from the Covenant or principles taught in the Law) is just as erroneous as thinking Jesus Christ was "murdered." You can say that from a temporal perspective but not from an eternal perspective.
Christ's Own statement denies your view.
?
God bless.
Theodore A. Jones
Member
I didn't know we were buds. Good to know!
I think we can say with some certainty that, no, you are not the Author.
Nor the Writer.
Seeing that you could not understand the simple post answering your question, which you incorrectly ascribed false statements about what I had said, I'm not sure you could understand the Soteriology I hold to.
If you would like to show you could, then you could begin by addressing what you see as error in the post. This time, try not to say I believe things I directly address in the post.
He was? That's funny, I was under the impression that it was God's Plan to take upon Himself a human body, go willingly to the Cross, and die in the stead of the sinner.
John 10:17-18
King James Version (KJV)
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Now I suggest to you that denying that it is the written Law in view as the primary intent of Paul (and again we do not divorce this from the Covenant or principles taught in the Law) is just as erroneous as thinking Jesus Christ was "murdered." You can say that from a temporal perspective but not from an eternal perspective.
Christ's Own statement denies your view.
?
God bless.
Don't delude yourself. I am fully aware of the soteriological paradigm you hope in and pontificate. But Paul's statement in Rom. 2:13 is not a falsehood and it exposes all soteriological heresy. There is no possibility the sin of murdering Jesus Christ has resulted in the direct benefit you assert of 'dying in your place', 'paying your sin debt' and even He refutes your conjecture. "When he comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin" AFTER! the sin of murdering him by crucifixion. For your soteriological assumption to be true there cannot be the outstanding issue of guilt relative to sin remaining post of his murder by crucifixion, but he clearly signifies himself that it does and YOU! contest what he says.
Instead of hurling opinions, Theodore, how about backing up at least something you say with Scripture.
Show me how I am deluded...if you don't mind.
As I said, I doubt that very much. You're having trouble with a few basic principles of Scripture, so not likely you're going to understand my views.
But, be glad to see something more than your opinion: quote what I said you disagree with and then provide a Scriptural basis that shows I am deluded.
Of course, this thread will be closed soon, so I appreciate ending it with a little comic relief.
First, it is a false argument that I have implied Romans 2:13 is false.
Secondly, Romans 2:13 does not "expose all soteriological falsehood," as there are numerous false doctrines taught that Romans 2:13 doesn't address.
Third, all I have seen is you asking what the Law is in this verse, and you have not explained...what it is you think it is.
So how about it? How about actually telling someone exactly what it is your trying to say?
Continued...
Are you saying you reject that Christ's offering of Himself did not pay the sin debt? That Christ did not die in the stead of the sinner?
I would also like to know if English is your first language.
Continued...
You do not believe Christ paid/pays the sin debt of the sinner?
Here is one passage for you to show why it does not teach that Christ paid the sin debt for the Old Testament Saint:
Hebrews 9:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
We can start with that then move on to those in Christ who have had their sin debt paid by Christ dying in the stead of the sinner.
Continued...
- Status