Sola Scriptura

[Andre]

4. All are equally have come short of the essential moral law of God found in both inward and outward laws - Rom. 3:9-21

I certainly agree here, but this is hardly an argument that Paul denies what he actually affirms in Romans 1, namely that people are ultimately justified by good deeds.

Again, one needs to consider context. Yes, Romans 9-21 describes the sad state of both Jew and Gentile, lost in sin.

But is that the whole picture. Of course not! Why people think they can use this text to refute ultimate justification by good works (I am not necessarily claiming that you, Dr. Walter, are doing so) is a profound mystery since it is so clear that Paul is, in this chunk of chapter 3. describing the state of man apart from the effect of the cross.

Romans 7 and 8 make it clear that, when a person accepts Jesus, they are delivered from the sad Romans 3:9-20 state:

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So Romans 3:9-20 is certainly not an argument against ultimate justification by good deeds, since it is manifestly clear that hte Christian is delivered from such a state.

But it is most certainly a refutation that the non-believer can be justified by their good works.

5. Both are equally justified before God according to the SAME LAW - THE LAW OF FAITH - Rom. 3:27-28 which has for its object the person and work of Jesus Christ as the SOLE and SUFFICIENT propitiation/satisfaction of divine justice IN THE PLACE OF all who believe "in" this provision of Christ - Rom. 3:24-26.

For reasons I have already provided several times, I entirely agree with this statement. But in embracing this statement, I do not need to deny ultimate justification by good works. And the reasons for this have already been provided.

 

[Andre]

Are you suggesting that the Reformers were the inspired writers of Scripture, or just what are you suggesting? What has the Reformation got to do with anything here?

I was merely responding to what I thought was your implication that the reformers made no errors in their exegesis:

What?? The Reformation did not change any of the truths of the Bible!

In any event, it appears we both agree - the Holy Spirit inspired the original writers.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your position is wrong because it confuses apples with oranges. Romans 6-8:27 does not deal with justification or ultimate justification at all. Indeed the term "justify" or "justification" cannot even be found in this section. Why? Because it is not dealing with justification at all but with the progressive sanctification of those already justified as described previously in Romans 3-5.

What you call ULTIMATE justification is what Paul is dealing with NOW or the daily life in Romans 6:1-8:27 or progressive sanctification by faith.

Paul denies both justification and sanctification by works. Romans 7:14-25 is the denial of sanctification by works whereas Romans 3:9-4:22 is a methodically denial of justification by works.

Your doctrine does not exist except in the THINKING of lost men (Rom. 2:3; 2:17-24).

I certainly agree here, but this is hardly an argument that Paul denies what he actually affirms in Romans 1, namely that people are ultimately justified by good deeds.

Again, one needs to consider context. Yes, Romans 9-21 describes the sad state of both Jew and Gentile, lost in sin.

But is that the whole picture. Of course not! Why people think they can use this text to refute ultimate justification by good works (I am not necessarily claiming that you, Dr. Walter, are doing so) is a profound mystery since it is so clear that Paul is, in this chunk of chapter 3. describing the state of man apart from the effect of the cross.

Romans 7 and 8 make it clear that, when a person accepts Jesus, they are delivered from the sad Romans 3:9-20 state:

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So Romans 3:9-20 is certainly not an argument against ultimate justification by good deeds, since it is manifestly clear that hte Christian is delivered from such a state.

But it is most certainly a refutation that the non-believer can be justified by their good works.


For reasons I have already provided several times, I entirely agree with this statement. But in embracing this statement, I do not need to deny ultimate justification by good works. And the reasons for this have already been provided.

 

[DHK]

This thread has now gone past its 30 page limit and we will now have to close it. Please feel free to start another.