The Apostate Gospel of works

[Andre]

What you have to do is prove by this context it is not the law of Moses.

I agree, and I will do so sometime reasonably soon.

You cannot appeal to texts outside this context and prove anything one way or the other UNLESS the internal context demands one and not the other. This you have not shown at all.

Incorrect. I have already shown in post 242 that Paul uses the term "law" in two different ways in Romans 2. And there will be other arguments to this effect shortly.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You proved absolutely nothing in that post (quoted below). You simply ignored Paul's own explanation. He explicitly states in verse 14 that the Gentile do not have "the law" he has been speaking about in verses 12-13.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law,

Whatever law Paul is referring to is a law that Gentiles "have not"! That leaves only one other possible kind of people who do have it - the Jews.

He goes on to explain that by "nature" they do "the things contained in" the law they have not. Hence, by doing these things WITHOUT HAVING THAT LAW those things they do becomes the standard of law that judges them. This is what Paul refers to in verse 12 about those who have "sinned without the law perish without the law."

Those in verse 12 have "sinned" but they have not violated "the law" they are "without" (v. 12) and thus the same law they "have not" (v. 14).

This law they have by nature that contains the things of the law they do not have is the law written upon their conscience - 15.

You ignore verse 12 "without THE LAW" and verse 14 "THE LAW they have not" as clear explicit references to THE LAW which Jews have! It must be "the law" that Jews have because the ONLY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD - GENTILES - DO NOT HAVE THIS LAW. It is the same "THE LAW" in verse 12 that people in this world "have sinned in THE LAW" and thus "HAVE" this law and will be judged "by the law."

This is so simple, so clear, so a,b,c, clarity that it takes complete willful determined bias to ignore it.

There are two laws from verse 12 to verse 15 that are being consistently contrasted. There is a "law" that has been "sinned" against in verse 12 that is distinct from "THE LAW" that others have sinned "IN".

There is a law in verse 14 that is not "THE LAW" given to Gentiles that Gentiles have sinned against. This law is not "the law" but pertains to things found in "the law" and thus is IN AGREEMENT with "the law" as it is specifically defined as what is written in the conscience by God in verse 15.

It is the law of conscience that they have sinned against and as thus they have sinned "without THE LAW" given to Jews and they will "perish without THE LAW" given to Jews (v. 12) becuase the Gentiles "have not THE LAW" given to Jews (v. 14) but what "law" they do have AGREES with "the law" given to Jews as it has for its author the SAME GOD who wrote "the law" given to Jews.

It agrees with "the law" given to Jews as both "the law" given to Jews and "law" written on the conscience both teach the difference between right and wrong and both have the great commandment as their fundemental rule.

All you have done is ignored the context, distorted it and denied it.

It is easy to show that this general claim is incorrect.

Paul knows, as would any other Biblically knowledgeable person, that the Law of Moses as the written code, was only ever given to Jews.

And yet in this block of text, Paul clearly refers to the Gentile as performing "the law".

Therefore, when Paul refers to the Gentile doing "the law", he cannot be referring to the Law of Moses. He must be referring to something else.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I agree, and I will do so sometime reasonably soon.


Incorrect. I have already shown in post 242 that Paul uses the term "law" in two different ways in Romans 2. And there will be other arguments to this effect shortly.

Andre,

Paul explicitly says there are some people have sinned "in THE LAW" and who will be judged "by THE LAW" in verse 12.

However, in verse 14 Paul denies that such people are the Gentiles as he says the Gentiles "have not THE LAW" and therefore they are those in verse 12 who have "sinned without THE LAW".

There are only two classes of people that Paul is speaking about and there are only two classes of people who will stand in judgment (v. 10 - Jews and Gentiles). If the Gentiles are "without THE LAW" and "have not THE LAW" but others "sin in THE LAW" and will be judged "by THE LAW" then that leaves only JEWS who do "have...THE LAW" and "have sinned in THE LAW" and will be "judged by THE LAW." What law do the Jews have? What law have they sinned against? PAUL ANSWERS THAT IN VERSES 17-24:

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?


It is rather simple to see if anyone is really interested in following Paul's line of logic in verses 10-15.

In contrast, since Paul says the Gentiles "have not THE LAW" (. 14) and if they have sinned they must have "sinned WITHOUT THE LAW" (v. 12). Hence, what law have they sinned against since they "have not THE LAW"? - The law the Jews rest in, boast in, teach others about, etc.

The only other law in the context is that law written upon the conscience (v. 15) which is a law by "nature" as conscience is created in them by God and is part of their human nature. This is the law they have sinned against as it is the only law they have as they "have not THE LAW" spoken of in verses 12-13.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I agree, and I will do so sometime reasonably soon.


Incorrect. I have already shown in post 242 that Paul uses the term "law" in two different ways in Romans 2. And there will be other arguments to this effect shortly.

If "the Gentiles have not the law" then who does?

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Greek term "phusis" translated "nature" in Romans 2:14 is used once by Paul in Romans previous to Rom. 2:14 and immeidately after Romans 2;14 and carries the same meaning all three times - "natural design" found in physical birth.

Ro 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

God's natural design in physical birth or designed use by nature is violated when women commit homosexual sin with other women.


Ro 2:14 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:

By physical birth the gentile comes into the world with "conscience" as part of his natural condition by physical birth and design by God (v. 15).

Ro 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

The Jew "by the letter" of the Law is circumised but the gentile who "by nature" or physical birth - comes into this world "uncirumcised".

 

[Dr. Walter]

To other readers of this thread:

Is there any reader of this thread that is willing to take up for Andre and show me where my exposition of Romans 2:10-24 is in error concerning the identity of "the law"?

Is there any reader of this thread that agrees with Andre that "the law" in Romans 2:10-24 is not the Jewish Law?

Is there any reader of this thread that agrees with Andre that the "law" which the Gentile does have in Romans 2:14-15 is not the law written upon the conscience?

Is there anyone out there who can defend Andre's interpretation of "the law" to be anything other than Jewish law?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW, do you believe the ten commandments were just for or pertained only to the Jews as opposed to being moral law that applies to all men in all ages so long as we are in this world, Jews and Gentiles alike?

 

[Dr. Walter]

DW, do you believe the ten commandments were just for or pertained only to the Jews as opposed to being moral law that applies to all men in all ages so long as we are in this world, Jews and Gentiles alike?

What does Jesus say the whole law hangs on? Do you believe that all humans in all races should love the Lord God above all else and with all their being and their neighbor as themselves?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I agree, and I will do so sometime reasonably soon.


Incorrect. I have already shown in post 242 that Paul uses the term "law" in two different ways in Romans 2. And there will be other arguments to this effect shortly.

GE:
Paul ALWAYS presupposes 'law' in it's vastest scope possible, and in its most condensed essence. In other words, as comprising all 'law' or 'duty' of man as revealed in Scripture in its totality.

Which is the 'Law' "Love God above all and your neighbour as yourself" WHETHER IN THE FORM of 'moral' or 'ceremonial' or whatever 'law'. Paul knew NTHER 'Law' than God's Law.

 

[quantumfaith]

Could it be that the "quibbling" here with respect to "law" (conscience) and "the law) (Mosaic Law) is unnecessary when the real importance is that we should be "doers" rather than "hearers" (quibblers)?

 

[Tom Butler]

We don't need to quibble over the definition of the law by which Gentiles will be judged.

Romans 2:14-15 specifically says that Gentiles, who don't even know about the law, have the law written on their hearts. They are a "law unto themselves." I take that to mean the conscience. They have within them a sense of right and wrong, even if it somewhat corrupted. Regardless of what we think the law is, it is their own moral philosophy by which they will be judged.

They will acknowledge that they are guilty, because they did not even follow their own conscience. That is the basis of their condemnation.

They cannot be condemned for rejecting the Christ of whom they have never heard.

Wait, I hear somebody saying, what about John 3:18 which says they are condemned already because they haven't believed in the only begotten son of God?

Well, what about Romans 10:14, "how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard?

Romans 2:15 and Romans 10:14 destroy two arguments. One, that everybody has somehow heard the gospel; Or, if they haven't, God will cut them some slack, and save them anyway.

If God is going to save them anyway, for goodness sake let's bring home all missionaries, lest they preach Christ to someone who rejects the gospel, thus condemning someone who otherwise might have been saved anyway.

 

[Andre]

You proved absolutely nothing in that post (quoted below). You simply ignored Paul's own explanation. He explicitly states in verse 14 that the Gentile do not have "the law" he has been speaking about in verses 12-13.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law,

Whatever law Paul is referring to is a law that Gentiles "have not"! That leaves only one other possible kind of people who do have it - the Jews.

No. My argument is correct. Paul refers to a "law" that the Gentiles "obey", yet is clearly not the Law of Moses, since here, as elsewhere it is eminently clear that Paul understands that the Law of Moses is for Jews and Jews only.

Obviously I agree with you that in verse 14 Paul talks about a law - clearly the Law of Moses - that the Gentiles do not have. But this does not mean that Paul is not permitted to talk about a second "law" - one that the Gentiles can and do indeed obey. And this is my argument - Paul does indeed talk about two different kinds of law in Romans 2. Now, I agree that I have yet to show which law Paul is referring to in verse 13.

But that Paul has different laws in mind in this passage is clear.

You seem to implicitly assume that Paul can only be referring to one "law" in this passage. That is an illegimate, question-begging assumption, if that is indeed what you are assuming.

He goes on to explain that by "nature" they do "the things contained in" the law they have not. Hence, by doing these things WITHOUT HAVING THAT LAW those things they do becomes the standard of law that judges them.

Here is what Paul says:

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do (Y)instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,

This actually supports my argument - it shows that in Paul's mind the Gentile obeys a "law" which is not the Law of Moses, even though it is closely related to it.

More evidence that, in this passage, Paul has two "laws" in his mind.

This is what Paul refers to in verse 12 about those who have "sinned without the law perish without the law."

Those in verse 12 have "sinned" but they have not violated "the law" they are "without" (v. 12) and thus the same law they "have not" (v. 14).

This law they have by nature that contains the things of the law they do not have is the law written upon their conscience - 15.

I sort of agree with you here. I will shortly be making a case that Paul is only talking about Gentile Christians here, not Gentiles in general. But that aside, you are not saying anything here that challenges my argument. In fact, it supports my argument - Paul sees the Gentile as obeying a "law" which is not the Law of Moses.

You ignore verse 12 "without THE LAW" and verse 14 "THE LAW they have not" as clear explicit references to THE LAW which Jews have!

Of course, I do no such thing. I entirely agree that the "law the Gentile do not have" is indeed the Law of Moses.

This is so simple, so clear, so a,b,c, clarity that it takes complete willful determined bias to ignore it.

You have made no case that I have made error in interpreting Paul, so this statement is not relevant. I suggest the big error here is not accepting that Paul has two "law" in mind here. The key thing is that this opens the possibility that the "law" in verse 13 is indeed this "second" law - the one that is not the Law of Moses. If I can show that the "law" in verse 13 is indeed something other than the Law of Moses, then I can do the following:

1. Agree that people will indeed be justified by following this second law, thereby agreeing with 2:13;

2. Agree that no one gets justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses, thereby argreeing with Paul in chapter 4.

I will deal the rest of your post later.

All you have done is ignored the context, distorted it and denied it.

You can claim this, but that does not make it so.

It is not appropriate for you to make suggestions that I have distorted or denied anything. You simply have no evidence at all to sustain such speculations.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1581062#post1581062
DW, do you believe the ten commandments were just for or pertained only to the Jews as opposed to being moral law that applies to all men in all ages so long as we are in this world, Jews and Gentiles alike?

DW: What does Jesus say the whole law hangs on? Do you believe that all humans in all races should love the Lord God above all else and with all their being and their neighbor as themselves?

HP: Yes, but you are not answering my question. Tell us what part of the ten commandments are in opposition to the law of love towards God and love towards man, or are they for Jews only? Joh 14:15 ¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Tell us what commandments of the ten commandments you can break and still say you are keeping the commandments and thereby showing your love towards God.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Obviously I agree with you that in verse 14 Paul talks about a law - clearly the Law of Moses - that the Gentiles do not have.

Since you have admitted that the Gentiles are without "the law" in verse 14 then the Gentiles must be those people in verse 12 who have sinned "WITHOUT the law" whereas it is the Jews in verse 12 that have sinned "in the law" as verse 10 restricts all who come into judgement as either Jews or gentiles. Hence, since those who "have not" the Jewish law are Gentiles then they must be those in verse 12 who have SINNED "without THE LAW" and those in verse 12 who have sinned "IN the law" must be Jews and on judgement day the Jews will be judged by the JEWISH LAW.

Hence, TWO laws just as you say, one for the Gentile, another for the Jew in the day of judgement both of which have been "SINNED" against and thus the law the Gentile sinned against they will "PERISH" by just as the law the Jews have sinned against they will be judged by.

Hence, your following comment is wrong as the Gentiles do not obey it but already in verse 12 have been condemned by it as those "SINNED" and therefore will "PERISH" by it.

But this does not mean that Paul is not permitted to talk about a second "law" - one that the Gentiles can and do indeed obey.

Verse 12 already identifies both the Gentiles and the law they have "SINNED" and it is not the Jewish law. Hence, this flatly denies your contention they have obeyed it. Verses 14-15 simply identify and define what law it is that is not Jewish which they have "sinned" against and in the day of judgement will be used to judge them so they "PERISH" by it.

And this is my argument - Paul does indeed talk about two different kinds of law in Romans 2. Now, I agree that I have yet to show which law Paul is referring to in verse 13.

Verse 13 refers to "the law" that can be HEARD and since there are only TWO options in verse 12 then it can only refer to the JEWISH LAW. The gentiles are "WITHOUT" the Jewish law but have nevertheless "sinned" against and will "perish" by the law they have sinned against. God never gave the Gentiles a law that can be HEARD! That leaves only the Jewish law as it is the only other law in verse 12. The Jewish law was read regularly every Sabbath day and was HEARD by all the Jews.

You seem to implicitly assume that Paul can only be referring to one "law" in this passage. That is an illegimate, question-begging assumption, if that is indeed what you are assuming.

I have pointed out TWO laws for TWO kinds of people beginning in verse 10-12. The context is the day of judgement and there are only TWO types of people present - JEWS and GENTILES (v. 10) but God will not respect their persons whether Jew or Gentile (v. 11). The Gentile was not given the Jewish law (v. 14) so is the one who has SINNED "without THE LAW" and will "PERISH without the law" of Moses, whereas the Jew was given the Law and is therefore those who have SINNED "in the law" and will be judged by the law" of Moses. The Gentile never obeyed the law they were under as Paul says clearly they have "SINNED" in it. The Gentiles never obeyed the law they were under any more than the Jew has obeyed the law they have "SINNED" in. The gentile will "PERISH" under the law they have "SINNED" just as the Jew will be judged and perish under the law they have "SINNED" in.

Here is what Paul says:

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do (Y)instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,

This actually supports my argument - it shows that in Paul's mind the Gentile obeys a "law" which is not the Law of Moses, even though it is closely related to it.

So far in this context the law that the Gentile has "SINNED" against and will "PERISH" under in verse 12 has not been identified by Paul except by contrast - it is "WITHOUT the law" of Moses.

Verses14-15 identifies and defines what law the Gentiles have "SINNED" against and will "PERISH" by, that is not the Law given to the Jews (v. 14a). It is the law that is given them in regard to their "nature" by physical birth - the conscience. The term "nature" is used immediately before this text and after it and it means that which is in keeping with God's design for human nature.

For example, it is used to show that homosexuality is contrary to God's design for human nature in Romans 1:26-27.

For example, it is used in Romans 2:27 to show that circumcision is not natural by birth but occurs in response to the letter of the law.

Likewise, Paul defines the law that Gentiles have sinned against in verse 12 and which they will "perish" by in the day of Judgement to be what God has given them in His design of human nature - the conscience.

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

If Paul is not defining in verses14-15 what the Gentile has sinned against and will perish by in verse 12 then there is no contextual identity of the law they have violated in verse 12.

I will shortly be making a case that Paul is only talking about Gentile Christians here, not Gentiles in general.

There is no reasonable or rational way that Romans 2:14-15 is talking about any kind of Christians whether Jew or Gentile. He has already claimed the Gentile has broken this law in verse 12 and there are only two options given in verse 12 not three!

There is no way the term "nature" in verse 14 can refer to the new birth as the term is consistently used before and after verse 14 by Paul to mean those things associated with or contrary to the PHYSICAL BIRTH or the ordinary (Rom. 1:26; 2:27). Even in Romans 11:24 it means the ordinary. Grafting branches of a tree into another tree is not ordinary or keeping with how it naturally grows.

Paul is defining the law that the Gentiles have SINNED against in verse 12 and by which they will "PERISH" by as conscience will be used on the day of judgement as a WITNESS against them:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, COLOR="DarkRed"]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.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The ceremonial and civil applications of the Law were added in the time of Moses for the Jewish civiliation as a covenant between God and the nation of Israel. That covenant has been abolished (Col. 2:14-16; Heb. 8-9).

We are no longer under the Jewish administration of the law as the ceremonial aspects of it have been fulfilled in the life and death of Christ (Heb. 10:1-4; Col. 2:16). As a "shadow" is completed in the "very image."

We are not justified before God by observing the moral aspect of it as none have observed it satisfactory according to God's standard of Righteousness, which is in keeping with His own righteousness (Mt. 5:48; James 2:10-11; Rom. 3:9-20; Gal. 3:10-12).

The moral law was given to reveal sin and that is exactly why it is placed in the negative "not" as it was designed to restrain the fallen nature of man. The moral law was given to lead us to faith in Christ as the fulfillment of the righteousness demanded by the law (Rom. 10:1-4; Gal. 3:22-26).

The moral law whether written in stone or in the conscience of man is applicable today for the same reason it was given by God - to instruct us in God's standard of right and wrong, to reveal our sin and lead us to Christ but NOTHING MORE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1581062#post1581062
DW, do you believe the ten commandments were just for or pertained only to the Jews as opposed to being moral law that applies to all men in all ages so long as we are in this world, Jews and Gentiles alike?



HP: Yes, but you are not answering my question. Tell us what part of the ten commandments are in opposition to the law of love towards God and love towards man, or are they for Jews only? Joh 14:15 ¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Tell us what commandments of the ten commandments you can break and still say you are keeping the commandments and thereby showing your love towards God.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The term "nature" (Gr. phusis) as used by Paul in the book of Romans repudiates Andre's forced interpretation of Romans 2:14-15 to mean these are Christians who by nature of a regenerated heart obey the law of God.

1. The context repudiates it as "phusis" is used both before and after to things which have to do with human nature according to the natural birth (Rom. 1:26; 2:27).

2. The immediate context of Romans 2:10-15 repudiates it as the ONLY LAW in contrast to Jewish law in verse 12 has been violated ("sinned") against by Gentiles. Only two laws considered and the Gentile law has been violated by gentiles.

3. The immediate context of Romans 2:10-15 repudiates it as there is no other contextual identification of the law Gentiles have sinned against in verse 12 other than that law defined in connection with Gentiles in verses 14-15 - the law of conscience.

4. The law of conscience has for its Author the same author of the Jewish law and the "things that pertain" to the Jewish law - moral law - pertain to the law of conscience in performing the very same function - " bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another" which is the purpose of the law - to define sin and righteousness.

5. In all heathen cultures there is evidence of the moral law as found in the Ten commandments as in the code of Hammurabi. Since no written revelation has been given the gentiles this can only come by what God has provided in regard to the human "nature" - conscience which acts in the same capacity as the Jewish Law to define sin and righteousness - bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another"

Andre's interpretation is not only forced in order to harmonize with his presuppositions but is directly contrary to Paul's own estimation of what He was trying to do from Romans 1:18-3:8 and that is to prove that the Gentiles as well as Jews are all "under sin" (Rom. 3:9) and thus under judgement by the law (Rom. 3:19-20). The gospel of Christ reveals the wrath of God either satisified by Christ or satisfied by those who attempt to come before God on the basis of their own righteousness (Rom. 2:16) and Romans 2:6-10 is found squarely in context where the immediate preceding verses are dealing with HYPOCRITES and the immediate following verses are dealing with HYPOCRITES who believe they can escape the judgement of God by their own good works.

Since you have admitted that the Gentiles are without "the law" in verse 14 then the Gentiles must be those people in verse 12 who have sinned "WITHOUT the law" whereas it is the Jews in verse 12 that have sinned "in the law" as verse 10 restricts all who come into judgement as either Jews or gentiles. Hence, since those who "have not" the Jewish law are Gentiles then they must be those in verse 12 who have SINNED "without THE LAW" and those in verse 12 who have sinned "IN the law" must be Jews and on judgement day the Jews will be judged by the JEWISH LAW.

Hence, TWO laws just as you say, one for the Gentile, another for the Jew in the day of judgement both of which have been "SINNED" against and thus the law the Gentile sinned against they will "PERISH" by just as the law the Jews have sinned against they will be judged by.

Hence, your following comment is wrong as the Gentiles do not obey it but already in verse 12 have been condemned by it as those "SINNED" and therefore will "PERISH" by it.




Verse 12 already identifies both the Gentiles and the law they have "SINNED" and it is not the Jewish law. Hence, this flatly denies your contention they have obeyed it. Verses 14-15 simply identify and define what law it is that is not Jewish which they have "sinned" against and in the day of judgement will be used to judge them so they "PERISH" by it.




Verse 13 refers to "the law" that can be HEARD and since there are only TWO options in verse 12 then it can only refer to the JEWISH LAW. The gentiles are "WITHOUT" the Jewish law but have nevertheless "sinned" against and will "perish" by the law they have sinned against. God never gave the Gentiles a law that can be HEARD! That leaves only the Jewish law as it is the only other law in verse 12. The Jewish law was read regularly every Sabbath day and was HEARD by all the Jews.






I have pointed out TWO laws for TWO kinds of people beginning in verse 10-12. The context is the day of judgement and there are only TWO types of people present - JEWS and GENTILES (v. 10) but God will not respect their persons whether Jew or Gentile (v. 11). The Gentile was not given the Jewish law (v. 14) so is the one who has SINNED "without THE LAW" and will "PERISH without the law" of Moses, whereas the Jew was given the Law and is therefore those who have SINNED "in the law" and will be judged by the law" of Moses. The Gentile never obeyed the law they were under as Paul says clearly they have "SINNED" in it. The Gentiles never obeyed the law they were under any more than the Jew has obeyed the law they have "SINNED" in. The gentile will "PERISH" under the law they have "SINNED" just as the Jew will be judged and perish under the law they have "SINNED" in.




So far in this context the law that the Gentile has "SINNED" against and will "PERISH" under in verse 12 has not been identified by Paul except by contrast - it is "WITHOUT the law" of Moses.

Verses14-15 identifies and defines what law the Gentiles have "SINNED" against and will "PERISH" by, that is not the Law given to the Jews (v. 14a). It is the law that is given them in regard to their "nature" by physical birth - the conscience. The term "nature" is used immediately before this text and after it and it means that which is in keeping with God's design for human nature.

For example, it is used to show that homosexuality is contrary to God's design for human nature in Romans 1:26-27.

For example, it is used in Romans 2:27 to show that circumcision is not natural by birth but occurs in response to the letter of the law.

Likewise, Paul defines the law that Gentiles have sinned against in verse 12 and which they will "perish" by in the day of Judgement to be what God has given them in His design of human nature - the conscience.

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

If Paul is not defining in verses14-15 what the Gentile has sinned against and will perish by in verse 12 then there is no contextual identity of the law they have violated in verse 12.




There is no reasonable or rational way that Romans 2:14-15 is talking about any kind of Christians whether Jew or Gentile. He has already claimed the Gentile has broken this law in verse 12 and there are only two options given in verse 12 not three!

There is no way the term "nature" in verse 14 can refer to the new birth as the term is consistently used before and after verse 14 by Paul to mean those things associated with or contrary to the PHYSICAL BIRTH or the ordinary (Rom. 1:26; 2:27). Even in Romans 11:24 it means the ordinary. Grafting branches of a tree into another tree is not ordinary or keeping with how it naturally grows.

Paul is defining the law that the Gentiles have SINNED against in verse 12 and by which they will "PERISH" by as conscience will be used on the day of judgement as a WITNESS against them:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, COLOR="DarkRed"]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.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: The moral law whether written in stone or in the conscience of man is applicable today for the same reason it was given by God - to instruct us in God's standard of right and wrong, to reveal our sin and lead us to Christ but NOTHING MORE.

HP: If the ten commandments reveal our sin today, the principles are as alive and well today as they were then. Keeping the principles of the ten commandments was binding on the Jews then and is still binding on a spiritual Jew today as well. We are spiritual Jews. Would you not agree?? If they are not binding to us today, tell us the least of those that you believe you can break with impunity. Think very carefully DW, very carefully.


Joh 14:15 ¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Apparently you read my response hastily. I said the law then and now has no salvational function whatsoever. It's only purpose is to reveal the knowledge of sin and lead us to Christ for rightousness.

Hence, breaking the law then or now makes no difference as ALL HAVE already done that and ALL currently do it even Christians (I Jn. 1:8-10). That is precisely why the Law cannot save but only condemns sinners. We are "dead" to the law in regard to its condemnation and penalty (Rom. 7:1-5).

HP: If the ten commandments reveal our sin today, the principles are as alive and well today as they were then. Keeping the principles of the ten commandments was binding on the Jews then and is still binding on a spiritual Jew today as well. We are spiritual Jews. Would you not agree?? If they are not binding to us today, tell us the least of those that you believe you can break with impunity. Think very carefully DW, very carefully.


Joh 14:15 ¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 

[Andre]

Since you have admitted that the Gentiles are without "the law" in verse 14 then the Gentiles must be those people in verse 12 who have sinned "WITHOUT the law" whereas it is the Jews in verse 12 that have sinned "in the law" as verse 10 restricts all who come into judgement as either Jews or gentiles. Hence, since those who "have not" the Jewish law are Gentiles then they must be those in verse 12 who have SINNED "without THE LAW" and those in verse 12 who have sinned "IN the law" must be Jews and on judgement day the Jews will be judged by the JEWISH LAW.

Hence, TWO laws just as you say, one for the Gentile, another for the Jew in the day of judgement both of which have been "SINNED" against and thus the law the Gentile sinned against they will "PERISH" by just as the law the Jews have sinned against they will be judged by.

Hence, your following comment is wrong as the Gentiles do not obey it but already in verse 12 have been condemned by it as those "SINNED" and therefore will "PERISH" by it.

Verse 12 already identifies both the Gentiles and the law they have "SINNED" and it is not the Jewish law. Hence, this flatly denies your contention they have obeyed it. Verses 14-15 simply identify and define what law it is that is not Jewish which they have "sinned" against and in the day of judgement will be used to judge them so they "PERISH" by it.

No. My statement was fine. Paul clearly does state that there will be some Gentiles who indeed obey this mysterious second law:

For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves

So, yes, Gentiles can indeed obey this second "law". And I plan to show (in fact I already have done this in other threads, but I will do it again) that these can only be Gentile Christians.

Now back to verse 12:

For all who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law,

Note that the structure of Paul's argument compels us to read verse 12 as being addressed to those Gentiles who substantively do not keep this law. In other words, Paul has qualified those who will perish - they are those who have sinned "apart from the law". And he contrasts this Gentile with other Gentiles who indeed will be justified:

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

The rhetorical structure of this is clear - there are some Gentiles who will perish. Paul clearly implies here that these are Gentiles who "hear the law" - in this case this mysterious 2nd law - and yet do not do it.

But then we get the other side of the coin - Gentiles who who indeed "obey the law" and are justified. Remember, in the very next verse, Paul will make it clear beyond doubt that there are indeed Gentiles who are able to keep this mysterious 2nd law:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves,

Now I suspect you will argue that since all Gentiles - Christian or otherwise - have sinned at some point, then it doesn't matter - verse 12 implies that all Gentiles will perish "without the law".

There are at least 2 problems with that line of thinking:

(1) Consistency requires that you claim that Gentile Christians are not present at this judgement since, if they were, they too would "perish apart from the law". And I am quite confident that you will not be able to make that case, although I am confident that you will try.

(2) As shown above, when you set verse 12 in context with 13 and 14, it is really quite clear that Paul is not referring to all Gentiles in 12 when he talks about Gentiles perishing. He is instead talking about those Gentile who "sin" in the sense of being "hearers and not doers" of the "law". And he says that doers will indeed be be justified.

 

[Andre]

The term "nature" (Gr. phusis) as used by Paul in the book of Romans repudiates Andre's forced interpretation of Romans 2:14-15 to mean these are Christians who by nature of a regenerated heart obey the law of God.

No. The use of "by nature" strengthens my argument, it does not at all repudiate it.

In Romans 2, there is a statement about the “law” being written on the heart of the Gentile:

13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Although this text is widely seen as suggesting that God’s “law” is written on the hearts of human beings in general, Paul here is instead describing the writing of the “law” on the hearts of believers (and in this context, specifically Gentile believers).

The entire discussion turns on the Greek word that has been translated here in the NASB as “instinctively” in verse 14. I am going to argue that this rendering does not properly express Paul’s intent. I will argue that Paul basis assertion is not this:

“when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively do the things of the Law…”

…but instead this:

“when Gentiles who do not have the Law by birth, do the things of the Law….

The reader should note that while the first rendering indeed suggests that pagan Gentiles have a form of law written on their hearts, the second rendering in no sense preferentially supports such a reading over a reading where it is only believing Gentiles that have the law written on their heart (the position that I hold).

The greek root word at issue is “fusei”, which is often translated as “by nature” (although not in the NASB rendering of 2:14 where it is rendered as “instinctively”). The western reader should be careful to understand this properly. Paul uses this very same word, in other contexts, to denote what is true of someone by virtue of the circumstances of their birth. One example is Ephesian 2:3:

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles

Clearly, Paul means "by birth" here. He is not asserting that Jews are born with fundamentally different inner constitutions than Gentiles.

Perhaps more tellingly, we have this same root “fusei” used just a few verses further on in Romans 2:

27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?

The same Greek root “fusei” is rendered here as “physically” and as “instinctively” in verse 14. Note how the word is rendered in the YLT translation of 2:27:

and the uncircumcision, by nature, fulfilling the law, shall judge thee who, through letter and circumcision, [art] a transgressor of law.

Clearly the term “fusei” should be understood as having a “by birth” meaning here in verse 27 – being uncircumcised is a circumstance of birth for the Gentile. It seems only reasonable that Paul uses this same greek root in the same “by birth” sense only a few verses back in 2:14.

Thus, it is highly plausible that what Paul is saying in about the law in verse 14 is that the Gentiles do not possess it by the circumstances of their birth, and not that the unregenerate Gentile has an innate, or instinctive sense of the law.

In fact, note how Jeremiah, uses very same “law written on the heart” concept:

But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people

Note how the prophet uses “law written on the heart” language to describe something that will happen in the future and will which will be effective only for believers. Paul is deeply knowledgeable of Old Testament concepts and would more likely than not use “law written on the heart” language in the same way it was used in the Old Testament.