The Apostate Gospel of works

[Chowmah]

somethin to ponder from the WORD

MATT.7 [22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?[23] And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM ME, YE THAT WORK INIQUITY.

PSALMS 119 [113] I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love.[114] Thou art my hiding place and my shield: I hope in thy word.[115] DEPART FROM ME, YE EVILDOERS: FOR I WILL KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF MY GOD.[116] Uphold me according unto thy word, that I may live: and let me not be ashamed of my hope.

Depart from me! Seems there will be many people who will be saying “I believe” when Jesus returns. Who had talked of Jesus and spoke in his name. Some that even have cast out devils in the name of Jesus. But “in that day” Jesus will say to “the many”, depart from me...I never knew you. So are there any scripture which point out the people that do know God?

1JOHN2 [3] AND HEREBY WE DO KNOW THAT WE KNOW HIM, IF WE KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS.[4] He that saith, i know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.[5] But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

Yup

 

[Andre]

somethin to ponder from the WORD

MATT.7 [22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?[23] And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM ME, YE THAT WORK INIQUITY.

Hello.

We agree that "good works" are necessary for ultimate salvation.

We disagree on the status of the Law of Moses - you seem to think that it is still in force, at least in part.

I think it has entirely been retired.

In my defence, I would point out that it is an error of logic to argue thus:

1. The Law of Moses tells us not to kill;
2. Therefore, to suggest that the Law of Moses has been retired effectively entails an assertion that it is "OK" to kill.

That kind of thinking would not be correct.

 

[Chowmah]

Hello.

We agree that "good works" are necessary for ultimate salvation.

We disagree on the status of the Law of Moses - you seem to think that it is still in force, at least in part.

I think it has entirely been retired.

OK Andre, why do you think the law has been retired? The bible says Jesus fulfilled the law. What does this mean, according to the scriptures?

MATT.5 [17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, ONE JOT OR ONE TITTLE SHALL IN NO WISE PASS FROM THE LAW, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED.[19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.[20] For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.[21] Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, THOU SHALT NOT KILL; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:[22] But I say unto you, That WHOSOEVER IS ANGRY WITH HIS BROTHER WITHOUT A CAUSE shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, SHALL BE IN DANGER OF HELL FIRE.

What did Jesus mean when he said he came to fulfill the law? Did he mean he came to do away with the law or make the law even greater? First he says he has not come to destoy the law. OK. Then he goes on to say the law is intact until heaven and earth pass. I know the earth is still here, so according to Jesus we are still under the law. And when we look at verses 21 and 22 we can see how Jesus fulfilled the law. He tells us not only to keep the letter of the law (thou shall not kill) but we are also to keep the spirit of the law (don’t even get angry).

ROMANS 7 [12] Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. [13] Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. [14] For we know that THE LAW IS SPIRITUAL: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

The law is spiritual. The letter of the law is so much easier to keep than the spirit of the law. Jesus magnified the law to a spiritual realm. And if you sit and think about it you will realize you cant keep the spirit of the law if you are not first walking in the letter of the law.

MATT.5 [27] Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:[28] But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Again Jesus fills full another one of the 10 commandments. Adultry (the letter of the law) and lust of the eyes (the spirit of the law).

ISAIAH 42 [20] Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.[21] The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; HE WILL MAGNIFY THE LAW, and make it honourable.

Isaiah 42 is speaking of Jesus. Just read the whole chapter. Theres no question about it. A prophecy fulfilled! The above scripture says Jesus would come and will magnify the law. The new testament bears this out. He made the commandments even greater by telling us we are to walk in spirit of the law.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Again, you seem to see things that are not there.

Nowhere in Romans 1:18-20 is there any mention of the Gentile being under the Law of Moses. That is what I was saying.

Romans 1:18-20 was joined with Rom. 2:14-15 and "the law" written upon conscience. In Romans 1:19 there is INWARD revelation as well as OUTWARD revelation. This INWARD revelation is later identified as "the law" written upon their conscience (Rom. 2:11-14).

Don't play word games, we have been over this many times and you have admitted that "the law" written upon their conscience is what they will be judged by just as the law written upon stone and paper is the law by which the Jew will be judged by.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I suggest that you are the one with the "problem" here.

And the problem is that you simply assume that because Paul critiques the Jew for hypocricy in respect to keeping the Law of Moses, that this means that Paul is also denying the necessity of good works for salvation.

You are, of course, mistaken if this is your thinking.


The issue is not with my "eyes", it is with your refusal (or inability) to recognize a circular argument. And I have already made my argument that this is what you are doing.

Either your blind or cannot read English. This text explicitly states that it is THE LAW which the Jew rests upon and boasts in. Your interpretation would force this passage to read that it is being JEWISH that the Jew rests upon and boasts in. If you are literate this proves your position is wrong, if you are illiterate then get out of the discussion until you learn to read.

Second, This text explicitly states what it is about "the law" they rest in and boast in. It is that know HIS WILL concerning what God APPROVES and they know sufficiently to TEACH it to others! If your position were correct than what it would be HIS WILL to be a Jew and that he approves of being JEWISH over gentile. However, that is not what Paul goes on to say. HIS WILL and what he APPROVES and what they TEACH is not to become Jewish but to OBEY THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND OTHER LAWS OF GOD AS HE THEN LISTS EXACTLY WHAT THEY BOAST IN, KNOW TO BE HIS WILL AND TEACH.

However, you pervert, distort and twist Paul's words to mean their boast and what they rest in and what God's Will to be is BECOMING JEWISH!

Can't make English more clear, more plain, more explicit that it is the "DEEDS of the law" or the "WORKS of the law" is their boast and what they KNOW to be HIS WILL and what they REST in to be justified before God on judgement day.

 

[Jedi Knight]

somethin to ponder from the WORD

MATT.7 [22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?[23] And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM ME, YE THAT WORK INIQUITY.

Something to ponder...I believe Jesus had Judas in mind when telling this. Judas did all the above and still never had salvation.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I suggest that you are the one with the "problem" here.

And the problem is that you simply assume that because Paul critiques the Jew for hypocricy in respect to keeping the Law of Moses, that this means that Paul is also denying the necessity of good works for salvation.

You are, of course, mistaken if this is your thinking.


The issue is not with my "eyes", it is with your refusal (or inability) to recognize a circular argument. And I have already made my argument that this is what you are doing.

Circular reasoning????? What a stupid remark! There is no circular reasong here by me. I simply pointed out the precise language of Paul that describes that the observance of the ten commandments, three which he explicitly lists (adultery, lying, idolatry along with the ceremonial laws) is the BOAST of the Jew and what he RESTS in for his own justification before God. However, you and Andre simply reject what is explictily stated here in plain English. There is NO circular reasoning in anything I said. I simply pointed out what Paul pointedly identifies to be the basis of their boast and what they rest in AND IT IS NOT BEING A JEW BUT IT IS THE MORAL AND CEREMONIAL LAWS AS THEIR BASIS FOR JUSTIFICATION WHICH THEY CLAIM TO KNOW TO BE THE WILL OF GOD, THE STANDARD FOR WHAT GOD APPROVES AND WHAT THEY CLAIM TBEY AND TEACH OTHERS.

It is obedience in the MORAL LAW (not lying, not committing adultery, not committing idolatry) and obedience to the CEREMONIAL LAW (circumcision) that furnishes their BOAST to be better than the gentile and what they REST in to justify them before God. It is this basis for this boast that Paul in Romans 3:27 denies can justify ANYONE and in Romans 3:19-20 Paul asserts that "NO FLESH" can be justified.

You and Andre simply ignore what is explicitly stated, defined and denounced by Paul BECAUSE IT IS YOU OWN BOAST and it is what YOU REST in to be justified before God as both of you teach and believe in the accursed gospel.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Hello.

We agree that "good works" are necessary for ultimate salvation.

By your own confession you both are accursed by God. Romans 2:17-18 explicitly states this is the same boast of the Jew and the same basis that he RESTS upon to escape final judgement.

If your false theory that "THE DEEDS" or "THE WORKS of the law" means TO BE JEWISH had an validity that would be the explicit statement of Paul in Romans 2:17-18 BUT IT IS NOT!!!!! His explicit definition of boast of the Jews and what they REST in for final justification is that they KNOW THE WILL OF GOD or the LAW OF GOD, which consists of the MORAL LAW (not lying, not adulterating, not idoltrating) and the CEREMONIAL LAW (circumcision) and they are TEACHERS OF IT and that is what they REST in for final justification.

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?

The only fault that Paul points out to this boast and the only fault that Paul points out for resting in the TEN COMMANDMENTS and CEREMONIAL LAW for final justfication is that they DISOBEY those commands as DO ALL MANKIND (Rom. 3:9-18) and therefore "NO FLESH" can be justified by "THE LAW" = obeying the "DEEDS" and "WORKS" of the law. No man can make this "boast" before God:

Rom. 2:17 ....makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

Rom. 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law,

Rom. 3:20 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.

Rom. 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Here is a real example of the stupidity of your argument that "the law" in this context does not mean observance of the moral and ceremonial commandments, as Paul explicitly states it does in Romans 2:17-24, but rather a synonym for BEING JEWISH is Romans 3:20 read in that fashion by replacing "the law" and "the deeds of the law" with "BEING JEWISH":

Rom. 3:20 Therefore by BEING JEWISH there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by BEING JEWISH is the knowledge of sin.

The explanatory phrase "is the knowledge of sin" exposes your interpretation that the terms "the law" and "the deeds of the law" in Romans 2:17-5:2 means "being Jewish" is a false and perverted interpretation of Paul's langauge as it is only the precepts of THE MORAL law that reveals the knowledge of sin!

 

[Dr. Walter]

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
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;

Romans 2:6-16 has to do with "THE DAY WHEN GOD SHALL JUDGE THE SECRETS OF MEN"

Romans 2:17-18 declares what the Jew RESTS in on that day of judgement. He does not REST in the gospel (v. 16) or his ethnicity but his boast IN THAT DAY and what he rests IN THAT DAY is "the law."

The phrase "the law" in verses 17-18 cannot possibly mean "JEWISHNESS" as the context immediately defines "the law" as the basis for INSTRUCTION (v. 18) that reveals "HIS WILL" and so that they can "KNOW" what God "APPROVEST" as righteous (v. 18). That same "law" is spelled out in verses 19-24 to be THE MORAL LAW of God or the TEN COMMANDMENTS as three of the Ten commandments are explicitly listed:

1. "not to lie"
2. "not to commit adultery"
3. "not idols"

It also includes the CEREMONIAL LAW in Romans 2:25-29.

Here is what the Jew boasts in and here is what they rest in to be justified "IN THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT" rather than in the gospel (v. 16).

This same MORAL LAW is the law written upon the conscience of the Gentile in Romans 2:15:

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

This MORAL STANDARD of righteousness/light is what all men both Jew and Gentile have violated (Rom. 3:9-18) and therefore by this MORAL STANDARD shall "NO FLESH" be justified before God "IN THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT"

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.

The very same languge "by the deeds of the law" and "by the law" is found in Romans 3:27-28 and is rejected as the basis for justification of any man:

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.

Here is iron clad proof that "by the law" and "by the deeds of the law" CANNOT possibly mean "by JEWISHNESS" as that would make total nonsense if the words "BY JEWISHINESS" replaced the words "by the law" and "by the deeds of the law" in Romans 3:20

Therefore by JEWISHNESS there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: FOR BY JEWISHNESS is the knowledge of sin.

It is the function of the MORAL LAW to reveal the knowledge of sin. It cannot be the function of JEWISHNESS as Paul has proven that JEWISHNESS has BROKEN the moral law:

Rom. 2:23 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.

The boast of being a Jew over a gentile was not based upon ethnicity but upon being given THE LAW. The boast of the Jew IN THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT is not ethnicity but what the Jew rested in, in the day of judgement was KNOWING the will of God and what God approved of "OUT OF THE LAW" which WRITTEN revelation of God's will was not given to the Gentiles. This is what Paul clearly and explicitly states to be the boast of the Jew in Romans 2:16-24 IN THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT.

 

[Andre]

OK Andre, why do you think the law has been retired?

Because Paul clearly states that the Law of Moses has been retired at several places in his letters, including this clear declaration from the book of Ephesians:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

What did Jesus mean when he said he came to fulfill the law? Did he mean he came to do away with the law or make the law even greater? First he says he has not come to destoy the law.

This is entirely consistent with my assertion.

I suggest that Jesus' view is essentially this: "I have not come to tell you that the Law is a bad thing that needs to be destroyed, but I am telling you that the law has achieved its goal and is therefore no longer necessary"

OK. Then he goes on to say the law is intact until heaven and earth pass. I know the earth is still here, so according to Jesus we are still under the law.

I disagree and suggest that in keeping with Old Testament tradition, Jesus is speaking metaphorically when he refers to "heaven and earth passing away".

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this. On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think that, at least in a certain specific sense, the Law of Moses has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which, to me, unambiguously declare the abolition of the Law of Moses, at least in terms of “rules and regulations”.

Here is Matthew 5:17-19 in the NASB:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and possibly think that the prescriptions of the Law of Moses do not remain in force, given that heaven and earth are still here?

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Law of Moses was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15). My proposal hinges on the assertion that in Hebrew culture apocalyptic “end of the world” language was commonly used in a specifically metaphorical mode for the specific purposes of investing commonplace events with their theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence that this was so. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of such metaphorical “end of the world” imagery being used to describe much more “mundane” events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away” is an apocalyptic metaphor.

I would appeal to the phrase “until all is accomplished” and point the reader to Jesus’ proclamation that “It is accomplished!” as He breathed His last on the Cross. Perhaps this is what Jesus is referring to. I believe that seeing it that way allows us to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Law of Moses was retired.

I present the above as a plausibility argument that there may be a way to legitimately read Jesus here as not declaring that the Law of Moses will remain in force basically to the end of time.

 

[Andre]

By your own confession you both are accursed by God.

Please behave like an adult. If others disagree with you, please do not adopt this condemnatory, unhelpful tone.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Because Paul clearly states that the Law of Moses has been retired at several places in his letters, including this clear declaration from the book of Ephesians:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.


This is entirely consistent with my assertion.

I suggest that Jesus' view is essentially this: "I have not come to tell you that the Law is a bad thing that needs to be destroyed, but I am telling you that the law has achieved its goal and is therefore no longer necessary"


I disagree and suggest that in keeping with Old Testament tradition, Jesus is speaking metaphorically when he refers to "heaven and earth passing away".

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this. On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think that, at least in a certain specific sense, the Law of Moses has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which, to me, unambiguously declare the abolition of the Law of Moses, at least in terms of “rules and regulations”.

Here is Matthew 5:17-19 in the NASB:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and possibly think that the prescriptions of the Law of Moses do not remain in force, given that heaven and earth are still here?

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Law of Moses was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15). My proposal hinges on the assertion that in Hebrew culture apocalyptic “end of the world” language was commonly used in a specifically metaphorical mode for the specific purposes of investing commonplace events with their theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence that this was so. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of such metaphorical “end of the world” imagery being used to describe much more “mundane” events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away” is an apocalyptic metaphor.

I would appeal to the phrase “until all is accomplished” and point the reader to Jesus’ proclamation that “It is accomplished!” as He breathed His last on the Cross. Perhaps this is what Jesus is referring to. I believe that seeing it that way allows us to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Law of Moses was retired.

I present the above as a plausibility argument that there may be a way to legitimately read Jesus here as not declaring that the Law of Moses will remain in force basically to the end of time.

Both of you are wrong in your interpretations of Matthew 5:16-20.

Jesus Christ came to "fulfill" the law by His own life and death. His life fulfilled its righteous demands to be "perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect" and his death satisified its just demands against sin. This is the meaning of 2 Cor. 5:21 and therefore on the cross he said "IT is finished." - fulfilled.

Heaven and earth will not pass away until all the law be fulfilled. However, he fulfilled all the moral law. The prophetic aspects of the law will be fulfilled with the passing away of the heaven and earth with a new heaven and earth.

Matthew 5:19 speaks of the child of God already born INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Note that his disobedience or obedience has nothing to do with entrance into the Kingdom of heaven. Note that his disobedience or obedience has nothing to do with being excluded from the kingdom of heaven. His DISOBEDIENCE has only to do with STATUS or REWARD in the kingdom of heaven from "least" to "greatest."

Matthew 5:20 has to do with the righteousness necessary to ENTER the kingdom of heaven. It is a righteousness that EXCEEDS note merely that of the most religious Jews but it EQUALS the righteousness of God (Mt. 5:48). The problem with the righteousness of the Jewish religious leaders is that it is based upon MISINTERPRETATIONS of the Law by their commentators of old (Mt. 5:21-37) so that a LOWER LEVEL of righteousness is the product of their interpretations.

Notice that throughout Matthew 5:21-47 there is a consistent and repeated contrast between "ye have heard" versus "but I say unto you."

Both you and Chowman interpret the law the same way as these Pharisees and their commentators. You interpret it in such a way that you LOWER the standard of the Law to something you can obey and that is your boast as you rest upon your own righteous obedience to the commandments of God as the basis for justification in the day of judgement. You are just like those in Matthew 7:21-23 who will attempt on judgement day to MARRY your profession of faith "Lord, Lord" with your obedience "have we not done" as the basis for approval for entrance into the kingdom of God.

However, true christians will never attempt that MARRIAGE of faith and works. They rest completely upon Christ fulfilling the law in their behalf completely as only Christ can obey the law's standard which is to be "PERFECT even as your Father in heaven IS PERFECT." That is the righteousness that EXCEEDS the best of men (Mt. 5:20). The obedience of those in the kingdom of heaven due to Christ's righteousnss does not determine entrance or exit from heaven but reward and status in heaven ("least" to "greatest").

True Christians build their house (life of works) upon the solid rock of Christ's righteousness alone not the MIXTURE of sand ("Lord, Lord" PLUS "have we not done") and that solid rock is the only basis that will stand in the day of judgement.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Please behave like an adult. If others disagree with you, please do not adopt this condemnatory, unhelpful tone.

Please start acting like an adult and show honesty in your responses to my posts. Deal with the evidence instead of ignoring it. The Bible says those who embrace "another gospel" are accursed. By your own testimony you embrace a gospel of works.

 

[Andre]

Deleted own post.

 

[Andre]

Some will argue that Paul’s challenges to the Jew in Romans 2 in respect to adultery, stealing, and the worship of idols is part of an argument against the possibility of final justification by good works. There is ample reason to doubt this reading, not least this rather clear assertion that salvation is indeed based on “good deeds”:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done. 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Paul does indeed raise the possibility that the Jew is hypocritical in respect to the prescriptions of the “good deeds” prescribed the Law. But, and this cannot be emphasized enough, this does not require us to understand that Paul does not think that good deeds are necessary for justification. If, as I suggest has been elsewhere clearly established, Paul’s real issue with the Jew is that the Jew believes that he is ethnically privileged unto salvation by virtue of being a member of that exclusive set of people who do the “works” of the Law of Moses, Paul can be legitimately read as saying “Listen Mr. Jew – you think that salvation is limited to those who do the works of the Law of Moses. Well, do you even keep the Law of Moses yourself – do you scrupulously neither steal, nor commit adultery, nor worship idols ? As I have just said in verses 6 and following, there will indeed be coming works judgement with eternal life at stake, so do not be complacent – if you do not keep the Law, you may well not pass that judgement, even though you think that, as a Jew, you automatically have salvation”.

Again, those who argue that Paul’s repudiation of the hypocritical Jew is part of a denial of justification by good works are engaged in circular reasoning – they simply dismiss the possibility that Paul is really critiquing the Jew for a belief in ethnic privilege and uses the hypocrisy of the Jew to make the point that the Jew who thinks that he is superior to the Gentile cannot even keep the very Law that he (the Jew) sees as ethnically marking him out for salvation to the exclusion of the Gentile.

 

[Andre]

Please start acting like an adult and show honesty in your responses to my posts.

An outrageous falsehood.

You, of course, have precisely zero evidence that I am in any sense dishonest. And, trust me, I will deal with you and your "arguments" when time permits.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The law as a standard of righteousness to reveal the knowlege of sin is never done away with. The law as a covenant anticipated Christ and with the coming and death of Christ is fulfilled.

Both of you are wrong in your interpretations of Matthew 5:16-20.

Jesus Christ came to "fulfill" the law by His own life and death. His life fulfilled its righteous demands to be "perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect" and his death satisified its just demands against sin. This is the meaning of 2 Cor. 5:21 and therefore on the cross he said "IT is finished." - fulfilled.

Heaven and earth will not pass away until all the law be fulfilled. However, he fulfilled all the moral law. The prophetic aspects of the law will be fulfilled with the passing away of the heaven and earth with a new heaven and earth.

Matthew 5:19 speaks of the child of God already born INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Note that his disobedience or obedience has nothing to do with entrance into the Kingdom of heaven. Note that his disobedience or obedience has nothing to do with being excluded from the kingdom of heaven. His DISOBEDIENCE has only to do with STATUS or REWARD in the kingdom of heaven from "least" to "greatest."

Matthew 5:20 has to do with the righteousness necessary to ENTER the kingdom of heaven. It is a righteousness that EXCEEDS note merely that of the most religious Jews but it EQUALS the righteousness of God (Mt. 5:48). The problem with the righteousness of the Jewish religious leaders is that it is based upon MISINTERPRETATIONS of the Law by their commentators of old (Mt. 5:21-37) so that a LOWER LEVEL of righteousness is the product of their interpretations.

Notice that throughout Matthew 5:21-47 there is a consistent and repeated contrast between "ye have heard" versus "but I say unto you."

Both you and Chowman interpret the law the same way as these Pharisees and their commentators. You interpret it in such a way that you LOWER the standard of the Law to something you can obey and that is your boast as you rest upon your own righteous obedience to the commandments of God as the basis for justification in the day of judgement. You are just like those in Matthew 7:21-23 who will attempt on judgement day to MARRY your profession of faith "Lord, Lord" with your obedience "have we not done" as the basis for approval for entrance into the kingdom of God.

However, true christians will never attempt that MARRIAGE of faith and works. They rest completely upon Christ fulfilling the law in their behalf completely as only Christ can obey the law's standard which is to be "PERFECT even as your Father in heaven IS PERFECT." That is the righteousness that EXCEEDS the best of men (Mt. 5:20). The obedience of those in the kingdom of heaven due to Christ's righteousnss does not determine entrance or exit from heaven but reward and status in heaven ("least" to "greatest").

True Christians build their house (life of works) upon the solid rock of Christ's righteousness alone not the MIXTURE of sand ("Lord, Lord" PLUS "have we not done") and that solid rock is the only basis that will stand in the day of judgement.

 

[Dr. Walter]

An outrageous falsehood.

You, of course, have precisely zero evidence that I am in any sense dishonest. And, trust me, I will deal with you and your "arguments" when time permits.

So far, you have not and what you have said simply ignores the evidence I have placed in your lap. Be honest with my last two posts on Romans 2:16-24 and deal with the evidence I provided that your JEWISHNESS interpretation of "the law" and "the deeds of the law" is a complete distortion of Paul's words and meaning.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Oh come on! Enough of this nonsense! The fact is that verses 11-16 are concerned with THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT and verses 17-18 explicitly state what the Jews REST in on the day of jugement and what they BOAST will justify them in the day of jdugement - their good works - their obedience to the MORAL LAW of God - good works as defined by the Law.

Deal with my last two posts on Romans 2:17-18 and stop ignoring the evidence.

Some will argue that Paul’s challenges to the Jew in Romans 2 in respect to adultery, stealing, and the worship of idols is part of an argument against the possibility of final justification by good works. There is ample reason to doubt this reading, not least this rather clear assertion that salvation is indeed based on “good deeds”:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done. 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Paul does indeed raise the possibility that the Jew is hypocritical in respect to the prescriptions of the “good deeds” prescribed the Law. But, and this cannot be emphasized enough, this does not require us to understand that Paul does not think that good deeds are necessary for justification. If, as I suggest has been elsewhere clearly established, Paul’s real issue with the Jew is that the Jew believes that he is ethnically privileged unto salvation by virtue of being a member of that exclusive set of people who do the “works” of the Law of Moses, Paul can be legitimately read as saying “Listen Mr. Jew – you think that salvation is limited to those who do the works of the Law of Moses. Well, do you even keep the Law of Moses yourself – do you scrupulously neither steal, nor commit adultery, nor worship idols ? As I have just said in verses 6 and following, there will indeed be coming works judgement with eternal life at stake, so do not be complacent – if you do not keep the Law, you may well not pass that judgement, even though you think that, as a Jew, you automatically have salvation”.

Again, those who argue that Paul’s repudiation of the hypocritical Jew is part of a denial of justification by good works are engaged in circular reasoning – they simply dismiss the possibility that Paul is really critiquing the Jew for a belief in ethnic privilege and uses the hypocrisy of the Jew to make the point that the Jew who thinks that he is superior to the Gentile cannot even keep the very Law that he (the Jew) sees as ethnically marking him out for salvation to the exclusion of the Gentile.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You cannot honestly deny that Romans 2:6-16 has reference to the DAY OF JUDGEMENT as verse 16 explicitly states that is still the subject:

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Neither can you deny verses 17-18 introduce what the Jews both REST in and will make their BOAST in, on that day of judgement and it is not their JEWISHNESS but it is what they know to be "HIS WILL" or what the law approves! This statement makes perfect nonsense if it does not infer that they believe in their own mind that they are observing what they believe the law approves. Furthermore, that is exactly what Paul attacks is their own observance:

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;

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
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;

Romans 2:6-16 has to do with "THE DAY WHEN GOD SHALL JUDGE THE SECRETS OF MEN"

Romans 2:17-18 declares what the Jew RESTS in on that day of judgement. He does not REST in the gospel (v. 16) or his ethnicity but his boast IN THAT DAY and what he rests IN THAT DAY is "the law."

The phrase "the law" in verses 17-18 cannot possibly mean "JEWISHNESS" as the context immediately defines "the law" as the basis for INSTRUCTION (v. 18) that reveals "HIS WILL" and so that they can "KNOW" what God "APPROVEST" as righteous (v. 18). That same "law" is spelled out in verses 19-24 to be THE MORAL LAW of God or the TEN COMMANDMENTS as three of the Ten commandments are explicitly listed:

1. "not to lie"
2. "not to commit adultery"
3. "not idols"

It also includes the CEREMONIAL LAW in Romans 2:25-29.

Here is what the Jew boasts in and here is what they rest in to be justified "IN THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT" rather than in the gospel (v. 16).

This same MORAL LAW is the law written upon the conscience of the Gentile in Romans 2:15:

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

This MORAL STANDARD of righteousness/light is what all men both Jew and Gentile have violated (Rom. 3:9-18) and therefore by this MORAL STANDARD shall "NO FLESH" be justified before God "IN THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT"

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.

The very same languge "by the deeds of the law" and "by the law" is found in Romans 3:27-28 and is rejected as the basis for justification of any man:

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.

Here is iron clad proof that "by the law" and "by the deeds of the law" CANNOT possibly mean "by JEWISHNESS" as that would make total nonsense if the words "BY JEWISHINESS" replaced the words "by the law" and "by the deeds of the law" in Romans 3:20

Therefore by JEWISHNESS there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: FOR BY JEWISHNESS is the knowledge of sin.

It is the function of the MORAL LAW to reveal the knowledge of sin. It cannot be the function of JEWISHNESS as Paul has proven that JEWISHNESS has BROKEN the moral law:

Rom. 2:23 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.

The boast of being a Jew over a gentile was not based upon ethnicity but upon being given THE LAW. The boast of the Jew IN THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT is not ethnicity but what the Jew rested in, in the day of judgement was KNOWING the will of God and what God approved of "OUT OF THE LAW" which WRITTEN revelation of God's will was not given to the Gentiles. This is what Paul clearly and explicitly states to be the boast of the Jew in Romans 2:16-24 IN THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT.