The Similtude of Adam's transgression

[kyredneck]

Quoting the text is fine, but we are debating its INTERPRETATION, which you now are avoiding for obvious reasons.

I'm not avoiding anything, the text is quite plain and needs no 'interpretation'. I've no problems with it, you're the one having convulsions over it. What's your 'interpretation'? 'Do the dance', explain it away.

HERE in THIS POST you seem to suggest that the two passages are at odds with each other because YOU BELIEVE the latter teaches mankind is justified by works... I asked you to clarify and you refuse by just quoting the text aimlessly as if that answers the objection. I even present commentators of your own perspective which back me up and still I get only distain and a re-quoting of the text. Any objective individual can see you are avoiding engaging the debate.

Once again, here it is:

Compare:

......by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal 2:16

With:

......the doers of the law shall be justified Ro 2:14


....and rightly divide.

You wrongly accuse me of saying 'the latter teaches mankind is justified by works'. That's NOT what I said at all. I explained it to you and then you resort to this deceitful tactic. The latter is perfectly in harmony with:

33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

.....because it is God who writes the law upon the hearts of His children. But you'll never accept that, it's simply too much 'God involvement' to fit your mold.

 

[Winman]

So what is your explanation for Paul limiting it between Adam and Moses then? If he were trying to prove that universal death among mankind is equal to universal sin among mankind then why limit his scope of application from Adam to Moses?

Don't give me your personal opinion but give me a contextual based reason for that limitation that is necessary to his developmental argument.

Adam had a law, and that was not to eat of the tree of knowledge. After Moses, the Jews had the law. Inbetween Adam and Moses there was no direct law given from God.

In Romans 5:13-14 Paul is speaking of all persons who lived between Adam and Moses. They had no direct command from God as Adam did, and as the Jews had after Moses. These men had only the law written on their heart and conscience as Paul described in Romans 2:12-15. These men did not sin after the similitude of Adam, as that was impossible, they had no access to the tree of knowledge. These men died because they sinned against the law written on their hearts.

The reason Paul stopped at Moses, is because his audience were Jews, and it goes without saying that men perished because they broke the laws of Moses after that law was given. Paul was showing those men between Adam and Moses had law, and their death proves it.

If Paul was teaching that all men were in the garden sinning with Adam, it would extend to ALL MEN. The fact that he stopped at Moses proves he was not teaching Original Sin.

Paul was proving that breaking the law brought death. The fact that men from Adam to Moses died proved they were under law. That law was the law written on their heart.

Paul was not teaching that all men sinned with Adam, or he would have said MANY offences, but he said only ONE. He would not have stopped at Moses if he was saying all men sinned in Adam. That would extend to all men.

Again, Adam was the first, he was the precedent. After Adam, all men who sinned were judged "sinners" as he was, and the condemnation or judgment of death passed on them. Likewise, Jesus was the precedent for those who believed. When a man believes on Jesus he is imputed righteous.

 

[The Biblicist]

Adam had a law, and that was not to eat of the tree of knowledge. After Moses, the Jews had the law. Inbetween Adam and Moses there was no direct law given from God.

Ok

In Romans 5:13-14 Paul is speaking of all persons who lived between Adam and Moses. They had no direct command from God as Adam did, and as the Jews had after Moses.

Here is where your rationale is proven to be false. They did have direct commands by God revealed to them. Genesis 9:5 is directly revealed by God to man. God explicitly states that Abraham obeyed His commandments and would teach his children those commandments.

However, none of these direct commands from God explain universal death. Moreover, there is no direct revelation from God concerning any law of conscience to be found in Genesis 2 through Exodus 20 nor is conscience ever revealed as the universal cause of death nor can it be the cause of univeresal death as the death of infants and mentally impaired cannot be explained by violation of conscience.

Moreover, Romans 5:12-19 never ever mentions violation of the law of conscience as the reason "many BE DEAD" or "many" are made sinners.

The ONLY reason stated in Romans 5:12-19 that "MANY be dead" and/or judgement came upon many to death or many be made sinners is BY ONE MAN'S sin.

Moreover, you are entirely ignoring the exegetical evidence in Romans 5:12 which introduces verses 13-14 and that is the Aorist tense "have sinned" which demands a completed punctiliar action by ALL. Your interpretation demands either a present tense or future tense or subjunctive Aorist "might sin" but rather Paul uses the Aorist indicative active where TIME is a factor because of the indicative mode.

Romans 5:12b at the very minimum allows for my interpretation and verses 15-19 reinforces it and NEVER mentions or infers any other law than Genesis 2:17 or any other sin responsible for universal death than ONE MAN's sin.


These men had only the law written on their heart and conscience as Paul described in Romans 2:12-15. These men did not sin after the similitude of Adam, as that was impossible, they had no access to the tree of knowledge. These men died because they sinned against the law written on their hearts.

The reason Paul stopped at Moses, is because his audience were Jews, and it goes without saying that men perished because they broke the laws of Moses after that law was given. Paul was showing those men between Adam and Moses had law, and their death proves it.

If Paul was teaching that all men were in the garden sinning with Adam, it would extend to ALL MEN. The fact that he stopped at Moses proves he was not teaching Original Sin.

Paul was proving that breaking the law brought death. The fact that men from Adam to Moses died proved they were under law. That law was the law written on their heart.

Paul was not teaching that all men sinned with Adam, or he would have said MANY offences, but he said only ONE. He would not have stopped at Moses if he was saying all men sinned in Adam. That would extend to all men.

Again, Adam was the first, he was the precedent. After Adam, all men who sinned were judged "sinners" as he was, and the condemnation or judgment of death passed on them. Likewise, Jesus was the precedent for those who believed. When a man believes on Jesus he is imputed righteous.[/QUOTE]

 

[Skandelon]

I'm not avoiding anything, the text is quite plain and needs no 'interpretation'. I've no problems with it, you're the one having convulsions over it. What's your 'interpretation'? 'Do the dance', explain it away.

I agree with John Stott and other Reformed theologians and most commentators as I've already laid out several times...and which you ridiculed and ignored.


You quote the verse stating "..the doers of the law shall be justified" Ro 2:14, which most commentators agree is an impossible hypothetical because no one has ever been justified by doing the law. See Stott and others...

You however stated that the works were 'natural' or flowing from the nature of the one who had been reborn, thus you seemed to support the idea that justification comes from works God has irresistibly caused us to do. I asked if that was correct and this absurd dialogue ensued.

 

[Skandelon]

Romans 2:6 makes it clear that this is a judgement of works whether they are good or bad. The Law of Moses is NOT the only standard being used to determine good verus bad in regard to these works. The Gentiles when Paul wrote did not have the Law of Moses and did not do the works of the Law of Moses. The law furnishes one standard (vv. 11-13) while the conscience which Paul says does the "work of the Law" of Moses provides another standard for determing the works by Gentiles if they are good or bad. It does the "work of the Law" of Moses in that it distinguishes between right and wrong thus providing a standard for judging works.

Neither does he say the Law of Moses is written on the conscience or is the Law of Moses. The law of Moses is much more definitive than conscience whereas conscience can be trained to justify what the Law of Moses condemns as sin. For example, culture can train the conscience it is wrong to kill your mother but have no problem killing the mother of your enemy or in another tribe.

Biblicist, did you see post 79?

 

[Winman]

Ok

Here is where your rationale is proven to be false. They did have direct commands by God revealed to them. Genesis 9:5 is directly revealed by God to man. God explicitly states that Abraham obeyed His commandments and would teach his children those commandments.

Ok, then men between Adam and Moses would die for murder. This does not help you, murder is not the same sin as eating from the tree of knowledge.

However, none of these direct commands from God explain universal death. Moreover, there is no direct revelation from God concerning any law of conscience to be found in Genesis 2 through Exodus 20 nor is conscience ever revealed as the universal cause of death nor can it be the cause of univeresal death as the death of infants and mentally impaired cannot be explained by violation of conscience.

He didn't have to say it, he had already explained that men without law perish without law in chapter 2.

Moreover, Romans 5:12-19 never ever mentions violation of the law of conscience as the reason "many BE DEAD" or "many" are made sinners.

The reason many were "dead" was because of Adam. Adam was the first, he was the legal precedent for all who sinned after him. All who sinned after him were judged sinners and sentenced to death.

The ONLY reason stated in Romans 5:12-19 that "MANY be dead" and/or judgement came upon many to death or many be made sinners is BY ONE MAN'S sin.

I agree 100%, but it is not saying all men sinned with Adam in the garden. Again, Adam was the first sinner, he set the precedent for all those who sinned after him.

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The general principle in common law legal systems is that similar cases should be decided so as to give similar and predictable outcomes, and the principle of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."

If you cannot understand this I cannot help you.

Moreover, you are entirely ignoring the exegetical evidence in Romans 5:12 which introduces verses 13-14 and that is the Aorist tense "have sinned" which demands a completed punctiliar action by ALL. Your interpretation demands either a present tense or future tense or subjunctive Aorist "might sin" but rather Paul uses the Aorist indicative active where TIME is a factor because of the indicative mode.

The problem is, verses 13 and 14 make it clear that men did not sin the same kind of sin as Adam. They couldn't, man had no access to the tree of knowledge after Adam. They couldn't commit this sin if they wanted to.

Romans 5:12b at the very minimum allows for my interpretation and verses 15-19 reinforces it and NEVER mentions or infers any other law than Genesis 2:17 or any other sin responsible for universal death than ONE MAN's sin.

It's a very poor argument and verses 13 and 14 refute it. The fact that Paul stopped at Moses refutes your view, if Paul was saying all men "sinned" with Adam as you say, it would extend to every man ever born.

 

[kyredneck]

...and which you ridiculed and ignored.

Are you deliberately trying to provoke me to say something in anger? Because this does anger me.

I challenge you to produce this that you've falsely accused me of.

You quote the verse stating "..the doers of the law shall be justified" Ro 2:14, which most commentators agree is an impossible hypothetical because no one has ever been justified by doing the law. See Stott and others...

Don't care about and don't need no 'commentators' with this one. IT"S VERY PLAIN what Paul wrote:

"..the doers of the law shall be justified"

I also quoted:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2
24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5
33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

I have no problems whatsoever with these facets of our justification. It presents a wonderful array of things to contemplate on.

You however stated that the works were 'natural' or flowing from the nature of the one who had been reborn....

Yes, that's exactly what Paul is saying, 'When Gentiles do by nature the things of the law they show the work of the law written in their hearts.'

...thus you seemed to support the idea that justification comes from works God has irresistibly caused us to do....

There is no end to your wresting and twisting and misrepresenting my words. No where did I write "God has irresistibly caused us to do" anything. I wrote:

"It's not just 'help'. It's a total heart change where the children of promise DO BY NATURE the things of the law. Are you able to make the connection here?

Compare:

....the doers of the law shall be justified: (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2:13,14,15

With:

..work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure. Phil 2:12,13"

I asked if that was correct and this absurd dialogue ensued.

It's not absurd at all. You want the casual reader to take your word for it and believe it's absurd.

 

[Protestant]

If Paul was.... if your view is correct then.....
If your view was correct, then....QUOTE]

Here is where Winman, Van and Skandelon ultimately flee as their final authority - philosophical speculations and/or illustrations when they are faced with exegetical contextual based evidence they have no answer, no response, no clue how to deal with. They simply shift the discussion over to the "if" method of argumentation rather than dealing with the exegetical facts placed directly in their face.

Having read carefully your exchange with Winman I, too, have concluded it matters not how exacting and thorough your biblical exegesis is.

His ears and eyes are cemented shut.

I have been able to stop Winman's prevarications by asking one simple question: Were Esau and Jacob born righteous or unrighteous?

He realizes the quandary which mandates his silence.

If he answers 'righteous', there is not one Scripture to back up his assertion. Rather, there are a multitude which refute the assertion.

Furthermore, he must then deal with the character of God which refutes the notion of a holy God hating righteousness.

But if he answers they were born 'unrighteous' his whole theory of sinless babies is refuted.

In addition, he is then forced to admit the only sin they could be charged with was that of Adam's transgression which was judiciously imputed to them by our holy, all-wise, just God.

Biblicist, I admire your perseverance and dedication to preaching the truth of God's Word.

Henceforth, I would respectfully suggest you shake the dust off your feet and move on to greener pastures......i.e., answering only those posts by sincere seekers of eternal truth.

We are admonished by our Lord not to cast pearls.

 

[Winman]

Biblicist

Having read carefully your exchange with Winman I, too, have concluded it matters not how exacting and thorough your biblical exegesis is.

I guess one man's exegesis is another man's eisegesis...

His ears and eyes are cemented shut.

You have to be careful with SuperGlue.

I have been able to stop Winman's prevarications by asking one simple question: Were Esau and Jacob born righteous or unrighteous?

Why, I've never prevaricated in my life, if you don't count that one time my wife asked me if I ever thought of old girl friends...

He realizes the quandary which mandates his silence.

I do hate mandates...

If he answers 'righteous', there is not one Scripture to back up his assertion. Rather, there are a multitude which refute the assertion.

Hmmm.... I better not answer righteous.

Furthermore, he must then deal with the character of God which refutes the notion of a holy God hating righteousness.

So I'd like to know where, you got the notion / Said I'd like to know where, you got the notion / To rock the boat, don't rock the boat baby. Huh, what made me think of that old song???

But if he answers they were born 'unrighteous' his whole theory of sinless babies is refuted.

Hmmm. If I say unrighteous my whole theory of sinless babies is refuted. What to do???

In addition, he is then forced to admit the only sin they could be charged with was that of Adam's transgression which was judiciously imputed to them by our holy, all-wise, just God.

Well, one thing I know, they cannot be charged with Adam's sin, as that would be unjust and impossible for God to do. Only a Calvinist believes God does unjust things.

Biblicist, I admire your perseverance and dedication to preaching the truth of God's Word.

I do not find stubbornness and obstinance admirable, I find them to be obnoxious.

Henceforth, I would respectfully suggest you shake the dust off your feet and move on to greener pastures......i.e., answering only those posts by sincere seekers of eternal truth.

We are admonished by our Lord not to cast pearls.

Yeah, clean those shoes, they're a mess.

What do the scriptures say about Jacob and Esau? Let's look and see...

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

The scriptures say Jacob and Esau had done neither good or evil. That is my answer.

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just looking in the Bible for the answer, but I am glad I could help you. :love2:

 

[Skandelon]

Are you deliberately trying to provoke me to say something in anger? Because this does anger me.

I challenge you to produce this that you've falsely accused me of.

1. In post #36 you respond quoting the text and saying of my views, "Egad Skandelon, read the text!...How much plainer can Paul present it? Are your presuppositions so strong that you can't see it?"

2. After you argued that in interpretation was man is justified by the 'natural works' produced from being regenerated, I asked you if you believe men were justified by works of any kind, to which you responded, "And don't dare try to broad brush me as a heretic." Post #38

3. I present the "hypothetical" interpretation of Gill (a notable Reformed scholars) and you reply saying, "Yea, use those 'hypotheticals' to explain it away. The text doesn't fit your mold so you're forced to this act of desperation." Post #40

4. I explain to you that this view is the most commonly accepted view and provide additional quotes from Piper/Stott to prove this fact and you reply saying, "The text is quite clear. Man, you've really got a problem with this, don't you?" Post #54

Need I go on?

Don't care about and don't need no 'commentators' with this one. IT"S VERY PLAIN what Paul wrote:

"..the doers of the law shall be justified"

Which you interpret to mean that man is justified by works....yes or no? You call your own interpretation a heresy when I ask for a simply affirmation of what you are attempting to say... what is it you think this means if not that men are justified by works?

That fact that you treat scholars of all strips with such distain and dismiss what they offer to this discussion reveals which one of us is actually interested in what the intent of the author actually is in this text. I think is it abundantly clear that Paul is arguing that no one is righteous according to the law, even if they never saw the law like the Jews did.

 

[kyredneck]

1. In post #36 you respond quoting the text and saying of my views, "Egad Skandelon, read the text!...Need I go on?

Oooohhh, you meant that I was ridiculing you! I took it you meant I was ridiculing the commentators. No bud, from the gitgo and throughout this dialog you've tried your best to misconstrue me as saying that 'mankind is justified by works'. I have no respect for that so don't expect any as long as you're twisting and wresting my words.

Which you interpret to mean that man is justified by works....yes or no? You call your own interpretation a heresy when I ask for a simply affirmation of what you are attempting to say... what is it you think this means if not that men are justified by works?

Once again:

...the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his works: to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: Ro 2:5,6,7

What is your problem with the above passage? Why can't you take it for what it says?

That fact that you treat scholars of all strips with such distain and dismiss what they offer to this discussion reveals which one of us is actually interested in what the intent of the author actually is in this text.

There you go again falsely accusing me. And you expect respect in return for that? I've shown no disdain for the commentators.

Concerning Gill on Ro 2:13-15

"Adam, in his state of innocence, was a perfect doer of the law; he sinning, and all his posterity in him, none of them are righteous, but all pass under a sentence of condemnation. The best of men, even believers in Christ, are not without sin in themselves; and when any of the saints are said to be perfect, it must be understood in a comparative sense, or as they are considered in Christ. There never was but one since Adam, and that is Christ, who has fulfilled, or could perfectly fulfil the law; the thing is impossible and impracticable for fallen man: hence these words must be understood either hypothetically, thus, not the hearers of the law, but if there were any perfect doers of it, they would be justified before God; or else of such persons who are considered in Christ, by whom the whole perfect righteousness of the law is fulfilled in them, and who may be reckoned as perfect doers of it in him, their substitute, surety, and representative."

He's saying exactly what I'm saying (in the highlighted text).

But I already told you that too:

15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2
1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, Ro 9

I think is it abundantly clear that Paul is arguing that no one is righteous according to the law, even if they never saw the law like the Jews did.

His children are the law unto themselves due to the law written on their hearts.

 

[Skandelon]

Oooohhh, you meant that I was ridiculing you! I took it you meant I was ridiculing the commentators. No bud, from the gitgo and throughout this dialog you've tried your best to misconstrue me as saying that 'mankind is justified by works'. I have no respect for that so don't expect any as long as you're twisting and wresting my words.

Go back and re-read this thread. You will see that I ASKED you specifically what you believed. I never accused you of believing it until you starting avoiding answering my question and insinuating that a straightforward answer would be heretical.

Plus, I asked if you believe we are justified by "works of any kind" because you argued that the works that justify us were the 'natural' works that flow from the heart of a regenerate man. You refused to answer.

...the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his works: to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: Ro 2:5,6,7

What is your problem with the above passage? Why can't you take it for what it says?

I have no problem with it, I just don't interpret it to mean that some are justified by works of some kind, as you APPEAR to... Maybe that is not how you interpret it, I don't know, because you refuse to answer any of my question with anything but quotes and dismissive comments.

There you go again falsely accusing me. And you expect respect in return for that? I've shown no disdain for the commentators.

You showed distain for the interpretation I presented which is held by those commentators. And in the last post when I referenced them again you said, "Don't care about and don't need no 'commentators' with this one. IT"S VERY PLAIN what Paul wrote." That appears as distain (defined: "the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration" -Websters)

You know what, this is getting old fast... I'm done with this.

 

[kyredneck]

... I have no problem with it, I just don't interpret it to mean that some are justified by works of some kind....

The text is virtually permeated with 'works' and 'doing' and 'practicing':

27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful:
32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them. Ro 1
1 Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judges another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practise the same things.
2 And we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against them that practise such things.
3 And reckonest thou this, O man, who judgest them that practise such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5 but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
8 but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
9 tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
11 for there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2

Good works and bad works, and God will render to each of us according to our works. That's what the text says. There's scripture outside of Romans that is just as clear that says the same thing; I'd just like to nail you down on how you explain it away, because it definitely appears to cause you grief in it's raw form. How do you leaven it to make it palatable to your taste? You give YOUR interpretation.

...as you APPEAR to... Maybe that is not how you interpret it, I don't know, because you refuse to answer any of my question with anything but quotes and dismissive comments.

I've already told you, the text is clear, I need no commentator to explain it to me or put their spin to it.

You showed distain for the interpretation I presented which is held by those commentators. And in the last post when I referenced them again you said, "Don't care about and don't need no 'commentators' with this one. IT"S VERY PLAIN what Paul wrote." That appears as distain (defined: "the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration" -Websters)

You know what, this is getting old fast... I'm done with this.

So 'YOUR SPIN' to this text is that it's all just 'hypothetical'? Is that it? How often do you use that angle to explain away 'problem texts'?

 

[Skandelon]

The text is virtually permeated with 'works' and 'doing' and 'practicing':

27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful:
32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them. Ro 1
1 Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judges another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practise the same things.
2 And we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against them that practise such things.
3 And reckonest thou this, O man, who judgest them that practise such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5 but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
8 but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
9 tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
11 for there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2

Good works and bad works, and God will render to each of us according to our works. That's what the text says.

So, are you arguing that men are justified by their good works or not? On the one hand you call that view heretical and then you still seem to be defending it...

There's scripture outside of Romans that is just as clear that says the same thing; I'd just like to nail you down on how you explain it away, because it definitely appears to cause you grief in it's raw form. How do you leaven it to make it palatable to your taste? You give YOUR interpretation.

I've quoted you no less than two commentaries that I agree with, and they both happened to be of the Calvinistic persuasion. What more do you need?

Were Gill and Stott 'explaining it away' too?

I've already told you, the text is clear, I need no commentator to explain it to me or put their spin to it.

That is "Distain."

So 'YOUR SPIN' to this text is that it's all just 'hypothetical'? Is that it? How often do you use that angle to explain away 'problem texts'?

The alternative to Paul presenting a hypothetical 'doer of the law being justified by his works' is (1) that there is actually someone justified by works, which as you already admitted is heretical or (2) that Paul is really referencing Christ's works imputed to the person's account by grace through faith.

I reject the latter simply on the basis of what it appears Paul is attempting to teach in this text. He is making a case for why BOTH Jews and Gentiles are justly condemned under the law, even if they don't have the law. The summary of this entire case is, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," not "some are justified by good works, but the rest are not."

 

[kyredneck]

So, are you arguing that men are justified by their good works or not? On the one hand you call that view heretical and then you still seem to be defending it...

......by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal 2:16

......the doers of the law shall be justified Ro 2:14

Maybe someday the veil will be removed and you'll see that we have A GREAT BIG GOD, and you'll be able to rightly divide and understand the difference between works to earn merit, and God working in one both to will and to work. It's different as night and day.

I've quoted you no less than two commentaries that I agree with, and they both happened to be of the Calvinistic persuasion. What more do you need?

Were Gill and Stott 'explaining it away' too?

Gill gave an either/or option to which I've already told you I agreed with one, the one you never highlighted.

It's not 'hypothetical' Skandelon. Paul's telling it the way it is. We are all going to judged by our works.

 

[Skandelon]

......by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal 2:16

......the doers of the law shall be justified Ro 2:14

Maybe someday the veil will be removed and you'll see that we have A GREAT BIG GOD, and you'll be able to rightly divide and understand the difference between works to earn merit, and God working in one both to will and to work. It's different as night and day.

So you still affirm that men are justified by works? Okay, so be it. I'll stick with the rest of Christian scholarship and my interpretation.

Gill gave an either/or option to which I've already told you I agreed with one, the one you never highlighted.

I didn't see that post...I may have missed it.

It's not 'hypothetical' Skandelon. Paul's telling it the way it is. We are all going to judged by our works.

Then we are all going to hell.

I'm counting on us being clothed in Christ's righteousness, not our own. But maybe that is what you mean and just aren't willing to come and spell it out?

 

[kyredneck]

I don't know how many other ways I could have told you. The problem is that you hold to a form of Christianity while denying the power of it. Maybe some day the veil will be removed.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't know how many other ways I could have told you.

I'll show you:

Me: So do you believe men are justified by works?
You: NO, that is heretical. I believe men are justified by Christ's works imputed to them by grace through faith.
Me: Oh, ok, I agree with that. However I think Paul's point here wasn't to address the imputation of Christ's works, but the nature of condemnation for Gentiles who were not privy to the law of God, thus I agree with the 'hypothetical' approach held to by most other commentators.
You: I disagree with that approach, but I can understand why some might view it like that since it is heretical to believe that man is actually justified by works.
Me: I can respect that. Thanks for the discussion.

See, how simple that was? Instead I get...

The problem is that you hold to a form of Christianity while denying the power of it. Maybe some day the veil will be removed.

Nice. :sleep:

 

[The Biblicist]

Even Piper, quoting Stott, acknowledges my take on this passage is the most accepted interpretation of Rom 2, yet you treat it with distain instead of engaging with a cordial rational discussion. That reveals all we need to know...

I think what you are failing to recognize is that the issue is merely "works" (Rom. 2:6) not "works of the law." The Mosaic Law and Conscience enter only as the standards which will be used on the day of judgement. If you are a Jew then your works will be judged by the standard of Mosaic Law (vv. 11-13). If you are a gentile without the Mosaic Law then your works will be judged by your response to conscience. However, the context is referring to those who believe their works are sufficient to justify them in the day of judgement.

Neither does this text presume anyone will have works that pass either standard but the entire context explicitly denies this - Rom. 3:9-20.

 

[Skandelon]

The Mosaic Law and Conscience enter only as the standards which will be used on the day of judgement. If you are a Jew then your works will be judged by the standard of Mosaic Law (vv. 11-13). If you are a gentile without the Mosaic Law then your works will be judged by your response to conscience. However, the context is referring to those who believe their works are sufficient to justify them in the day of judgement.

I agree with this, so I'm not sure what you are attempting to argue against what I've said? All along I've argued that works are not sufficient to justify, whether done from conscience (Gentiles) or revelation (Jews).

You seemed to be arguing that men are justified by works produced in us by effectual grace. For instance, if God effectually made you believe, which you deem a work, then by that work you are justified. Right? I'm honestly just asking...

Neither does this text presume anyone will have works that pass either standard but the entire context explicitly denies this - Rom. 3:9-20.

That has been my point all along. I agree totally.