What matters is keeping the Commandments of God

[Dr. Walter]

Paul is dealing with perseverance of the saints in vs 7 just as John does in Rev 14:12.

In neither case is he arguing for the perseverance of the saints. In Revelation 14:12 he is simply stating that their works follow them rather than allow, justify or approve entrance into heaven.

Paul argues for future judgment in vs 13-16 just as he does in 2Cor 5:10 "we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ".

The context of 2 Cor. 5:10 is totally children of God and deals with rewards not entrance into heaven. Children of God will have "tears wiped away" in the face of judgement for rewards.

Romans 2:13-16 is about JUSTIFICATION under the Law by the works of the Law.

Paul does not say that all will fail in 2Cor 5:10 and he does not say that all will fail in Rom 2:13-16.

Can't make any sense of your argument here.

In James 2 we are told "you see than that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" -

Judgement here is on earth in the court of human observation not before God - take note of "shew me....shew you" not SHOW GOD.

speaking to the future justification context of Romans 2:13-16 "doers of the Law will be justified...on that day when according to my Gospel God WILL judge" or as Christ said "by their fruits you shall know them" - Matt 7.

In neither case are saints the subject of judgement. In both cases those being judged come on the basis of their OWN WORKS to be JUSTIFIED by works not by faith.

The Gospel "good news" about judgement is seen in Dan 7:22 when in that future time "judgment is passed in favor of the saints" on the "by their fruits you shall know them" basis.

Wrong on both counts. There is no gospel in Daniel 7:22. Daniel is talking about what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor. 6:2:

Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Daniel is not talking about saints passing a judgement by their works but sitting in judgement and taking possession of the kingdom.

A question of "perseverance of the saints" not a case of "The lost becoming saved by persevering in being lost".

Paul is not talking about perseverance of the saints in Romans 2:7 any more than he is in Galatians 3:10 and both are talking about the same thing - justication by your works under the law (Rom. 2:6,13; Gal. 3:11-12).

What we do find in Romans 2 is that outward circumcision "alone" is sufficient to justify the Jew (v 25) rather the inward circumsion with the Law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant - indicates the saved state -- Jew or Gentile.

Total baloney!!! What Paul is arguing is that circumcision does not profit a Jew or anyone else UNLESS they are keeping all the rest of law just as James 2:10 argues and just as Galatians 3:10 argues. Furthermore, if an UNCIRCUMCISED Gentile KEEPS THE REST OF THE LAW as James 2:10 defines keeping it and as Galatians 3:10 defines keeping it, then the law of circumcision is invalidated and worthless and useless because the UNCIRCUCISED condition of the Gentile is regarded by God as though her were even though he is not circumcised.

If every time one is confronted with the Bible doctrine on perseverance of the saints - they choose of their own free will to "circle back" to the case of the lost supposing that perseverance of the lost in doing some good deed is the topic -- then the result will be as follows -

This "circle" back argument is nothing but baloney and I will tell you why. You define "perseverance" the same way you deny justification by Law through works and neither definition is Biblical because "NO FLESH" either SAVED or LOST can be justified by the Biblical definition of "doing" the works of the Law.

Thus the problem in the "circle back" model that tries to avoid the "perseverance of the saints" Rev 14:12, Rom 2:7 doctrine of scripture and flees from the Bible teaching that the saints are "by the Spirit puting to death the deeds of the flesh" for it is also by the Spirit that they are born again and under the New Covenant have circumcised hearts with the "law written on the heart" Heb 8.

Revelation 14:12 says the works "follow him" rather than give him a Passing grade. Romans 2:7 is the same as Galatians 3:10 and denying it does not change the fact or the context that all three passages are by context dealing with justification by law through works and not justification by grace through faith (Rom. 2:13; Gal. 3:11-12).

There is no "continues the Christian life by justification by works" in anything I have posted.

You are reading through rose colored glasses. You are teaching that perseverance is steadfast continuance in well doing in order to be justified by the law which is false as it no more is true of the saint than it is of the lost man.

 

[BobRyan]

Walter said
A. The Two Contrasting Interpretations:

1. Bob - this is the final judgement where Christians stand before God to be justified by their works, meaning, demonstrated as approved by their works.

2. Dr. Walter - Paul is simply setting forth the criteria and consequences for "ANY MAN" on judgement day who comes to God on the basis of his works in order to be justified UNDER LAW rather than by faith in Christ.

Agreed. Your view imagines that in Romans 2 Paul only admits to mankind failing -- as if everyone goes to hell in Romans 2, no matter the succeeding cases of Romans 2 to the contrary.

But I maintain the Paul is arguing the same Matt 7 example of Good trees contrasted to bad trees based on fruit.

Paul is dealing with perseverance of the saints in vs 7 just as John does in Rev 14:12.

Paul argues for future judgment in vs 13-16 just as he does in 2Cor 5:10 "we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ".

Paul does not say that all will fail in 2Cor 5:10 and he does not say that all will fail in Rom 2:13-16.

Impossible to miss.

In neither case is he arguing for the perseverance of the saints.

In Rev 14:12 " Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

Your argument is with the text.

[/quote]
In Revelation 14:12 he is simply stating that their works follow them rather than allow, justify or approve entrance into heaven.
[/quote]

The "Works follow them" portion of the text is noticeably missing.

The "perseverance of the saints" portion of the text is noticeably present.

your argument is with the text.

And the fact that the saints "persevere in doing good" in Rom 2:7 with the result of eternal life is hard to miss "in the text".

Romans 1:17 sets the context for the saints in Romans 2 as we find the saints are those who "live by faith".

Paul argues for future judgment in vs 13-16 just as he does in 2Cor 5:10 "we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ".

Paul does not say that all will fail in 2Cor 5:10 and he does not say that all will fail in Rom 2:13-16.

Paul contrasts saved vs lost in Romans 1 and also in Romans 2 including the bit about persevering in doing good as well as the context of future gospel judgment "doers of the law will be justified... on the day when accoring to my Gospel God will judge". That future judgment includes the saved saints of Rom 1:17 and 2:6 just as Paul admits in 2Cor 5:10.

Walter
Can't make any sense of your argument here.

Paul speaks of failing cases in Romans 1 and Romans 2 (and 2Cor 5:10 where Paul mentions deads that are "bad")

2Cor 5

9 Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

Turns out - "The wages of sin is death" Rom 6:23

Judgement here is on earth in the court of human observation not before God - take note of "shew me....shew you" not SHOW GOD.

The same justified by works that you find in Romans 2:13 is found in James 2. In Dan 7:9 and 10 we see myriads and myriads in that courtroom -- not just God.

So also in Job 1 and 2 - when God's own statement regarding Job is challenged - it is at a meeting a council where more than God is in the room.

Turns out - God opens up His books for others to see because the result is always that God is glorified.

Walter said
In neither case are saints the subject of judgement.

Again your argument is with the text.

"We must ALL stand before the judgment seat of Christ" 2Cor 5:10
"judgment was passed in favor of the saints" Dan 7:22
"Doers of the Law justified... on the day when according to my Gospel God WILL judge".
"Buffet my body and make it my slave LEST after preaching the Gospel to others I myself should be disqualified". 1Cor 11.

Walter said: There is no gospel in Daniel 7:22.

Again your argument is with the text.

In Dan 7:22 "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints" - turns out that is "good news". And in the text - the result of that judgment is the 2nd coming and the Kingdom of heaven.

In Gal 3:7 "The gospel was preached beforehand to Abraham"
in Heb 4 "The Gospel was preached to US JUST as it was to them also"
in Matt 24 "THIS gospel of the kingdom preached in all the world" pre-cross "Gospel of the Kingdom" is the real deal.

Gal 1:6-11 only ONE Gospel in all of time.

Daniel is not talking about saints passing a judgement by their works but sitting in judgement and taking possession of the kingdom.

Again your argument is with the text.

In Daniel 7 the little horn wages war with the saints AND overcomes them WHILE that judgment is going on and UNTIL the time came for judgment AND the judgment was passed in favor of the saints - they are tormented and persecuted --

The judgment scene of Dan 7:9-10 is in heaven with myriads and myriads in attendance and God the Father "The Ancient of Days" appearing on His Throne - entering the courtroom - and then "the books are opened" and only after that (some time after that) is the judgment passed in favor of the saints -

Walter said

This "circle" back argument is nothing but baloney and I will tell you why. You define "perseverance" the same way you deny justification by Law through works and neither definition is Biblical because "NO FLESH" either SAVED or LOST can be justified by the Biblical definition of "doing" the works of the Law.

Now let us get this straight - you are saying that a lost person cannot be justified by "doing the works of the law"???

Are you sure you are not "circling back" to the case of the lost person when you go to that point?

Or did you mean to say that Christ is wrong in Matt 7 when HE stated "by their fruits you shall know them"???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your view imagines that in Romans 2 Paul only admits to mankind failing -- as if everyone goes to hell in Romans 2, no matter the succeeding cases of Romans 2 to the contrary.

Here is your problem. You are attempting to interpret Romans 2 by going outside the context and reading into this context verses taken from outside this context. As long as that is your modus operandi there is no end to this debate because you can make it mean what you want it to mean.

1. Again, Romans 1:1-17 is a context of saints alone - no lost people in this context - just saved people.

2. Again, Romans 1:18-3:8 is a context of those "under sin" alone, no saved people in this context.

3. The contextual definition of "them" in Romans 2:7-8 is "EVERY SOUL" and "ANY MAN" (vv. 9,10) that seeks to escape the judgement of God by justification of their own works (v. 6) UNDER LAW (v. 13).

4. Again, Paul's own interpretation in Romans 3:9 demands that Romans 1:18-Romans 3:8 he is proving that Gentiles and Jews are all "under sin" rather than some are justified and some are lost as you attempt to reinterpret Paul to fit your scheme of justification.

5. Again, Matthew 7:15-23 contains no saved persons. Every single individual and type of individual in Matthew 7:15-23 are LOST religous people.

6. Again, Rom. 2:26-29 completely repudiates your position as Paul is demonstrating to lost pious self-righteous Jews who boast in circumcision as the basis for justification in the day of judgement that circumcision is absolutely worthless unless ALL OTHER COMMANDMENTS ARE KEPT. He is giving them the James 2:10 rule. He is totally invalidating circumcision as profitable for justification for EITHER JEW OR GENTILE. If UNCIRCUMCISED gentiles can KEEP THE WHOLE LAW then uncircumcision is viewd by God as circucmision and thus actual circumcision or uncircumcision makes no difference in justification before God.

Paul is dealing with perseverance of the saints in vs 7 just as John does in Rev 14:12.

Revelation 14:13 defines the value of perseverance of the saints. Their words "do follow them" rather than their works give them a PASSING GRADE. You are taking the Greek term "hupomone" in verse 12 and reading into it (eisgesis) what the text does not demand but exactly what the context denies. Works do not PRECEDE and GIVE PASSING grade to enter heaven, works "FOLLOW THEM" into heaven for rewards and this is clearly and explicitly stated by Paul in 1 Cor. 3:12-15 and this is the judgement of rewards that Paul tells the same congregation about in 2 Cor. 5:10.

And the fact that the saints "persevere in doing good" in Rom 2:7 with the result of eternal life is hard to miss "in the text".

The term "saints" "saved" "elect" "justified by faith" etc. cannot be found in Romans 1:18-3:23. Romans 3:24-5:2 clearly defines the justified as those justified by grace, justified by faith WITHOUT WORKS OF THE LAW. In direct contrast those in Romans 2:6-13 is all about being JUSIFIED WITH WORKS UNDER LAW. You cannot overcome this fact no matter how many times you simply repeat your worthless rhetoric.

Romans 1:17 sets the context for the saints in Romans 2 as we find the saints are those who "live by faith".

Absolutely and utterly rediculous! Romans 1;17 has nothing to do with Romasn 1:18-3:9 EXCEPT the rightousness revealed in the gospel in Romans 1:17 is the righteous of God in Romans 3:21 that is revealed in the life of Christ which is the standard for JUDGEMENT in Romans 2:16 for these self-righteous hypocritics who come to God to be justified under law by their own works.

In Dan 7:22 "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints" - turns out that is "good news". And in the text - the result of that judgment is the 2nd coming and the Kingdom of heaven.

Your use for Daniel 7:22 to prove the gospel is present is desperation at its zenith. The saints are sitting in judgement on the world not being judged. They are taken possession of the kingdom.

Now let us get this straight - you are saying that a lost person cannot be justified by "doing the works of the law"???

NO FLESH can be justified by doing the works of the law regardless if you paint them lost or saved - NO FLESH.


Romans 2:6, 13 demonstrate this is a context where there is an attempt to be JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW through works.

1. "DO" in verse 13 has reference to the works in verse 6
2. "JUSTIFIED" in verse 13 has reference to "according to...works" in verse 6
3. "BY LAW" in verse 13 defines the basis for being "JUSTIFIED" in verse 13 by DOING in verse 13

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH mentioned, considered or suggested in verses 6-13 - NONE, ZILCH, NADA but you are trying in vain to make Roman 2:13 means justification by faith when it does not say that but says the VERY OPPOSITE to that and here is the archilles heel to your whole interpretation of Romans 2:1-29.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Rom. 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

1. Can Bob deny that it is "THE LAW" that is the basis for justification in this text?

2. Isn't the words "But the DOERS of THE LAW shall be JUSTIFIED" setting foth the standard for justification in this text and preceding context????

3. Isn't this immediate context all about DOING the works of the Law - "according to his works" (v. 6) "DOERS of the Law" (v. 13)?

4. In contrast, isn't justification in Romans 3:24-5:2 expressed in the very opposite language being expressed in Romans 2:6-13?

Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,[/COLOR]

Rom. 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

 

[BobRyan]

Your view imagines that in Romans 2 Paul only admits to mankind failing -- as if everyone goes to hell in Romans 2, no matter the succeeding cases of Romans 2 to the contrary.

But I maintain the Paul is arguing the same Matt 7 example of Good trees contrasted to bad trees based on fruit.

Paul is dealing with perseverance of the saints in vs 7 just as John does in Rev 14:12.

Paul argues for future judgment in vs 13-16 just as he does in 2Cor 5:10 "we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ".

Paul does not say that all will fail in 2Cor 5:10 and he does not say that all will fail in Rom 2:13-16.

Impossible to miss.

In Rev 14:12 " Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

Your argument is with the text.

Walter said
In Revelation 14:12 he is simply stating that their works follow them rather than allow, justify or approve entrance into heaven.

The "Works follow them" portion of the text is noticeably missing.

The "perseverance of the saints" portion of the text is noticeably present.

your argument is with the text.

And the fact that the saints "persevere in doing good" in Rom 2:7 with the result of eternal life is hard to miss "in the text".

Romans 1:17 sets the context for the saints in Romans 2 as we find the saints are those who "live by faith".

Paul argues for future judgment in vs 13-16 just as he does in 2Cor 5:10 "we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ".

Paul does not say that all will fail in 2Cor 5:10 and he does not say that all will fail in Rom 2:13-16.

Paul contrasts saved vs lost in Romans 1 and also in Romans 2 including the bit about persevering in doing good as well as the context of future gospel judgment "doers of the law will be justified... on the day when accoring to my Gospel God will judge".

That future judgment includes the saved saints of Rom 1:17 and 2:6 just as Paul admits in 2Cor 5:10.

Here is your problem. You are attempting to interpret Romans 2 by going outside the context

Rom 1:1-17 sets context for the saved in Romans 2 just as Romans 1:18-32 sets the context for the lost of Romans 2 -- and hint - there are no chapter divisions in Paul's letter.

The point remains.

Walter
1. Again, Romans 1:1-17 is a context of saints alone - no lost people in this context - just saved people.

2. Again, Romans 1:18-3:8 is a context of those "under sin" alone, no saved people in this context.

You are simply repeating my own argument which relies on the fact that Paul addresses both the saved and the lost in these chapters.

In Romans 2 Paul addresses those who "persevere in doing good" stating that the result is heaven. NOT arguing that some among those who persevere in doing good "go to hell anyway". Thus no lost among the saved (to use your prior argument in Rom 1).

Walter said

3. The contextual definition of "them" in Romans 2:7-8 is "EVERY SOUL" and "ANY MAN" (vv. 9,10) that seeks to escape the judgement of God by justification of their own works (v. 6) UNDER LAW (v. 13).

In Romans 2 Paul does not argue that "Every man perseveres and does Good and goes to heaven".

Rather the "every man" and "every one" scope shows that Paul is speaking to both saved and lost - every one who does evil - rejecting the Gospel call to repentance is lost just as EVERY ONE who responds to that gospel call and so "perseveres in doing good" will go to heaven.

In Romans 2 "everyone" is subject to the Rom 2:13-16 principle of being known by their fruit in the future Gospel judgment.

A point where Paul fully agrees with Christ in Matt 7.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Walter said -

4. Again, Paul's own interpretation in Romans 3:9 demands that Romans 1:18-Romans 3:8 he is proving that Gentiles and Jews are all "under sin" rather than some are justified

In Romans 3:9 Paul says "are we better than they - not at all.. both Jews and Greeks are all under sin".

Paul is not arguing that HE is still lost even under the Gospel. Rather he is arguing that he like all the rest of mankind is lost without the Gospel. All need Salvation.

This is also true of the saints of Rom 1:1-17 and the saints of Rom 2:7 and the saints of Rom 2:13-16 and the saints of Rom 2:26-29 and the saints of Rev 14:12 and the saints of Matt 7 who are the good trees with good fruit.

But to go to the Rom 3:9 case is to "circle back to the state of the lost" in that case the state of lost mankind and to deal with just how the lost are then saved. A key point of focus in Romans 3. This is great because in Romans 2 Paul does NOT argue as you do "no such thing as any saints who persevere in doing good" rather in Romans 2 and in Romans 1 Paul fully affirms the fact of BOTH saints AND the lost. So that when he drills down in Rom 3 on just how the saints get to be saints in the first place - he is promoting the discussion rather than the self-conflicted idea that Romans 2 was mere fiction.

It is already fully agreed that your solution to the issue of Matt 7 "good fruit and good trees" and Rev 14:12 "perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God" and Rom 2:6 those who "persevere in doing good" is to "circle back" to the Romans 3:9 issue of "yes but all mankind is lost to start with".

The "circle back" option goes directly to Heb 6 "laying AGAIN a foundation of repentance from dead works".

And as Paul points out in Heb 5 and 6 - that tactic results in stunted growth within the Christian church.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Walter
5. Again, Matthew 7:15-23 contains no saved persons. Every single individual and type of individual in Matthew 7:15-23 are LOST religous people.

Your desperation is showing if you have to go to such an extreme.

13 "" Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
14 ""For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

15 ""Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16 ""You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
17 ""So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 ""A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
19 "" Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 ""So then, you will know them by their fruits.
21 "" Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

22 "" Many will say to Me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
23 ""And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

24 ""Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.
25 ""And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.
26 ""Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
27 ""The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it felland great was its fall.''


The good trees in Matt 7 are those who are founded upon the rock - good trees with good fruit -- those who "do the will of My Father" those who "hears these words of Mine and acts on them"

Your choice to consider Christ's words as mere fiction in Matt 7 when he speaks of the success cases - leads you to consider Romans 2 also as mere fiction.

You need to rethink that entire line of reasoning.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

4. In contrast, isn't justification in Romans 3:24-5:2 expressed in the very opposite language being expressed in Romans 2:6-13?

Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,[/COLOR]

Rom. 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

I have already pointed out that the justification that we find in Romans 3:28 and in Romans 4 and in Romans 5:1 is justification past. It is the case where a bad tree becomes a good tree via the new birth.

It is the point where we find "repentance from dead works" Heb 6:1. A point you "circle back to" each time the subject of perseverance of the saints is mentioned as we find it in Romans 2:7, 13-16, 25-29 and Rev 14:12.

But the Rom 2:13-16 example of justification is stated IN THE TEXT as pertaining to that future judgment where the "DOERS of the Law are JUSTIFIED...on the day when according to my GOSPEL God will JUDGE the secrets of ALL mankind THROUGH Christ Jesus" as James points out "you see then that a man is JUSTIFIED by works and not by faith alone". And as Paul says "We must ALL stand before the Judgment seat of Christ to given an account for deeds done in the body whether they be GOOD or BAD". 2Cor 5:10

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Rom 1:1-17 sets context for the saved in Romans 2 just as Romans 1:18-32 sets the context for the lost of Romans 2 -- and hint - there are no chapter divisions in Paul's letter.

You admit to the facts that Romans 1:1-17 has no inclusion of lost. You admit to the facts that Romans 1:18-32 has no inclusion of the saved.

However, anyone can read Romans 2:1-3 and see it has no inclusion of the saved either -none - nada - zilch.

1 ¶ Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?


Furthermore, the pronouns used in Romans 2:4-5 demand Paul is talking about those in verses 1-3 and therefore Romans 2:1-5 has no inclusio of the saved either.


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 unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

That brings us to Romans 2:6-13. You cannot with honesty and integrity deny that this portion of scripture has to do with "EVERY SOUL" and "ANY MAN"

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Neither can you with honesty and integrety deny that this judgement is seeking to be "JUSTIFIED" by the standard of "THE LAW" according to "works" rather than according to grace, or faith!


12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in 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.

In Romans 2 Paul addresses those who "persevere in doing good" stating that the result is heaven. NOT arguing that some among those who persevere in doing good "go to hell anyway". Thus no lost among the saved (to use your prior argument in Rom 1).

He merely sets forth the criteria for obtaining heaven for "ANY MAN" or "EVERY SOUL" that seeks heaven "by patient well doing" "according to his works" (v. 6) as defined by the Law of God (v.13). He does not say they accomplished that criteria or obtained that goal.

In Romans 2 Paul does not argue that "Every man perseveres and does Good and goes to heaven".

Rather the "every man" and "every one" scope shows that Paul is speaking to both saved and lost - every one who does evil - rejecting the Gospel call to repentance is lost just as EVERY ONE who responds to that gospel call and so "perseveres in doing good" will go to heaven.

That is absurdly rediculous. The use of "every soul" and "every man" is by definition GENERIC without any concrete application. It proves that Paul has no specific concrete person in view but rather ANYONE and EVERYONE that fits these criteria. If you are a person that fits the criteria of persevering continuously in doing good then heaven is yours by definition of the Law's standard. If sin is found in your "works" then hell is yours by definition of the Law's standard.

In Romans 2 "everyone" is subject to the Rom 2:13-16 principle of being known by their fruit in the future Gospel judgment.

Here is where you are simply dishonest with God's Word. You completely ignore the fact that Justification by the Law according works introduces verses 12-16. Instead you pervert God's Word by jerking the word "gospel" of its context and forcing it to mean "salvation" and mean there are saved in view when Paul is using it not for "salvation" but for JUDGEMENT when JUSTIFICATION BY THE LAW is in view "according to works" not according to faith. You are intentionaly perverting the Word of God and you will give an account for it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

In Romans 3:9 Paul says "are we better than they - not at all.. both Jews and Greeks are all under sin".

Tell me Bob, where does the idea of "BETTERN THAN THEY" first originate in Romans 1:1-3:8????? Does it originate in Romans 1:1-17? No! Does it originate in Romans 1:18-32? No! It originates in Romans 2:1-3:

1 ¶ Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
Paul is not arguing that HE is still lost even under the Gospel.


Here is where the "idea" of better than thou originates in the text. It continues in Romans 2:17-3:8. So what has Romans 2:6-16 which is stuck right in the middle of this BETTER THAN THOU context have to do with this idea of BETTER THAN THOU????

Your intepretation of Romans 2:6-16 supports this BETTER THAN THOU idea as your interpretation says those who are BETTER in their works will be justified.

My interpretation of Romans 2:6-16 destroys the idea of BETTER THAN THOU idea due to the just criteria and consequences of works being judged according to the standard of God's Law.

Now, which interpretation do you think Romans 3:9 is talking about? Yours which PROMOTES better than thou based on works under judgement by law. Mine which destroys better thou based upon the standard of righteousness revealed in the Gospel which is used under law to judge works??????

To the Reader: Bob is committed to his error and will NEVER turn from it unless God frees him from his blindness. However, consider this post carefully.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Originally Posted by Dr. Walter

4. In contrast, isn't justification in Romans 3:24-5:2 expressed in the very opposite language being expressed in Romans 2:6-13?

Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,[/COLOR]

Rom. 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

I have already pointed out that the justification that we find in Romans 3:28 and in Romans 4 and in Romans 5:1 is justification past. It is the case where a bad tree becomes a good tree via the new birth.

Justification is not regeneration and the bad tree becoming good is regeneration and not justification. This fundemental theological confusion is why you interpret the justication as you do and you will never see the truth as long as you confuse justification with regeneration. This is the fundemnetal error at the base of your whole soteriolgical heresy.

Furthermore, simply saying Romans 3:24-5:2 points to the past justification does not change it from being a justification by faith, by grace IN CONTRAST to justification by law as the two are contrasted (Rom. 3:28; 4:5-6) rather than synonymous. Romans 2:13 is justified by law not justified by grace, by faith. Hence, your rhetorical wiggling is worthless as you do not know what you are talking abour nor have you answered my objection.

A point you "circle back to" each time

When Romans 3:38-5:2 is an overt explicit denial of justification by law and by works and Romans 2:6-13 is an overt explicit assertion of justification by law and by works it is absurd for you to accuse me of "circling back" when you cannot even distinguish they are in opposition to each other as PRINCIPLES for justification (Rom. 3:27).

If you would honestly admit that Romans 3;27-5:2 and Romans 2:2-16 are in OPPOSITION to each other in regard to the PRINCIPLE of Justification your whole interpretative scheme would evaporate into thin air. Justification by grace (Rom. 3:28-5:2) is not Justification by law (Rom. 2:6-16) and justification by faith "without works" (Rom. 4:5-6) is not justification by works (Rom. 2:6,7,12). The bible denies explicitly ANY FLESH can be jusitified by law, by works before God (Rom. 3:19-20; Gal. 3:10-12) and so it is not circuling back, because justification by law, by works is not possible for ANY FLESH at ANY TIME or ANYWHERE except in the mind of a heretic that thinks like the following man:

And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? - Rom. 2:3

Bob, YOU DO SUCH THINGS unless your are SINLESS and if you claim to be SINLESS the Bible calls you a "LIAR" (I Jn. 1:8-10) and will your wife and anyone who knows you intimately. The law's standard to pass it's definition of DOING the law according to works is to NOT FAIL IN ONE POINT (James 2:10) but to stedfastly persevere continuously without fail in one point in all that is written in the book of the Law to do them:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

That is why you must come to Christ and trust in his provision of righteousness produced in his life "for us" and receive it by faith and have it "imputed" to you by faith. This accompanies regeneration but is not regeneration. Regeneration produces fruits of righteousness to verify justification by faith but is not justification by faith.

Therefore it is absurd for you to charge me with circling back when you confuse the two and deny their differences. If you understood their differences there could be no charge of "circling back."

 

[scriptmemory]

In Romans 3:9 Paul says "are we better than they - not at all.. both Jews and Greeks are all under sin".

Paul is not arguing that HE is still lost even under the Gospel. Rather he is arguing that he like all the rest of mankind is lost without the Gospel. All need Salvation.

This is a good point.

 

[Dr. Walter]

This is a good point.

Why do you think this is a good point? I have never argued that Paul was speaking of anyone in a justified by faith saved condition in Romans 1:18-3:9. He is speaking of men in their lost condition which included himself before he was justified by faith. In fact, this has been my primary argument since the beginning of this debate.

However, Bob's interpretation of Romans 2 forces him to conclude that the saved man is included in Romans 3:9. How so? Romans 3:9 is a conclusion drawn to prove that no human being is better than any other human being but all are equally sinners. However, where does the idea of "better" than thou originate in the preceding context?

1. In Romans 1:1-18? NO!

2. In Romans 1:18-32? NO!

3. In Romans 2:1-29? YES! YES!

That very idea is expressed by the man Paul mentions in Romans 2:1-5. That very idea is expressed by the Jew in Romans 2:17-3:8

Now, Your interpretation and Bob's interpretation of the text placed right in the middle of this BETTER THAN THOU context (Rom. 2:6-16) supports that idea rather than denies it. Your position supports the idea that "according to his works" and "by patient continuance in well doing" some will be judged by the Law to be better than thou (those who do not measure up).

In contrast, Paul's intent is to prove the very opposite. He proves it by presenting the just criteria and consequences that the Law will evaluate to justify ANYONE and EVERY SOUL "according to his works." In verses 1-5 only negative conclusions are applied to the man. Not one positive conclusion is applied to the man. In verses 17-25 not one positive conclusion is applied to the Jew. In verses 26-29 not one positive conclusion is given to credit circumcision as a basis for justification. In Romans 3:1-8 not one positive conclusion is applied to the Jew.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
In Romans 3:9 Paul says "are we better than they - not at all.. both Jews and Greeks are all under sin".

Paul is not arguing that HE is still lost even under the Gospel. Rather he is arguing that he like all the rest of mankind is lost without the Gospel. All need Salvation.

This is a good point.

Why do you think this is a good point?

Well hmmm. turns out this such an obvious fact that even you agree with the Bible doctrine in Romans 3 that all mankind is lost and needs a Savior.

Why do you pick that point to object? Or are you simply wanting to say "nay" if someone says "the sky is up"??

Walter said -
I have never argued that Paul was speaking of anyone in a justified by faith saved condition in Romans 1:18-3:9. He is speaking of men in their lost condition

Hence your error since in Romans 2 we have people going to heaven.

Or is that the part Romans 2 you suppose to be fiction?

However, Bob's interpretation of Romans 2 forces him to conclude that the saved man is included in Romans 3:9. How so? Romans 3:9 is a conclusion drawn to prove that no human being is better than any other human being but all are equally sinners. However, where does the idea of "better" than thou originate in the preceding context?

Paul is not arguing for "better than" in Romans 3:9 but rather "same as".

Paul claims HE is the same as the lost sinner - in that he Needs Christ as Savior.

Then in vs 10-13 Paul shows why this is the case by pointing to the sinful nature of manind -- all of mankind.

What part of this is "not to get"??? Why do you consider it so difficult?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
In Romans 3:9 Paul says "are we better than they - not at all.. both Jews and Greeks are all under sin".

Paul is not arguing that HE is still lost even under the Gospel. Rather he is arguing that he like all the rest of mankind is lost without the Gospel. All need Salvation.

You cannot take the Word of God for what it says in clear black and white can you??????

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

The pronoun "we" is defined by the text WE THE JEWS. The Question is "ARE WE BETTER THAN THEY? The question is not are we "LOST" but are "WE BETTER." He does not say we have prove we are all "LOST"!! He says we have proved that both Jews and Gentiles are equally "UNDER SIN"

Now, Why would have to prove WE THE JEWS are not BETTER THAN THE GENTILES, meaning we the Jews are NOT UNDER SIN but the Gentiles are?

This is so simple and so clear and yet you cannot even accept his language or meaning. You have to substitute His words for your words and his explicit meaning for your meaning. Why? Because you must change God's Word to suit your heresies.

Where in the previous context does the "idea" of "BETTER THAN" thou occur?

1. In Romans 1:1-18? No!

2. In Romans 1:18-31? No!

3. In Romans 2:1-29? YES

That is precisely what is stated in Romans 2:1-5. That is precisely what is sated in Romans 2:17-29. Anyone that can read the English language can easily see that the "man" in Romans 2:1-5 is judging others and "thinketh" that they will escape the judgement because they are better.

Anyone capable of reading the English langauge can easily read Romans 2:17-25 and read that the Jew is BOASTING himself BETTER than the Gentiles because of the Law.

Anyone capable of reading the English language can easily read Romans 2:25-27 and easily seem that Paul is dealing with the Jewish boast grounded in circumcison.

But Bob cannot see what is plain and clear and simple but must substitute Paul's words in Romans 3:9 with his own words and must change the argument of Paul to Bob's argument. Why? Because Bob refuses to deal with the Word of God honestly and with integrity.

Well hmmm. turns out this such an obvious fact that even you agree with the Bible doctrine in Romans 3 that all mankind is lost and needs a Savior.

Why do you pick that point to object? Or are you simply wanting to say "nay" if someone says "the sky is up"??

Proving that all are under sin is necessary to prove that all are lost and need salvation. However, Paul cannot prove that all are lost and in need of salvation until he first proves that none are better than others but all are equally under sin AND that no one can be justified under law by good works (Rom. 3:19-20). Why must he prove this first? Obvioulys because there are some who believe they are BETTER than others and that is clearly pointed out in Romans 2:1-5; 17-29 and finally admitted by the objector to Paul in Romans 3:1

1 ¶ What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

Why does Paul consider this question , What ADVANTAGE THEN HATH THE JEW, if Paul had not just proven there was no advantage and that circumcision does not give the Jew advantage over the Gentile in regard to the judgment under law (Rom. 2:6-16)??????????????????????????

Hence your error since in Romans 2 we have people going to heaven.

No! It is proof of your error as Romans 2:1-5 and 17-29 is proof that NO MAN by virtue of self-righteousness will be justified under the law "according to his works" in Romans 2:6-16.

Paul is not arguing for "better than" in Romans 3:9 but rather "same as".

Your argument is with the text"

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

There is no point in continuing this discussion with you. You are a blind man that will stay blind until God opens your eyes. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on someone who is simply committed to forcing scriptures to fit SDA ideology regardless of what the scriptures say.

 

[Chowmah]

The Sabbath is dealt with in detail in Exodus 31. The Bible clearly delineates that is a sign of the covenant made between Jehovah and Israel and their generations forever and ever. It is to them, and them alone. There is no command anywhere for the Gentile to keep the Sabbath.

ACTS 17 [2] AND PAUL, AS HIS MANNER WAS, went in unto them, and three SABBATH DAYS reasoned with them out of the scriptures,[3] Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Dont ya think Paul should have been told this sabbath revelation of yours. He was keeping the sabbath long after the crucified Christ

ACTS 25 [7] And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. [8] While he answered for himself, NEITHER AGAINST THE LAW OF THE JEWS, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, HAVE I OFFENDED ANY THING AT ALL.

During the time of Paul there were also many who accused Paul, saying he was not keeping the law of the Jews (which includes the sabbath). Seems they were wrong to

 

[Chowmah]

Your teaching would end up to be that a man must be born again and again and again and again. The Bible does not teach that. It teaches that a man is born only once into the family of God. He cannot lose his salvation. He cannot be born many times. What about it? Explain yourself. Give scripture as to what you mean. What "falling away?"

2 THES. 2 [1]Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, [2] That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. [3] Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST

Thats a falling away from belief in the Word. As for the "born again" thing, thats not like youve been taught. Its really rather simple

 

[DHK]

ACTS 17 [2] AND PAUL, AS HIS MANNER WAS, went in unto them, and three SABBATH DAYS reasoned with them out of the scriptures,[3] Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Dont ya think Paul should have been told this sabbath revelation of yours. He was keeping the sabbath long after the crucified Christ

He wasn't keeping the Sabbath. He was going where and when the people gathered. If they had gathered on a Monday, he would have gone on a Monday to preach to them. It didn't matter to him.

Some regard one day above another. Others regard every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Many Christians in Muslim lands worship on Fridays (the Muslim holy day) because it is the only day that they have time to worship or gather together. Their Muslim taskmasters have them working the other six days of the week. Would you condemn them as well?

Once Paul was kicked out of the synagogues and went to the Gentiles he no longer worshiped on the Sabbath but rather on Sunday. Check Acts 20:7.

ACTS 25 [7] And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. [8] While he answered for himself, NEITHER AGAINST THE LAW OF THE JEWS, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, HAVE I OFFENDED ANY THING AT ALL.

During the time of Paul there were also many who accused Paul, saying he was not keeping the law of the Jews (which includes the sabbath). Seems they were wrong to

Paul was careful not to offend people deliberately. He didn't go out of his way to do so. Here is what he said:

And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men. (Acts 24:16)
--But the gospel does offend. And that is not what he is talking about.
--Worshiping on Sunday may offend some, but that is not what he is talking about.

 

[DHK]

2 THES. 2 [1]Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, [2] That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. [3] Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST

Thats a falling away from belief in the Word. As for the "born again" thing, thats not like youve been taught. Its really rather simple

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
--This expression refers to the rapture. Jesus will come and we will be gathered together with him.

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2)
--The day of Christ refers to His Second Coming at the end of the Tribulation, an entirely different event. Sometimes this same expression is used to refer to the entire Tribulation period, but I believe here it refers to His Second Coming after the Tribulation.

Before that time there will be a falling away which appears to something like an apostasy. But how can there be an apostasy if all Christians have already been raptured? This would be all those unsaved Catholics, all those who have been pretending to be Christians; all those who have swallowed the Benny Hinn doctrine of salvation, etc. and the so-called cults. They will apostatize from "Christendom" and take the mark of the beast, and follow him as their god.
Verses 3 to 11 describes all the other events that will happen at that same time starting with the revealing of the Antichrist, but I don't plan to be there.

 

[Chowmah]

Before that time there will be a falling away which appears to something like an apostasy. But how can there be an apostasy if all Christians have already been raptured? This would be all those unsaved Catholics, all those who have been pretending to be Christians; all those who have swallowed the Benny Hinn doctrine of salvation, etc. and the so-called cults.

Doesnt make sense DHK. If you are an unsaved catholic or a benny Hinnster you cant fall away as you were never there to begin with. In fact those who "fall away" will be those who understand

2 THES. 2 [1]Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, [2] That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. [3] Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, EXCEPT THERE COME A FALLING AWAY FIRST, and that MAN OF SIN BE REVEALED, THE SON OF PERDITION; [4] WHPPOSETH AND EXALTETH HIMSELF ABOVE ALL THAT IS CALLED GOD, OR THAT IS WORSHIPPED; SO THAT HE AS GOD SITTETH IN THE TEMPLE OF GOD, SHEWING HIMSELF THAT HE IS GOD.

DANIEL 11 [32] And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. [33] And THEY THAT UNDERSTAND AMONG THE PEOPLE SHALL INSTRUCT MANY: YET THEY SHALL FALL by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days. [34] Now WHEN THEY SHALL FALL, THEY SHALL BE HOLPEN WITH A LITTLE HELP: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. [35] And SOME OF THEM OF UNDERSTANDING SHALL FALL, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed. [36] And the king shall do according to his will; and HE SHALL EXALT HIMSELF, AND MAGNIFY HIMSELF ABOVE EVERY GOD, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.