Why the Sunday-keeping Church thinks of Sunday as the Sabbath

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

If keeping the commanments here is referring to the law why would Paul have just told someone they don't need to do something in the law ie. be circumcised?
v.18 "Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised."

Obvioulsy the sabbath is the 7th day, Bob. And obviously God didn't say to the Jews "if you prefer..." These ae really elementary arguments.

Why is it so hard to see that the Kingdom of God is different than the kingdom of Isreal? You do not do sacrifices because you see that it no longer applies to you. The "slicing and dicing" (as you like to say I do with the scriptures) of the law into the moral, civil, and ceremonial is man-made. The law is the law, and God said to do it all. Then do it all or see that the purpose of the law is passed for the children of promise.

Gal. 3:19 "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made;"

Gal 4:28 "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise."

Gal 4:21 "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

GE

Here now, Trustit! This is more like a 'Scriptural' approach, but alas, you barked up the wrong tree altogether. What has this got to do with Sunday-sacredness, boy, was the question, remember?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

First thing for our learned, informed, and versed quasi scholars to keep in mind is, those little 'snippets' from Scripture every time without exception reverted to -- everyone knows them ... by heart. Usually they have nothing to do with the subject, besides. And if they had, the wrong approach to, and the wrong aspect of them, are elaborated on and made a showpiece of of incompetency in the Scriptures.

I need not repeat my question; it is the header of this thread. So kindly let us see answers to it, and not everybody's straw-swords.

 

[trustitl]

Why the Sunday keeping chuch thinks of Sunday as the Sabbath

In response to Mr. Gerhard Ebersoehn,

I don't think the early church thought of the first day as the new Sabbath. They may have gotten together on that day but I'm not going to put myself in the bondage of "they did it so we have to too". I quit the holy kissing thing a few years ago after thinking that way. I know I am only a "boy" and I am definitely not a scholar, but I don't see anything in scripture that supports either side as being the winner in this mass of vain jangling.

My whole point all along has been to point that out. Sorry for being boring (your words again) but my attempt was to get everybody to (naively I even thought some of the scholars might) see that the question originally posed was not going to really get us any where but to this point. :BangHead:

I guess I'll check out of this one. I just hope new Christians aren't reading this stuff looking for direction in how to live out being a child of God. If you are a seeker of truth reading all this, leave this one to the "disputer of the world" and find some believers that will edify and encourage you. :godisgood:

Romans 16:17 "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

I Tim 6:3 "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings"

"Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world?" I guess it's not me. Thousands of posts? :type: Not for me. I think I'm going to go feed the poor or help a widow. :wavey:

 

[Palatka51]

I do not know if anyone has responded to this thread with this point but IMHO the law is what caused Jesus to go to the cross because there was no one able to pay the price of the law and live. If you go to the books of the law and do your research you'll find that the simple act of keeping the sabboth is not so simple. You could not gather sticks on the sabboth. You could not draw water on the sabboth. You could not gather food on the sabboth. You could not cook food on the sabboth. Doing the could nots is what dishonored the sabboth not the honoring of the resurrection on Sunday.

This is telling me that while Jesus was dead in the tomb on the 6th day He had put to death my sins for it is the wage for my sin and He paid it. Now I rejoice in the fact that Jesus rose on the dawn of the first day of the week. It is not that it is Sunday because I worship with my fellow brothers and sisters it is because He rose that day. Had that day been Tuesday then that day would be the day that I would cherish.

Just as the day that God set aside (the Sabboth) for His rest, Jesus rested on that day for the payment of my sin. Now He is risen for a new work of His Holy Spirit and that work is for all of us.

God the Father rested.
God the Son rested.
God the Spirit is working.

One day soon the Spirit will rest. When that day comes it will envolve the church and our gathering together unto Him. Sometime during the sixthousandth year prehaps, hmm?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

To Palatka post 124,

Thanks. You have come near to what I expected - being blamed for of many things by at least one good Samaritan who went his way now. Just separate emotion from argument, please, and let's see. In the end my question could have been much simpler: What importance does the verdict of Scripture - the whole of it - have for you (or me and everyone) calling himself as well as his practical living out of his faith, specifically with regard to Sunday-observance, 'Christian'.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE

I was not the one that brought in Acts 17.

Also, I am not quite sure what you are getting at regarding Col 2:18-19. To me these verses didn't really seem to be addressing those teaching keeping the law. It appears that some were into "angel worship" and voluntary humility (which was probably some form of asceticism) that Paul saw as taking away from Christ the same way the handwriting of ordinances did.

Also, I am not a Sundaydarian or Sabbatharian. I think both sides pushing(not practicing) their view are wrong. If you want to do either, do it unto the Lord without talking about it for a couple of years and see how you feel.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things(including the issue addressed in vv. 5-6) serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

It is sad that some unbelievers may visit this site and ask "why dost thou set at nought thy brother? (V. 10) instead of saying look at them edify each other(v 19).:tear: I say this as somebody that was guilty of judging my brother regarding this issue and saw the "fruit" it bore.

Acts 17 and 20 do not seem to provide a lot of support for making a doctrine which clearly contradicts the truths in Romans 14. They did these things. Does that mean we need to? Ever do a holy kiss, have your wife wear a headcovering, refuse to eat some meats...? Look at some modern examples - dividng based on music styles, clothes, modes of education,... God is saddened by it all.

So my answer to the question "Why does the Sunday-keeping church think of Sunday as the Sabbath?" is that they think the early church did it so we should to. Paul would say:

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

There, I didn't leave them out this time! :thumbs:

Thanks for asking. God bless!

GE

A pity you left, trustit! now that you almost struck the right note. This post of yours, once again, I'm not asking ANYTHING about the Sabbath! I'm asking you about Sunday? You accused me of many things in a later post of yours, and simultaneously took heels. The word 'boy' certainly proves a good test for anyone; I've seen it many times!

Now may courtesy at least make you change your mind, and attempt an answer to my question properly?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Or was it not the word 'boy' but the subject, that annoyed you so much?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Palatka
"You could not gather food on the sabboth. You could not cook food on the sabboth. Doing the could nots is what dishonored the sabboth not the honoring of the resurrection on Sunday."

You said it! Now my question to you will have to be phrased like this, All those 'could nots' (nice description!) - how do you pull them through to Sunday? If pulled through right from their institution in the Scriptures to Christ, what do you get? Sunday sacredness (in stead of Sabbath sacredness)? -- Not, how you get them to Sabbath desecration! [And if you liked, how did you get from those 'could nots' of the Scriptures, to Sabbath desecration? But only if you liked?] But what is of significance in this remark of yours, is that some way or other, you arrived at the 'honouring of the resurrection'! That's what I'm so anxious to understand -- from the Scriptures, please!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

After 13 pages it is high time I come forward with my hidden agenda, to make the good and honest believers themselves PROVE they have NO Scripture. Otherwise we might have gone on with wasting syberspace and time.

But I have another hidden agenda, and I wonder if anyone could have guessed?

 

[Palatka51]

Palatka
"You could not gather food on the sabboth. You could not cook food on the sabboth. Doing the could nots is what dishonored the sabboth not the honoring of the resurrection on Sunday."

You said it! Now my question to you will have to be phrased like this, All those 'could nots' (nice description!) - how do you pull them through to Sunday? If pulled through right from their institution in the Scriptures to Christ, what do you get? Sunday sacredness (in stead of Sabbath sacredness)? -- Not, how you get them to Sabbath desecration! [And if you liked, how did you get from those 'could nots' of the Scriptures, to Sabbath desecration? But only if you liked?] But what is of significance in this remark of yours, is that some way or other, you arrived at the 'honouring of the resurrection'! That's what I'm so anxious to understand -- from the Scriptures, please!

Just as God had rested after His great work of creation Jesus, who by reference to John chapter 1 was with God at creation, finished another work on the cross our salvation by His death. All this would have been for naught had it not been for the resurrection. The resurrection is the new creation of life in that that which was dead, the old sinner put to death is swallowed up in new life. It is the new life that is celebrated.
Acts 20:6&7
6And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.
7And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Isn't it curious that they waited until the first day of the week to break bread?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Just as God had rested after His great work of creation Jesus, who by reference to John chapter 1 was with God at creation, finished another work on the cross our salvation by His death. All this would have been for naught had it not been for the resurrection. The resurrection is the new creation of life in that that which was dead, the old sinner put to death is swallowed up in new life. It is the new life that is celebrated.
Acts 20:6&7
6And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.
7And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Isn't it curious that they waited until the first day of the week to break bread?

GE

Ah Palatsky, very good! Look how well have you aimed the arrow from creation to Christ ... straight through the Scriptures, skipping nothing! But ... through using what sort of Scripture? Using 'Sunday / First Day-Scripture'? Or using 'Sabbath-Scripture'? 'Sabbath-Scripture' of course! Now is it not just an honest expectation that one is supposed to reach the same end-result and end-conclusion as to the holiness of the referred and relevant day, which is the Sabbath and not Sunday? THAT IS MY QUESTION! How is conclusion reached as with regard to a day not "at issue" or relevant whatsoever? If God on the Sabbath rested (and He did rest on the Sabbath) -- and that 'rest' concluded in Christ and is concluded in Christ in resurrection from the dead -- is it not consequent (logical, natural, necessary, consistent, faithful, true) God would have raised Jesus from the dead on the day 'at issue' and relevant, the Sabbath Day? Would God have created, creating expectation and hope and trust, "thus concerning" - to quote the Word of this very God - "the Seventh Day speaking", but disappoint on the day of His own appointment and pass by the opportunity of His own creating of hope and trust and expectation? How would it be possible?!

Could Acts 20:7 to your interpretation of it, have answered the challenge of the moment? Would Acts 20:7 to your interpretation of it not have reversed, contradicted and disappointed the sure and certain Promises of God's 'blessing the Seventh Day', 'sanctifying the Seventh Day', 'resting the Seventh Day', 'finishing the Seventh Day', "reviving the Seventh Day"? Would it not be the annulment of the Scriptures itself?

Therefore, before even having had a look at the accuracy of your interpreting and concluding from Acts 20:7, anyone who takes the Scriptures seriously and honestly, must be aware to believe it was the First Day and not the Seventh Day Sabbath that received significance and honour in the way and by the consequence of your argumentation.

It shall consistently be with this in mind, that one will have to look closer at the literal and accurate meaning of Acts 20:7, because it cannot and may not be at variance with the whole of the Scriptures as the Word of God. We need a new 'theology' and a new 'exegetical' disciplin and philosophy in our interpretation of this text (as with any other text that may be tried for excuse for Sunday sacredness). And that 'new' way will turn out to be nothing new, but just the plain old Protestant principle of 'Sola Scriptura!'

Thus I can announce: What all the while has been said in Acts 20:7, only confirmed the Prophecies and the Promises and the sure mercies of David, that God on the Sabbath Day rested in Christ Jesus in having raised Him from the dead, "In the Sabbath Day's fulness". So that Acts 20:7 saying, "On the evening of the First Day being together still after that we for Holy Communion had had Congregated, Paul dealt with the disciples ..." actually and simply implies that Holy Communion before the evening of the First Day (its beginning) on the Sabbath Day before, had been had.

 

[Palatka51]

Have you ever asked yourself why God did not tell Adam to honor the Sabbath?
How about Noah, Abraham, Isaac or Jacob? It was not instituted as a requirement until God gave it to Moses. When Jesus told the people to honor it he was talking to the Jewish nation and not to the Gentile.
Here are some relevent scripture I will have more later as I must make it to church for Wednesday services. Unles there is something about not worshiping on Wednesday night?
Galatians 3:1-10
1O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: 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

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Paul says "What matters is keeping the commandments" 1Cor 7:19 -- what does he mean?

And of course Paul says in Romans 3:31 "Do we then make void the law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law"

If keeping the commanments here is referring to the law why would Paul have just told someone they don't need to do something in the law ie. be circumcised?
v.18 "Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised."

This is a great question and it gets to the heart of the Sabbath commandment because if "the Gospel" is the "good news that law breaking is the WILL of God" then all appeals to "obey the Word of God" are now ended!

And as you point out - surely this is the message of Paul when it comes to circumcision".

However - you have to remeber that the context for that argument among first century NT saints (as we see clearly in both Eph 2 and in Acts 15) is the issue of "NATIONAL" identity. It is whether Gentiles must become members of the Jewish nation -- or remain (as Eph 2 says ) separated from God as the "uncircumcision".

Paul points out that identity with the literal nation of Israel has nothing to do with salvation - and never did.

Paul points out in Gal 3 and Romans 3 that salvation was NEVER based on being circumcised.

In Romans 2 Paul argues that the only spiritual salvific benefit to circumcison was that of the heart done by the Holy Spirit.

Paul is not arguing for "a change" he is arguing that this has ALWAYS been the case.

One Gospel in ALL ages. Paul never argues against scripture not EVEN the scripture regarding circumcision!

Notice what Paul does with Timothy in Acts 16 right after the hot debate over circumcision in chapter 15?

Notice Paul's claim in Acts 22 through the end of the book "I have done NOTHING against the law or the tradition of the elders"!

In fact Paul takes a vow to "PROVE" that that lies being told about him - how he is telling Jews to disobey scripture are all false

The evidence is overwhelming. In Eph 6:1-4 Paul argues for the 5th commandment as the "FIRST" one with a promise and so is arguing for all ten as valid as James points out.

In Romans 2 Paul even shows the link between justification-future and law keeping in vs 11-13.

He takes the exact opposite approach to "God wants you to disobey His written Word".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Trustit
Obvioulsy the sabbath is the 7th day, Bob. And obviously God didn't say to the Jews "if you prefer..." These ae really elementary arguments.

I don't mind having to always be the one to point out that I am only stating that painfully obvious. I welcome others who see that point as well.

I never claimed the argument was rocket science. Just obvious as you have stated.

Trustit
Why is it so hard to see that the Kingdom of God is different than the kingdom of Isreal? You do not do sacrifices because you see that it no longer applies to you. The "slicing and dicing" (as you like to say I do with the scriptures) of the law into the moral, civil, and ceremonial is man-made. The law is the law, and God said to do it all. Then do it all or see that the purpose of the law is passed for the children of promise.

When Paul says it is important to "keep the commandments" 1Cor 7 this is not a "funny kinda Paul way of saying reject and ignore the commandments".

When Paul speaks to justification post-cross and says "for it is not the HEARERS of the Law that are just but the doers of the law WILL BE Justified" he speaks of the real law and speaks of the real future. Post cross.

When Paul says that the Law "Still IS Holy Just and Good" and is "spiritual" then we have no grounds to argue that he ever argued "the law is now abolished" in fact no such thing was ever argued by Paul or any other NT or OT saint.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Trustit

Gal. 3:19 "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made;"

Gal 3 is the chapter where we find Paul arguing the "ONE Gospel" that we find in Gal 1:6-9 is "preached to Abraham" in the OT.

Paul THEN goes on from that Gospel OT context and speaks to the addition of the law given at Sinai. Law that Paul arleady tells us in Romans 6, Romans 7, Romans 3 and Galatians 3 "Defines sin".

Paul never argues that "sin is ok -- sin more and have a good day".

In Gal 3 Paul shows that the Law does not (and never did) SAVE. Not in the OT and not in the NT. The Law for the lost only condemns but for the SAINTS Paul says it is "abolished" OOPS! NOPE! He says "it is written on tablets of the human HEART!" 2Cor 3, Heb 8.

It is the Law of God that is brought INTO the life and written on the heart in the New Birth as part of the New Covenant!

JUST when everyone "wanted" to argue that the new covenant is where they law is slain - killed - obliterated -- we see that it IS the New Covenant that provides for the External and condemning Law to no longer Condemn but to instruct and to the light of the new creation, new birth - the one who "Walks as Christ walked" 1John2.

"If you Love Me KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15.

Christ was right then - and His Words are still valid today.

Read your own post carefully -- it claims in essence that Christ's statemetn in John 14 pre-cross to the Commandments of God is "a call to more bondage". This has to surely be a clue in your view that something is wrong with your model.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

This of course would explain why the 4th commandment would still exist in its original form - pointing as a memorial to the work of God as our Creator -- Christ's Holy day made by him in Gen 2:3.

It does not explain why someone would either apply the restrictions and authority of the 4th commandment to some other day - or why someone who rejects the commandments entirely would consider a day to be sanctified by God and observed "on a seven day cycle".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[trustitl]

Gal 3 is the chapter where we find Paul arguing the "ONE Gospel" that we find in Gal 1:6-9 is "preached to Abraham" in the OT.

Trustitl
In uncircumcision (in other words the law did not exist). You will want to say it did but you have no solid support for it. Why was the law added if it always existed?

Bob Ryan
Paul THEN goes on from that Gospel OT context and speaks to the addition of the law given at Sinai. Law that Paul arleady tells us in Romans 6, Romans 7, Romans 3 and Galatians 3 "Defines sin".

Trustitl
That is right, it shows sin. It was intended to do that for the Jews. Us dirty Gentiles had our consciences doing the same thing. Romans 2:12-16

Bob Ryan
In Gal 3 Paul shows that the Law does not (and never did) SAVE. Not in the OT and not in the NT. The Law for the lost only condemns but for the SAINTS Paul says it is "abolished" OOPS! NOPE! He says "it is written on tablets of the human HEART!" 2Cor 3, Heb 8.

Trustitl
It didn't save because nobody kept it. If a Jew would have kept it he would have been saved by itl If a Gentile were to do everything his conscience told him he would be saved too. Romans 2:6-10.

The law written on our hearts is to stone a young person that curses their mom and dad? Not on this heart!

Bob Ryan
JUST when everyone "wanted" to argue that the new covenant is where they law is slain - killed - obliterated -- we see that it IS the New Covenant that provides for the External and condemning Law to no longer Condemn but to instruct and to the light of the new creation, new birth - the one who "Walks as Christ walked" 1John2.

Trustitl
Christ walked in love is what John will spend 5 chapters saying. We are too.

God
I John 2:7 "Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. 8 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth."

I John 3:11 "For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another."

 

[BobRyan]

Gal 3 is the chapter where we find Paul arguing the "ONE Gospel" that we find in Gal 1:6-9 is "preached to Abraham" in the OT.

Trustitl
In uncircumcision (in other words the law did not exist). You will want to say it did but you have no solid support for it.

I have God's Word stating that Abraham was one who KEPT God's Law.

Gen 26
5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.[/b]''

The codification of that Law LIKE the codification of God's act in creating mankind was given by God to Moses for mankind as a reminder of who God is and what our relationship is to Him.

both still remain true to day according to the NT.

As Paul states in Romans 4 "where there is no law there is no sin" yet God tells Cain that he must get victory over sin and worship God as per God's instructions.

Indeed we see "sin" defined and at work from the very start and sin IS violation of that Law God mentioned above.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob Ryan
Paul THEN goes on from that Gospel OT context and speaks to the addition of the law given at Sinai. Law that Paul arleady tells us in Romans 6, Romans 7, Romans 3 and Galatians 3 "Defines sin".

Trustitl
That is right, it shows sin. It was intended to do that for the Jews. Us dirty Gentiles had our consciences doing the same thing. Romans 2:12-16

Indeed - God "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16.

And as Paul says in Romans 3 "so what Advantage does the Jew have -- a GREAT one in every way! There's is the ORACLEs of God" to them belonged SCRIPTURE - the WORD of God.

Even today the saints admit that the Word of God is of value!

And it is THAT Word that Christ said could NOT be broken!

It is that Word that "defines sin" according to Paul in Romans 7 and Eph 6 and so also says James in James 2 -- yes "still even to this day"

Bob Ryan
In Gal 3 Paul shows that the Law does not (and never did) SAVE. Not in the OT and not in the NT. The Law for the lost only condemns but for the SAINTS Paul says it is "abolished" OOPS! NOPE! He says "it is written on tablets of the human HEART!" 2Cor 3, Heb 8.

Trustitl
It didn't save because nobody kept it. If a Jew would have kept it he would have been saved by itl

Only if that Jew were Adam. After Adam ALL mankind has been born with a sinful nature. An infant that dies before committing sin must still have a savior. It is not saved by obedience.

If a Gentile were to do everything his conscience told him he would be saved too. Romans 2:6-10.

That is not true. In Romans 2 the CONTEXT is "repentance" -- it is as Paul says "According to My GOSPEL" Rom 2:13-16.

And it is in that GOSPEL context that Paul argues for JUSTIFICATION...

"It is not the hearers of the law that are JUST but the doers of the law WILL BE JUSTIFIED" Romans 2:11-13.

Paul never argues in Romans 2 "Without Christ you can still be saved by law keeping". In fact he argues that the law only condemns. In Romans 2 Paul argues the case of those who are in Christ the same way Christ argues their case in Matt 7 "BY their FRUIT you shall know them" the same way James argues the point in James 2 the same way Paul argues the case in Romans 6 "by what you are overcome - by that you are enslaved -- that is your master -- the one you serve". Paul James and Christ all arguing the same point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

God is love and His Law is Liberty as James argues -- then James quotes the Ten Commandments.