Arminians and Calvinists - or Christians?

[francisdesales]

If you were using the word "pagan" simply to refer to certain people before they became spiritually circumcised, I have no issues over that at all.

Agree. The context here is not Jewish Christian v non-Jewish Christian...

francisdesales - "Is a loving Indian in the Amazon jungle an "unbeliever" in God's mind?"

I held on to the distinction to state that these incas or this Indian in the Amazon cannot be considered spiritually circumcised if they continue to worship a false god(s), reference-names apart. If these too love out of their love for the true nature of God, reference-names apart again, then these do cease to be "pagans" and for all spiritual purposes, are to be deemed believers in Christ. What I was against, is the implication that one could be of God even when they continued to worship false god(s) irrespective of their externally seen 'good' deeds. Just to get this out of the way, do you believe in such a possibility?

I believe God will be the judge of the inner dispositions, despite the outer partial truths that one believes intellectually. If a person is drawn to love others selflessly, we can be sure that the Spirit of Christ is at work.

There is no other way by which a person can be saved.

It's pretty clear we are not agreed upon certain doctrines while we are very well agreed upon certain other doctrines. Why must that turn to personal comments?

"looking beyond your theology" is not a personal comment. It is a request to read what is in the Scriptures. Let us allow Scriptures to speak for themselves, rather than interjecting doctrines where we must destroy the context of the Scriptures, such as what is going on with Romans 2/3, as I am detailing.

I'd say the entire passage has a conditional tone of argument rather than a descriptive tone of what actually happens in reality

Frankly, that is begging the question, since NOWHERE does the Bible suggest any sort of thing. The issue is not whether man "can" do good, because the Bible states that "even the pagans do that". Only by misreading Romans 3 can one come to such a wretched conclusion. The Psalms from where Paul cites tell us that people DO follow God, do pursue His Law, etc. Sometimes even in the very same Psalm he cites in Romans 3!!!

You have not done what I asked. To simply read the Sciptures. Yes, your theology is preventing you from seeing what is plainly there in Romans 2. You a priori assume that NO ONE can obey the Law, due to misinterpreting Romans 3 Psalm references. This OVERRIDES what Paul actually says in Romans 2, according to you. Just to give you three samples on your error:

1.

IF the "entire passage was conditional", theoretical, etc., then WHY is Paul telling us that the Spirit HAS WRITTEN a law on their hearts? To what effect? Paul ALREADY PRESUMES that the Spirit HAS INDEED done something!!! Hoe does Paul know? Because he witnesses the pagan doing good!!!

Simply put, Paul is describing something that has HAPPENED!!!

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. Romans 2:14-15.

This presumes that they ARE doing the law, being a law onto themselves. It is amazing logic to claim that Paul witnesses the law written on the heart of a pagan without seeing the Spirit's work which is being shown!

THESE are the words of someone who has experienced the ACTUAL working of the Spirit. It SHOWS the work of the Law written in their hearts. Consider the underlined words. Their thoughts accuse others. This is not hypothetical. These are words meant to shame the national Jew...

2.

Another sample, the "spiritually circumcised". Does Paul call them hypothetical or theoretical? No, they actually exist. The last three verses explains the reality of verse 7-11

To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.

Paul is not stating that no one is patient in continuance. He says "to them"... Not, "no one is". Only by taking Romans 3 out of context and backword transposing it here can one come to such an incorrect conclusion. I have already shown that your version of Romans 3 cannot be.

3.

And your final sample of how your interpretation is wrong:

The very structure of Romans 2:7-10. The comparison by Paul is that either both are true or both are hypothetical.
If one phrase is hypoethetical, then we must ALSO claim that those who "obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath..." are ALSO theoretical! The structure of the phrases - by your interpretation - would mean that it is hypothetical that one "obey unrighteousness, indignation, and wrath" as well.

Who is going to make such a claim? The structure of this passage does not allow one to say "this part is theoretical, while the other is not"... No. Either they both are real or they both are theoretical.

---

The point is that God is not a respecter of persons. NOT that "no one can obey the Law". The ENTIRE point of Romans 2 is that Jews are not given a free pass to enter heaven, if they do not obey God's Will, especially since they HAVE the WRITTEN Law. We have clear examples of pagans obeying the Law, even though they don't have a written law. Paul states (in reality) that some DO obey the Law written on their hearts, and will be granted Eternal life.

Clearly, without God, NO ONE can come before Him and obligate God to repay a debt. But NO WHERE does Paul state that a pagan cannot do the will of God, as KNOWLEDGE ALONE saves... KNOWING the written law has NOT provided the Jews with a reliable route to heaven, as Paul notes in Romans 2-3. Only by God's work in the heart of a man (as in writing a law) can a man be saved - Jew OR Gentile/pagan.

- and yes, it does say God will render eternal life to those who do the law, as I've already mentioned -
ivdavid - "This follows from Romans 2:13, which states that the doers of the law will be justified."

Romans 2 very clearly states that God's work is SHOWN in these people. It is being done, visibly!!!

Thus, we must jettison such silly ideas that Paul is speaking hypothetically. For if he is speaking hypothetically, HOW INDEED is God's Work made manifest in the pagan, that written Law on the heart?

HOW do we see God's work on the pagan's heart if the pagan cannot obey the will of God? That destroys the ENTIRE POINT of Paul stating that the law is written on the heart!!!

I quoted Rom 3:19-20 which is the conclusion Paul is heading towards in his first 3 chapters - and which says nobody is justified by doing the law - thereby showing that Romans 2:13 is an argument that is true in itself but not practically realised.

False. Again, carefully read what the Bible actually says...

The statement of Romans 3 does not say no one can DO the Law. It says no one is JUSTIFIED by DOING the Law. There would be no need to say this if no one could actually DO the Law!!!

Merely DOING does not OBLIGATE God to justify anyone. God freely justifies those who obey His Law - out of love, not out of paying a debt.

This is readily seen in how parents treat their young children. I can reward my children who obey a particular dictate - not out of "I owe him", but out of love.

Also, consider Rom 2:26 - would you say that this verse leads to the conclusion that the uncircumcision receive eternal life by keeping the righteousness of the law?

Oh boy... THis is all very simple.

They receive it as a gift, not as a debt payment. NO ONE receives salvation as a debt that God owes. Whether Jew or Gentile.

I'd say this is an argumentative point which can never be realised in reality from what's said in Rom 10:3-5. This affirms that Rom 2 has a conditional tone of argument rather than a descriptive tone.

Amazing that you would feel the need to move 8 chapters down the line to "verify" your thoughts, rather than just read chapter 2 as-is...

Your interpretation is null and void by the very fact that God HIMSELF is writing a Law onto pagans, one that becomes MANIFEST, OPENLY, among those whom God selects and calls.

I really can't comprehend the ambiguity in your statements - that one is rendered eternal life according to his deeds and yet that these deeds do not earn eternal life.

God has given eternal life freely to those who He deems is worthy of it, not because God is paying back a debt.

How can anyone go before God and say "See what I did, God, you owe me" - when the Bible very clearly says it is GOD HIMSELF WHo is doing the writing. God HIMSELF who is moving the will and the desire to do good? God HIMSELF Who freely gives such things as "faith" as a gift? What are "we" giving to God that is of our own (without God)??? NOTHING. At the best, we can say we merely cooperated with the gift that God has given - as my signature line states. And those who do cooperate, THEY will be rewarded freely as a gift to eternal life.

Nothing ambiguous here.

Regards

 

[mondar]

All quotes ASV
Romans 2:14 (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);

Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: 34 and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

There is a great difference between the two passages above. In Romans, the law written on the heart is there "by nature." There is some parallelism in that this law brings the conscience to bear witness. The end result is that the conscience will either accuse, or excuse. Both results are negative. The end result of accusing men on the basis of the conscience does not result in forgiveness, but in condemnation. This looks forward to Romans 8. The end result of excusing oneself looks back to Romans 1:20. Men have conscience and the ability to "clearly" see and perceive God in the "things that are made." The problem is that none of this is life changing. This ability of man only results in what Paul said in 2:14... to excuse or accuse. There is no salvation here, neither are there any good works or merit. What good is it to fail and rebel against the conscience and to excuse or be accused? Where is the glorious evidence of this obedience to this law? It can only be assumed that somewhere this law of God written on mens hearts leads to meritorious works. But such assumptions do not come from the text. The text asserts that the law of God on mens hearts leads to accuse and excuse, but the text does not mention any meritorious works. One could go back to Romans 2:13...
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
In verse 13 there is no merit in hearing the law with your ears. Neither is there any merit on having the law written on the heart at creation in nature.

That Romans 2 is speaking about the Mosaic Law is clear. In verse 13 we see "hearers of the law." Verse 14 begins with the fact that Gentiles do not have the Law Verse 21 to 23 mention individual commandments in the 10 commandments. It is true that at times, Gentiles will honor their parents. At times Gentiles will not covet their neighbors wife or things. Gentiles at times do not steal. But in the end of the context, there is no salvation, only judgment. The judgment comes in verse 16.
16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
In Romans 2, this law does not bring men to salvation, but the result is "accuse" or "excuse." Verse 16 tells us of the final result of accusing or excusing, and it is judgment of the "secretes of men."

So the question remains, where are these glorious works of the Gentiles by which they merit Gods attention? Where does Romans 2 speak of God being pleased with the Gentiles? Earlier in the Chapter we read....
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: The hard impenitent heart is the same heart that has the work of God that accuses or excuses. This heart is not building up merit, but only "treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;" It is a heart of stone (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26).

Jeremiah is speaking of something very different. He is not at all talking about "nature" of man from creation. Jeremiah does not speak of judgment, or of mere "accusing" or "excusing." Jeremiah is talking about the work of God in regeneration. This is the heart circumcision of Deuteronomy 30:6.
6 And Jehovah thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

This work of God causes men to " love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." Two very different results. There is no wiggle room with Jeremiah. Every man that has the law of God written on their heart is saved. They all "live." The word "live" is the last word in the text. Jeremiah says this work of God results in men "for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more."

So then, to confuse the work of God in the heart with reference to Romans and Jeremiah is a dangerous mistake. One leads to judgment, the other to eternal life. One law was written on the heart of man at creation, the other is the work of God during regeneration. One leads to false works and things that excuse or accuse. The other leads to "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more. " To confuse these to works of God in the heart is to make man more righteous then he is, and to reduce Gods grace. To keep them separate is marvel and wonder at the glory of his grace to an undeserving people. To keep them separate is to know that my heart would only excuse or accuse if God had not change the heart to know him.

 

[ivdavid]

If a person is drawn to love others selflessly, we can be sure that the Spirit of Christ is at work.

I agree without reservation.

I also happen to believe that one cannot love another selflessly without having love for God - which again, as you said, I believe the Spirit of Christ works in the believer.

"looking beyond your theology" is not a personal comment. It is a request to read what is in the Scriptures.

Fair enough. Then I shall request the same of you - and how have we progressed in this particular exchange of requests? Which is why I thought we could avoid such redundancy and deal with just premises and their inferences.

The Psalms from where Paul cites tell us that people DO follow God, do pursue His Law, etc. Sometimes even in the very same Psalm he cites in Romans 3!!!

Obviously "people" DO follow God and fulfill His law in love - I thought we were specifically discussing about man before regeneration - whether such a one in the flesh can do good or not. My understanding of Romans 3:10-18 is that these are descriptive of every single man in the flesh - ie before regeneration.

Your argument is that this is a quote from the Psalms where these quotes refer to a particular group of people - the Wicked - and not every single person. You also refer to the instances where the Psalms talk about the righteous walking in the ways of God. I agree. Every single instance of the righteous walking in the spirit, is a work of God in the regenerated person - and so yes, we can find people working out the good, God works in them. But can the unregenerate, being in the flesh, do good? That's the question - not yet resolved by looking at just the Psalms.

So look at Romans 3 itself - in what context is Paul applying this OT Scripture?
We find Romans 3:10-18 sandwiched between
Rom 3:9 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;
and
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Who does Paul refer to by "ALL" in v.9,19 - I guess that would be the clue to figure out how he has applied the "none seek God, none do good, none are righteous" quotes in between as validation. It seems to me that the people referred to in Rom 3:9 and Rom 3:19 include every single man in the flesh. Hence it seems conducive in context to assume that Rom 3:10-18 too refer to these same people ie every single man in the flesh.

On the other hand, does it seem to make sense to talk about every single man in the flesh in v.9, then suddenly quote Scripture to refer to a specific group who are 'Wicked' from v.10-18 and then come back and conclude from such Scripture about every single man's state in v.19?

 

[ivdavid]

3.

The very structure of Romans 2:7-10. The comparison by Paul is that either both are true or both are hypothetical.

I'm starting with the third point, since the first two seem to draw on this.

This is a false dilemma - forcing them to either both be true or both be hypothetical doesn't give room for certain other possibilities, one of which I might hold. Specifically, I don't see the logical necessity for both to be strictly paired like this when they are mutually exclusive as converses of each other.

If I said - "I will build a hospital if I get $100mn, and I will sell my house if I don't get $100mn" - and I never get the $100mn - my selling my house is still true and in that, the statement I made is true - only the conditional half about building a hospital not being realised in reality.

Can we set aside this point as reconciled then?

 

[ivdavid]

2.

Another sample, the "spiritually circumcised". Does Paul call them hypothetical or theoretical? No, they actually exist.

I think you didn't mean this in context but just to get this clear - our discussion is not over whether the spiritually circumcised exist in reality or not(which obviously they do) - it's whether those in the flesh can do any good or not.

And here begins the confusion in semantics. We are not agreed upon what the "flesh" means - and this happens to be at the very core of the point we're supposed to be discussing. I think you hold the flesh to refer abstractly to a negative inclination while I hold it to refer to the very nature man is born with and which defines his own character, choices etc.

I guess you too would state that "no man in the flesh can do good", when "flesh" refers to sinful inclination - but would disagree with my stating the same, when "flesh" refers to the entire nature of man as born in the world.

I try and substitute the next closest term that would always be associated with the flesh, - the term "unregenerate". Since I hold that the unregenerate are always in the flesh(the nature they're born with), I thought we might get somewhere in our discussion along this line.

But we're not agreed upon what "regenerate" itself means. From what I've read up on Catholic beliefs, (and I haven't read much - so please correct and clarify), I understand that you generally hold a person to be regenerated at baptism - and hence the term "unregenerate" usually refers to people who are not baptised. I've used the terms "generally" and "usually" because I think you are saying that a person need not necessarily be baptised, as an ordinance, to be regenerated by God. I'm not really sure here though about what you exactly believe.

Anyway, regeneration to me is God's work of creating a new godly nature in man - where this man ceases to be just in the flesh(the nature he was born with) - he now is in the spirit ie the renewed nature created in him - the nature that is mutually exclusive to the one he was born with(the flesh). Why does God have to create this godly nature - it's because man cannot obey God's commandments in his sinful nature, the flesh.

Which is where we deviated into the 'pagan/gentile' part of the discussion. You seemed to come across as saying that those who are not regenerated ie those who do not yet have this new nature created in them by God, are still able to keep God's law and receive eternal life. I think you actually meant that one cannot ascertain whom God will regenerate and whom He won't - and I'm absolutely agreeable on that. And I have no arguments on God choosing to regenerate some Indian in some forest, even without the human evangelist preaching the Gospel - for God can bring to fruition whatever He has planned, by Himself.

But the question is much more specific - can the unregenerate do good? Can they do God's law and receive life? Can those who are not yet created with this new godly nature, do good? If you think they can, then why must they be given a new nature? If God and man can synergize and work out good before regeneration itself, even unto eternal life, why the need for regeneration? Again, all this depends upon what you believe about regeneration.

I'll address your specific point 2 in the next post - I simply wanted to sync up on certain terms and their various implications in this post.

 

[ivdavid]

2.
Another sample, the "spiritually circumcised"....The last three verses explains the reality of verse 7-11....
Paul is not stating that no one is patient in continuance. He says "to them"... Not, "no one is".

Refer to my post on your point 3. The conditional statement does not always have to result in a particular reality.

I could say - " To those who score a GPA of 5, I will render scholarships. And to those who do not score a GPA of 5, I will render impositions. " - and yet this is not implicative of what will actually happen. Perhaps there won't be any getting a GPA of 5, perhaps all would get a 5, perhaps they'd be a mixture of both. So this conditional statement that is effective only in the future, is not about what these students are capable of - it's about what my principles of judging are. Given this statement, you can conclude on simply my ways of evaluation- not the student's capabilities. Any disagreements here?

Your points 2 and 3 are not theological arguments as such but rather deal with language constructs and their permissible logical conclusions - I suppose I have given valid responses to those. But it is your point 1 that deals entirely with theology, and which I have lots to clarify on. But I feel I've written much already - perhaps I should wait for you to read up till here before continuing.

 

[francisdesales]

All quotes ASV
Romans 2:14 (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);

Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: 34 and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

There is a great difference between the two passages above. In Romans, the law written on the heart is there "by nature." There is some parallelism in that this law brings the conscience to bear witness. The end result is that the conscience will either accuse, or excuse. Both results are negative.

I think not, Mondar. Paul is explaining a reality - that some Gentiles are obeying the written Law on their hearts (by God) and are given eternal life. Yes, no one has an excuse, but that conscience is not there to MERELY judge us later on...

Read Romans 6-11 again.

It is clear that the "end result" is positive for those who obey that Law in the heart, made VISIBLE by one's actions.

For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, 14-15a

One shows forth faith by their love. God rewards them with eternal life.

To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life, 7

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I also happen to believe that one cannot love another selflessly without having love for God - which again, as you said, I believe the Spirit of Christ works in the believer.

Of course. No one can claim to love God if they don't love their neighbor. The reverse is true, since it is God HIMSELF Who moves one to love their neighbor in a selfless manner.

Unless you are suggesting that man can love another without God...

Obviously "people" DO follow God and fulfill His law in love - I thought we were specifically discussing about man before regeneration - whether such a one in the flesh can do good or not. My understanding of Romans 3:10-18 is that these are descriptive of every single man in the flesh - ie before regeneration.

Now here's the rub...

At what "point" is one "regenerated"? There is a lot of gray area here, once we leave the realm of formal Baptism. WE are not responsible for judging whether another has been regenerated. We can make hypothesis about another non-Christian who appears to be following the Law written on their hearts (for Who else could motivate someone to love another - not themselves or another human). The work of the Spirit can be ascertained when we see another loving selflessly. That CAN occur WHENEVER the Spirit of God moves someone and that person responds, even unknowingly. Is "that act" regeneration? Most would say "no". I think one would have to look at a person's life in general. And we don't have access to that information. Thus, speculating on who is regenerated - outside the Baptism by Christ through the Church - is just that, speculation.

The whole idea of "before regeneration', then, is speculation, since we don't know "when" the pagan was regenerated so as to be considered a "spiritual Jew", a man walking in faith.

Your argument is that this is a quote from the Psalms where these quotes refer to a particular group of people - the Wicked - and not every single person.

The Psalms very clearly speak of people seeking God, so Romans 3 Psalm citations cannot be refering universally to every person. Such a claim is an accusation that Paul is unfamiliar with the context of the Psalms...

You also refer to the instances where the Psalms talk about the righteous walking in the ways of God. I agree. Every single instance of the righteous walking in the spirit, is a work of God in the regenerated person -

Agree. Presuming you mean "walking" as a way of life, not the very random and rare act of love that may spill forth from the wicked. I am not of the opinion that the wicked NEVER perform a good act. God's graces rain down on ALL people, and even the wicked perform such an act. Of course, this is EXACTLY what leads to conversion in the first place...

and so yes, we can find people working out the good, God works in them. But can the unregenerate, being in the flesh, do good? That's the question - not yet resolved by looking at just the Psalms.

The very idea of conversion answers that question...

I think you are trying too hard to set a "line of departure", a point where a person is "regenerate". A specific point in time. I don't see things in that manner. I consider this a mysterious work of God and man's response to that work.

So look at Romans 3 itself - in what context is Paul applying this OT Scripture?
We find Romans 3:10-18 sandwiched between
Rom 3:9 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;
and
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

You are missing the point - that God is not a respecter of persons. Gentiles are entering the Kingdom without the written Law. Without dietary restrictions. Without knowledge of the promises of God made to Israel. Jews who have all of this are NOT entering the Kingdom. "They" are not seeking out God, the exact accusation Jews make wholesale v non-Jews. Anyone who knows something about comparative religions KNOWS that men seek God - they don't need to be Jewish to be moved by God. ALL men, Jews first, and then the Gentile, will be either granted eternal life, or eternal condemnation (Rom 2:6-11), based upon their response to the Law (as moved by God. I feel I must add that in there all the time to quiet the accusation of "work salvation")

I urge you to re-read Romans 2-3 with "GOD IS NOT A RESPECTER OF PERSONS" as the theme. Note the first sentence of Romans 3 - "what advantage is there in being a Jew"? This argument can ONLY be made IF the pagan has access to God's Law and can obey it... being a Jew does not give Jews a pass to eternal life. God's People are indeed "Jews", but Jews spiritually.

It will make more sense.

"all have sinned and do need the glory of God". AMEN! For WHO INDEED writes a Law on the hearts and enables us to obey it???

Who does Paul refer to by "ALL" in v.9,19 - I guess that would be the clue to figure out how he has applied the "none seek God, none do good, none are righteous" quotes in between as validation. It seems to me that the people referred to in Rom 3:9 and Rom 3:19 include every single man in the flesh.

No one alone seeks out God. True. No one can earn salvation, since salvation is universally a gift, even to Mary. NO ONE has done ANYTHING by their own power!

But Romans 2 clearly tells us that the pagan is NOT alone, when he has the LAW of God written on his heart and is enabled to obey it, thus, gaining eternal life, as the text clearly tells us.

Hence it seems conducive in context to assume that Rom 3:10-18 too refer to these same people ie every single man in the flesh.

On the other hand, does it seem to make sense to talk about every single man in the flesh in v.9, then suddenly quote Scripture to refer to a specific group who are 'Wicked' from v.10-18 and then come back and conclude from such Scripture about every single man's state in v.19?

The point is not what you think. It is to convince Jews that they are no better for having the knowledge of the Law in written form, for having the prophets, etc. Read the "preamble" of Romans 3 before Paul cites all of those Psalms...

Doing the Law that one knows about does not earn salvation. Jew or Gentile. We are all under sin, meaning, none of us is holy and worthy of heaven unless God grants it freely for His own reasons - in this case, those who obey Him.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I'm starting with the third point, since the first two seem to draw on this.

This is a false dilemma - forcing them to either both be true or both be hypothetical doesn't give room for certain other possibilities, one of which I might hold. Specifically, I don't see the logical necessity for both to be strictly paired like this when they are mutually exclusive as converses of each other.

If I said - "I will build a hospital if I get $100mn, and I will sell my house if I don't get $100mn" - and I never get the $100mn - my selling my house is still true and in that, the statement I made is true - only the conditional half about building a hospital not being realised in reality.

Can we set aside this point as reconciled then?

You are presenting a false argument. There is no false dilemna here. In the sake of judgment after death, there is only two options. There is no room for a third option (Purgatory is a temporary state before Heaven). Indeed, we are dealing with something mutually exclusive; Final judgment presents either separation from God or union with God. There is no other option to consider.

Your example merely proves my point. You are presenting a conditional choice, and if EITHER case is fulfilled, that result becomes true. Thus, both are POSSIBLE realities. By hypothetical, however, you mean something different. You mean one option is not possible, NOT that this was the choice made of two possible choices. Your example presents two POSSIBLE choices based upon a condition. But your theology does not allow two choices. It claims only one real choice and one impossible choice... That is not the example you present. It makes little sense to present two choices, one being impossible. If two choices are presented, then two choices are possible.

The Scriptures is explaining a conditional RESULT (where some make one choice, others make the opposite choice) across a broad spectrum of people. We know it is a result because the Scriptures specifically STATE that the Spirit's work is SHOWN! The writing of the Law on the hearts of men is made manifest by that man

For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts Romans 2:14-15


It is pretty obvious that we have someone showing forth the work of the Spirit. Such gains them the gift of eternal life, the conditional result.

Regards

 

[ivdavid]

Doing the Law that one knows about does not earn salvation....
God grants it freely for His own reasons - in this case, those who obey Him.

Sorry to interrupt, but what do you mean by "Doing the Law"? Isn't it the same as "obeying Him"? Since I can't see at this point in time the difference you are seeing, your above statements seem self-refuting to me.

 

[francisdesales]

Refer to my post on your point 3. The conditional statement does not always have to result in a particular reality.

I could say - " To those who score a GPA of 5, I will render scholarships. And to those who do not score a GPA of 5, I will render impositions. " - and yet this is not implicative of what will actually happen. Perhaps there won't be any getting a GPA of 5, perhaps all would get a 5, perhaps they'd be a mixture of both. So this conditional statement that is effective only in the future, is not about what these students are capable of - it's about what my principles of judging are.

Paul is stating something that has and is happening... Not theoretical hypotheticals.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Sorry to interrupt, but what do you mean by "Doing the Law"? Isn't it the same as "obeying Him"? Since I can't see at this point in time the difference you are seeing, your above statements seem self-refuting to me.

yes, in this context, doing the Law = obeying Him. I am not making statements those who do not have the proper inner dispositions in their hearts.

Regards

 

[ivdavid]

If two choices are presented, then two choices are possible.

This is a fundamental premise where we happen to differ. How have you understood Romans 7:10 and the related passage? The role of the Law is to show sin in us by being beyond our reach - in order to point us to faith in Christ. So the law had to be impossible to do for man in the flesh - for it to serve that purpose.

Deu 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.
Is anybody not under such curse? I'd say No, because Jesus came to redeem us from such curse - if any were not under such curse, Jesus died in vain to that extent.

If everybody is under the curse ie if nobody has been able to keep this above commandment, isn't that an impossible commandment given to man to keep?

This is so - for through the law comes the knowledge of sin - and this points us to faith in Christ.

Besides, the very concepts of Grace and Mercy enter the picture only when man has not done what is expected of him. Is there any man who does not require grace and mercy - if the answer is No, then whatever was expected of man is not at all realised in reality. What is your argument here?

 

[francisdesales]

And here begins the confusion in semantics. We are not agreed upon what the "flesh" means - and this happens to be at the very core of the point we're supposed to be discussing. I think you hold the flesh to refer abstractly to a negative inclination while I hold it to refer to the very nature man is born with and which defines his own character, choices etc.

Without God, everyone is "in the flesh". We have a tendency to desire to do our own will, satisfy ourselves, even at the expense of others. This is the opposite attitude of God, Who by definition, is Love - the giver of Self. I agree, it defines one's charecter, choices, etc. It also is a negative inclination, as well, is it not? The problem, in my opinion, is trying too hard to measure whether one is "in the flesh" or "in the spirit" based upon a few things we know about someone else. Since we do not know the inner heart of another, it is fruitless to try to determine who is regenerate among those who have not been "formally" baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ.

I guess you too would state that "no man in the flesh can do good", when "flesh" refers to sinful inclination - but would disagree with my stating the same, when "flesh" refers to the entire nature of man as born in the world.

No, I don't disagree with that. We are all born in original sin, separated from God. Without God, we are lost, with no hope of earning anything. My point is that from time to time, God acts in people who are not baptized or not regenerated, and it is made manifest. Thus, your previous statement that "all acts of an unregenerated man are sin" is false. If a man performs a heroic act of love, does that one act make him regenerate? That one act does not make him regenerate in a manner that we could see his life change to one of following the law on his heart, correct? On the other hand, how could one call that act of selfless giving be a sin? Thus, I don't buy the hyperbolic suggestion. Things in the real world are not so black and white.

But we're not agreed upon what "regenerate" itself means. From what I've read up on Catholic beliefs, (and I haven't read much - so please correct and clarify), I understand that you generally hold a person to be regenerated at baptism - and hence the term "unregenerate" usually refers to people who are not baptised.

Ordinarily, a person is regenerated at baptism. But what happens in the life BEFORE that ritual takes place? God's work made manifest, even good works. There is clearly something more complex going on here in the sacrament.

In addition, there is something in Catholic theology called "baptism by desire". This is the idea that a person WOULD HAVE become formally baptized in the Church if they knew about it, were introduced to the Gospel. In other words, God's Spirit has already begun to work in that person. He has written a Law on that heart and this person is responding in the way that he can. Such people are indeed considered part of the Church, in a mysterious way that only God can know. Thus, we don't draw a line between the regenerate and the unregenerate.

God is not bound by the sacrament. He can act as He sees fit.

I've used the terms "generally" and "usually" because I think you are saying that a person need not necessarily be baptised, as an ordinance, to be regenerated by God. I'm not really sure here though about what you exactly believe.

Generally/usually - ordinarily. yes. Although we don't see baptism as an "ordinance". It is indeed effectively the work of the Spirit, something happens in the spiritual realm, as shown by visible signs. What we are saying is that God is not limited to Baptism as the means of regenerating someone. It is the ordinary/usual/general manner. But again, God is not bound to the sacraments.

Anyway, regeneration to me is God's work of creating a new godly nature in man - where this man ceases to be just in the flesh(the nature he was born with) - he now is in the spirit ie the renewed nature created in him - the nature that is mutually exclusive to the one he was born with(the flesh). Why does God have to create this godly nature - it's because man cannot obey God's commandments in his sinful nature, the flesh.

Yes, that is regeneration. But I disagree that God does not act in those who remain "in the flesh", for a better word. Again, this depends upon finely drawn lines that we are unaware of. Regeneration is a work of God. Certainly, man responds, but the initiative is entirely God's, correct? As such, without a formal ritual, it is difficult to tell who has been regenerated, correct? To judge it only upon whether someone is doing evil or good doesn't work, because we know that the regenerate sin and evil people have been known to do good.

I would consider saying that your last sentence should be more general, that one's principle in life cannot be the obedience of God's commandments while in the sinful nature. Atheists can do good. They can unknowingly obey the commandments and do God's will (which is a work of God), but it doesn't follow that one such act means they are regenerated.

Which is where we deviated into the 'pagan/gentile' part of the discussion. You seemed to come across as saying that those who are not regenerated ie those who do not yet have this new nature created in them by God, are still able to keep God's law and receive eternal life.

You misunderstood me. An unregenerated person can perform a random act of Love, as moved by God. That doesn't make him regenerate. That doesn't mean he enters heaven based upon one or several such acts. In addition, pagans who never heard of Jesus of Nazareth could be considered regenerate by God, as they are obeying God's commandments as written in their hearts and are gaining eternal life. Their faith may be in partial error (because their religion is partial error), but God knows in their heart whether they are seeking Him out. A person does not absolutely need to be a Jew or a Christian to seek out God in a general sense.

Thus, two points:

1. the unregenerate who remain so do not always perform evil. But they are still condemned.
2. pagans can be regenerate, in the eyes of God, since He makes them so. When that occurs, we do not know, nor do they. But God will reward them based upon their faith working in love what is not an entirely accurate picture of God.

I think you actually meant that one cannot ascertain whom God will regenerate and whom He won't - and I'm absolutely agreeable on that.

That's true.

And I have no arguments on God choosing to regenerate some Indian in some forest, even without the human evangelist preaching the Gospel - for God can bring to fruition whatever He has planned, by Himself.

Wonderful. It is good to know you are not the type that condemns billions to eternal wrath for not knowing Jesus of Nazareth and about His work.

But the question is much more specific - can the unregenerate do good?

As I said, are we to judge who those are? As such, this is speculative discussion. I would say that every person who does something good is not necessarily regenerate. My experience tells me that people are not always evil. Very few are. Nor am I about to thus say that all people are regenerate as a result of a couple random acts of love. Thus, I must say that "the unregenerate only do evil" is an incorrect statement. I see such statements as hyperbole. Or I must admit that everyone is regenerate...

Can they do God's law and receive life?

No, but that is not what this discussion is about. Never was. It is about EVER doing something good. The claim long ago was that "all people of the flesh do only sin, only evil". NOT about whether they enter heaven. I have never claimed that such enter the Kingdom based upon a few such random acts.

The sense of Scriptures is not about doing something once or twice, but about a way of life, a walk. Those in the flesh cannot live such a life. Sure, a random act will occur, but that is God's work of justice, a potential calling to eternal life that is rejected for the sake of selfish desires.

Can those who are not yet created with this new godly nature, do good?

I think I have answered this question. But such acts are exceptions that earn nothing, when looking at the big picture.

If you think they can, then why must they be given a new nature?

No one is saved if they remain in the old nature.

If God and man can synergize and work out good before regeneration itself, even unto eternal life,

Can't. What makes matters complex is trying to figure out whom God has regenerated, outside of Baptism.

The unregenerated will not be saved. They have enough knowledge available to them to know better (Romans 1). Only the regenerated will be saved - something that is a synergistic activity that is mysterious. In retrospect, their obedience to the Law in their hearts will bring about the free gift of eternal life from God.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

This is a fundamental premise where we happen to differ. How have you understood Romans 7:10 and the related passage? The role of the Law is to show sin in us by being beyond our reach - in order to point us to faith in Christ.

Where does the Scriptures state that the purpose of the law is to point out its impossibility to obey??? Not only do we see righteous persons in Scriptures, we see Paul himself stating in several letters that love is the FULFILLMENT of the Law. Even James himself (who states that disobedience to one portion is disobedience to the entire law) never states that the Law is not possible to be followed.

Without God, we cannot obey the Law. True. But God does not abandon us while commanding us to fulfill something we cannot do. What sort of justice is that???

"Here, bench press this 5 ton truck by yourself or you are going to hell..."

That's a just God?

God is my "spotter", He enables me to obey Him...

So the law had to be impossible to do for man in the flesh - for it to serve that purpose.

Deu 27:26 Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.

A curse does not imply eternal damnation... The law itself PRESUMES that men will disobey. You are familiar with the variety of sin offerings and Yom Kippur, correct? Again, God does not leave us alone to obey Him.

Is anybody not under such curse? I'd say No, because Jesus came to redeem us from such curse - if any were not under such curse, Jesus died in vain to that extent.

That is not the primary reason why Jesus died, but that's the subject of another topic.

If everybody is under the curse ie if nobody has been able to keep this above commandment, isn't that an impossible commandment given to man to keep?

No one is able, without God, to keep it to the degree that God expects from man. Not that it is impossible to keep ANY command EVER.

Besides, the very concepts of Grace and Mercy enter the picture only when man has not done what is expected of him. Is there any man who does not require grace and mercy - if the answer is No, then whatever was expected of man is not at all realised in reality. What is your argument here?

I would agree. We rely on grace since we cannot obligate God to grant eternal life - since we are of the flesh. Only with God can we have a guiding principle that leads to obeying God's will on a "regular" basis.

Regards

 

[mondar]

I think not, Mondar. Paul is explaining a reality - that some Gentiles are obeying the written Law on their hearts (by God) and are given eternal life. Yes, no one has an excuse, but that conscience is not there to MERELY judge us later on...

Read Romans 6-11 again.

It is clear that the "end result" is positive for those who obey that Law in the heart, made VISIBLE by one's actions.

For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, 14-15a

One shows forth faith by their love. God rewards them with eternal life.

To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life, 7

Regards

Francis, you did not address the evidence I offered. You ignored the arguments I presented and just moved on to present your own arguments.

Concerning what you said....
Your mention of Romans 2:7 is not properly contextual. Verse 7 is nothing more then a part of a statement about the impartial judgment of God which begins in verse 2.
2 And we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against them that practise such things.
This impartial judgment is to be contrasted with the partiality of the Jewish judgment. Verse 1 alludes to the Jewish judgment.
This same impartial judgment is mentioned in verse 11.
"11 for there is no respect of persons with God."
There is a key to verse 7 and it is "Context Context Context." Verse 7 is a statement to be contrasted with verse 8, and it is not a statement on the means of salvation, but on the impartiality of God's judgment as opposed to the preferential Jewish judgment.

The chapter is not to be seen as a means of salvation. If it were a means of salvation, then Christs blood has nothing to do with Salvation. Christs blood is not mentioned in the Chapter. If one takes your words at face value, Christ died for nothing because we can save ourselves by our own works in verse 7. Such a view is not Christianity at all. You could look at verse 13 the same way (out of context). Then the blood of Christ is an unneeded waist. In verse 13 the law can save us. I would be using the same out of context thinking in verse 13 that you are in verse 7.

I know in your mind, you say that in verse 14 and 15 that there is a work of God that causes the behaviors in verse 7. Yet verse 14 is not speak of a special work of God, it simply speaks of the fact that Gentiles can judge Jews that do not keep the law. Gentiles keep the law "by nature." Seen in this way, there is no such thing as original sin, and worse, there is no need for Christ to die. This writing of the law happened at creation and has nothing to do with the New Covenant. That was my point in the previous post. There is a work of God in regeneration with regard to the new covenant. In Romans 2 the New Covenant is alluded to using the terms "heart circumcision" later in the chapter, but not in verses 14-15.

Francis, to take verse 7 as a means of salvation would result in a theology even worse then Pelagius. It would be a totally works alone salvation. There is no blood of Christ being shed for anyone in verse 7. In fact if you look at verse 7 as a means of salvation, there was never any reason for Christ to die at all. We can then just go save ourselves. Now I know in your mind you think that you can combine verse 7 with verse 14 and 15 and say that the works of verse 7 are the result a work of God in verse 14 and 15. Yet you refuse to look at the context. Notice in verse 12 how the people under the law are judged by the law, and the people not under the law perish. Where is this possibility of salvation for the self-righteous man there? In verse 15 I have mentioned before that the result of Gentile nature (vs 14) and the law of God written on their hearts (vs 15) is not salvation, but the result in verse 15 is stated. The stated result is "accusing or else excusing them." You did not comment on that part, did you? This law is equal to to what verse 15 says "their conscience bearing witness therewith." There is nothing more to this law of God being written on the heart then the fact that Gentiles have conscience. Because of this conscience, Gentiles are not as evil as they could be, but their works do not merit salvation.

Francis, also, you should recognize that verse 14-15 are a parenthetical thought to explain verses 12, 13, and 16. I know some bibles have parenthesis at verse 14 to 15, and some bibles do not put the parenthesis in it. The parenthesis is an editors punctuation (as much punctuation really is).

I know you will not like the Pelagian comment, and I say it not to raise the emotional level, but I am serious. If God has synergisticly enabled all men from the beginning of creation to do righteousness because of a work of God in their hearts, then any man can do exactly what Pelagius said... he can do good at any time. Remember Augustine's prayer? (I dont). It was something like a request for God to enable us to do what he commands. Why would Augustine pray such a prayer if God had already done this in his act of creation for all men?

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, you did not address the evidence I offered. You ignored the arguments I presented and just moved on to present your own arguments.

Of course I addressed it! I disagreed with your "excuse or accuse" idea that this is the only purpose of the Law written on the heart. It isn't.

Clearly, there is a purpose for that Law RATHER than to judge one later in a negative sense, as you state over and over... My citation states that God's work is shown by that law. That unwritten Law is made manifest, Mondar. HOW is it made manifest? How is it shown? By what? Someone doing something good. (Unless you are Pelagian...)

For we cannot see/be shown the Spirit writing a LAW unless it is shown in the visible realm - by acts of love. We don't see the Spirit's work directly, only indirectly through the act of man.

I apologize if my post wasn't long enough - as if I can only respond by long winded posts. I chose to get to the point and ignore the rest, as I have with a number of your posts on this thread, since they are based upon false presumption - whether your trying to guess what verses I am refering to, or that Paul is being hypothetical and being realistic in the same verses. Nowhere does Paul state in Romans 2 that one is not or cannot obey God - the entire POINT of Romans 3:1 PRESUMES pagans obeying the will of God and being saved!!!

As to your accusation of me being Pelagian, it appears you really don't even know what that means. Practically every post I have written on this thread state that NO ONE can do good without God. Your accusation is either childish or ignorant.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Of course I addressed it! I disagreed with your "excuse or accuse" idea that this is the only purpose of the Law written on the heart. It isn't.

Saying "I do not believe that," or "I disagree with that" is not offering counter evidence. Its just stating your refusal to believe the text. The two words I used "excuse or accuse" came strait out of the text. Its Pauls stated purpose for the writing on our hearts.

Clearly, there is a purpose for that Law RATHER than to judge one later in a negative sense, as you state over and over... My citation states that God's work is shown by that law. That unwritten Law is made manifest, Mondar. HOW is it made manifest? How is it shown? By what? Someone doing something good. (Unless you are Pelagian...)

Verses 14 and 15 do not state that the law leads to anything good, the only thing mentioned in verses 14-15 is the words "excuse or accuse."

For we cannot see/be shown the Spirit writing a LAW unless it is shown in the visible realm - by acts of love. We don't see the Spirit's work directly, only indirectly through the act of man.

Where are these glorious acts of love in verses 14-15. All I see is that all mankind has a conscience. The fact that man has a conscience does lead to keeping some of the 10 commandments once in a while, however imperfectly. But of course if I read what you and Pelagius are saying, this keeping of a commandment once in a while gets your ticket punched to heaven. Of course then there is the shed blood of Christ, but who needs that, right?

Nowhere does Paul state in Romans 2 that one is not or cannot obey God

What is does not state is not the point, we are talking about what it does say. And it does not say pagans can please God.

- the entire POINT of Romans 3:1 PRESUMES pagans obeying the will of God and being saved!!!

Rather you presume that Romans 3:1 says pagans can obey the will of God and be saved. Those words are simply not in Romans 3:1. Romans 3:1 is merely a rhetorical question that leads into a discussion on the advantage of the Jew in having the oracles of God.

As to your accusation of me being Pelagian, it appears you really don't even know what that means. Practically every post I have written on this thread state that NO ONE can do good without God. Your accusation is either childish or ignorant.

Regards

Yes, I am familiar with your view that a world wide prevenient grace is given to all men. Then men synergisticly choose to obey God or disobey. You are also saying that men can obey God apart from the shed blood of Jesus Christ based solely on this prevenient grace.

Of course I am seeing this only as a convenient way around Pelagianism. Pelagius simply denied original sin, and said men have the natural ability to obey God because of their free will. You use your world wide doctrine of prevenient grace to do the same thing. You say men have the natural ability to obey God because of their free will. So then, I brought it up in the past, and do so again, only because I struggle to see the real difference between denying original sin, or creating a doctrine in which you deny its effects. At best, what you are articulating must be at least semi-pelagian.

 

[francisdesales]

Saying "I do not believe that," or "I disagree with that" is not offering counter evidence.

And your eigesis is evidence? Speaking to me about how some bibles have parenthesis? Ever hear of begging the question?

Maybe you are having difficulty reading my last post. However, my second paragraph addresses my counter evidence. The Scriptures themselves speak of the visible work of the Spirit. That work is not hypothetical if it is visible, Mondar... The evidence was simply provided. I guess you need something overly complex for something to be true?

Its just stating your refusal to believe the text. The two words I used "excuse or accuse" came strait out of the text. Its Pauls stated purpose for the writing on our hearts.

I never said I didn't believe the text. This is from my very first sentence. Perhaps you can try reading it again more carefullly...

I disagreed with your "excuse or accuse" idea that this is the only purpose of the Law written on the heart. It isn't.

As anyone can see, you are misleading people or are yet again jumping to conclusions in your haste to raise an argument to cover the inadequacy of your eigesis.

Your interpretation is inadequate. Sorry.

The words I use are straight out of the text. "SHOWN". Did you miss my questions to you? How is it that the Spirit's work is shown if no one can obey the Law without knowledge of the Law??? That word, among others, disproves your entire conclusion. For example, the Greek word used by Paul for "seeking" {ZEtousin} in v.7 is never used in the hypothetical sense. 24 other times. Your hypothetical presumption is eigesis that the Scriptures themselves refutes... It is merely an eigesis tool to avoid what is there.

Verses 14 and 15 do not state that the law leads to anything good, the only thing mentioned in verses 14-15 is the words "excuse or accuse."

Terrible. Plain terrible. Maybe you should read the entire two verses, if you could do that. Let's start with the first few words of the verses you bring up...

WHICH shew the work of the law written in their hearts...

WHAT shows the work of the Spirit, Mondar???? :bigfrown

A good deed! EVIL works are not the work of the Spirit of God. Good deeds point out that God is at work. The Spirit of God is shown forth.

Unless you are Pelagian, Mondar.

...SHOW the works of the Spirit, which you are yet again ignoring, after I mentioned this in several posts already. Now, Mondar, I tried to make this simple by asking you rhetorical questions. HOW EXACTLY are the works of the Holy Spirit's writing of the Law on the HEARTS of men "shown", Mondar? Please explain...

In addition, your response regarding Romans 3:1 is laughable. The entire reason for this verse is because Paul has just torn down the vaunted thinking of the Jew - where only THEY can obey God's will. You DO realize the point of a rhetorical question, right? If Paul's point is that the Gentiles could not do good, WHY INDEED would Paul ask "what's the advantage of being Jew"???

And Pelagianism? Where do I deny original sin? Where do I deny that man can do good without God?

Please Mondar. This is pitiful...

Regards

 

[ivdavid]

Without God, we cannot obey the Law. True. But God does not abandon us while commanding us to fulfill something we cannot do. What sort of justice is that???

This is quite an important point we're disagreeing upon. I'd like to see where exactly we differ -

Do you believe, by their very definitions of concept, that grace and mercy cannot be demanded of God? That He is just even if He showed no mercy and grace?

And I'll give working definitions of grace and mercy here to see if there's any disagreement there -
Mercy - To not enforce a condemnation that a transgressor deserves.
Grace - To give a gift that one does not deserve.

I'll also define -
Justice - To render to each according to what he deserves.
Law - The impartial unbiased standard of ideals by which what one deserves is determined.

If you don't agree with any of the above working definitions, please state your own so I could know where you're coming from. If you do agree, you'll find that "grace" and "mercy" conceptually do not come under the realm of justice at all.

One could stick to the Law - and demand justice ie what one rightly deserves - as we see in John 8:5. They tried to trap Jesus in that zone between Justice and Mercy - if Jesus had said, "You must not stone her", they'd cry that He did not adhere to God's standard of justice. If Jesus had said,"Stone her", His very preaching on mercy is nullified. His wise answer is that only one who himself does not deserve just condemnation has the right to justly condemn another. And Jesus chose to show mercy in John 8:11. My question is - would you call Jesus unjust if He chose not to show mercy there?

Similarly we find the first-hour workers demanding that the last-hour workers be given only what they deserve. If the owner of the field had done so, and not shown grace to the last-hour workers, would he not be just? But he shows that grace is beyond simple equations of deservance and justifies it in Matt 20:15.

I don't believe God would be unjust if He showed absolutely no mercy or grace to anyone - when such mercy and grace themselves are undeserved. Why do you believe otherwise?



I'm quoting this section from a previous thread -

francisdesales - "If I am bound to obey an impossible law, is the lawmaker just?"
ivdavid - "As long as the lawmaker is not the cause of your impossibility, he is just. Please let's refrain from defining a man-centered world. Laws are not framed based on what man is able to do - they are based on ideals that are independent of man - and which man is required to attain to, irrespective of whether he is able to or not - else it wouldn't be an ideal.
And since the lawmaker is not in any way the cause of one's inability, he is absolutely just in passing an ideal as law."
God's law for man could be considered very possible to the man as created by God. That created man's ability and God's standard of ideals perhaps aligned together. But sin has corrupted man's nature and this enslaved nature has fallen - fallen from that standard of ideal. Now, it seems that the standard is impossible to this fallen nature. And yet it is just of God to expect adherence to the ideal - because He did not cause the fall - He did not cause the impossibility.