Can the Bible be understood apart from interpretation?

[Drew]

i) If a man can do righteous works before he's justified, then that goes against Romans 1-3 where Paul says none apart from God can do righteous works.

Well, I agree that without God, one cannot do good works. But, as I hope my last post makes clear, I do not think Paul sees justification as a one time event.

ii) If a man does righteous works after he's already justified through faith by grace, then he cannot lose his salvation based on his works - it can only be lost based on his lack of faith or unbelief (because faith was the criteria for justification in the first place).

Same here - this question does not apply to my position on the matter of justification - there is a present justification which anticipates a future justification.

I do not have any problem with the "works as evidence" line as long as we are true to what Paul says - future justification is based on those good works.

 

[glorydaz]

Paul goes on in Romans 3 and clears up this problem...exactly for this reason...so that no one can claim they are saved by good deeds or by obeying the law or by any other means than faith in Jesus Christ. Man will be judged on his works...he will be found wanting unless he is justified by faith and written in the Lamb's book of life. It sin that must be covered. The Jews couldn't cover their sin by following the law and the Gentiles couldn't cover their sin by staying true to their conscience and living a good life by doing good deeds.

Here, Paul is going on to say..."why yet am I also judged as a sinner." Why? Because keeping the law of Moses by the Jews or the law of their conscience by the Gentiles is never kept perfectly. All men sin, so all will be judged on their sin....no matter how well they kept the law and no matter how many good deeds they have done in their lives.

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. 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; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

This is all of God's law...the law of Moses and the eternal law of God written on our conscience. All the world may become guilty before God...every mouth is stopped. Man is without excuse as Paul already stated. We all know we sin...even the ungodly know it is wrong to kill. NO FLESH will be justified in His sight.

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. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Clearly, Paul is talking to all men...not just the Jews with the law of Moses, but the Gentiles as well. He is the God of all men. To claim Paul is talking about the law of Moses alone is error. He makes that clear in Rom. 1 and Rom. 2. Now in this chapter he is stating plainly...man is justified by faith WITHOUT the deeds of the law. Gentiles and Jews for He is the God of both.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

 

[Drew]

Hi Free

Show me from the origianls (which there are none) where the word "in" is not used .

Oh please.

This is like asserting that the original text contained the word "oldsmobile" and then, when we challenge you on this, you ask us to produce an original text that does not contain the word "oldsmobile". As if we each have the originals kicking around in the basement.

I will ask yet again: What is your case for believing that the word "in" is in the original greek text?

 

[Mysteryman]

I always thought you let others tell you what to believe ! :biglol

Sure...

The Apostles, Jesus, and God.

Is there a problem with them telling me what to do?

Are you trying to tell us that the pope is God ?

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Free

Show me from the origianls (which there are none) where the word "in" is not used .

Oh please.

This is like asserting that the original text contained the word "oldsmobile" and then, when we challenge you on this, you ask us to produce an original text that does not contain the word "oldsmobile". As if we each have the originals kicking around in the basement.

I will ask yet again: What is your case for believing that the word "in" is in the original greek text?

At the very least, I challenged you correctly. Show us the originals please ! And if you can't, then you have no ground to stand upon.

 

[Drew]

Paul goes on in Romans 3 and clears up this problem...exactly for this reason...so that no one can claim they are saved by good deeds or by obeying the law or by any other means than faith in Jesus Christ.

No. Romans 3, of course, does not eliminate the possibility of being justified by good works. Are you intentionally misrepresenting the text gd? I will assume not and ask you to please understand this: even though Paul indeed says that all have sinned, we cannot, unless we commit intellectual suicide, believe that this statement is true of the believer after receiving Christ. Romans 8, Romans 8, Romans 8. That chapter makes it clear beyond doubt that the believer is not hopelessly mired in the Romans 3 condition.

Man will be judged on his works...he will be found wanting unless he is justified by faith and written in the Lamb's book of life.

Well, you are free to believe this. But Paul certainly does not. The difference between your position and mine is this:

1. You accept one thing that Paul says - that we are justified by faith, but you reject another thing he says - that at the end we are justified by good works (Romans 2 and 8 and elsewhere).

2. I accept both these positions of Paul and, following the reasoning of theologian NT Wright, I conclude that Paul sees that every believer who places faith in Jesus will be transformed into the kind of person who will pass the Romans 2 judgement in the future

Let's be clear. My position is more complex. But, unlike yours, I accept everything that Paul writes - I let Paul make his own argument, I do not bring a scheme to the text and reject material that does not fit that scheme.

And this is precisely what you are doing in respect to Romans 2. You have given us no explanation at all as to why Paul would say that people will be given eternal life in accordance with works when, in fact, Paul does not believe any will. You invariably appeal to Romans 3 as if that it means its ok for us to believe that Paul was mistaken in Romans 2.

Let's be straight here - there is not a scintilla of evidence that Paul was describing an impossible route to salvation in Romans 2 when he describes how people would be given eternal life based on persistence in doing good.

Was Paul also "kidding" when, in Romans 8, he clearly say that those who live according to the Spirit will live. Not get rewards, gd, get life.

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi

Read these two verses --- Galatians 5:21 and now read Ephesians 5:5 <-- What difference do you see in these two verses ?

OK. Here they are:

envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

For this you know with certainty, that (K)no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom (L)of Christ and God

I am not sure what your point is. Neither of these passages in any way contradict Paul's clear assertion in Romans 2 that ultimate salvation is based on good works.

It is beyond my comprehension , that you read Ephesians 5:5 and can not see the point I am trying to make !

 

[Drew]

At the very least, I challenged you correctly. Show us the originals please ! And if you can't, then you have no ground to stand upon.

Who made the original claim that the word "in" is in the original text.

Me? Fds? Free?

No. Someone named MysteryMan.

What is your explanation? That God whispered this truth in your ear but left it out of the Greek manuscripts.

I am half convinced you are some Yalie having us on....it is not sensible to make a claim that the original manuscripts have the word "in" and then ask us to prove that the original manuscripts do not have that word.

Here. Let me try: The original manuscript of the book of Romans contains the phrase "Coke, it's the real thing". Now, MM, produce an original manuscript to prove me wrong.

Please, a little respect.....

 

[Drew]

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. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Clearly, Paul is talking to all men...not just the Jews with the law of Moses, but the Gentiles as well. He is the God of all men. To claim Paul is talking about the law of Moses alone is error.

No, it is not error.

Here is Romans 3:19 in the NASB:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

Now people will argue that Paul cannot mean “Torah†here when he uses the tem “lawâ€. That argument goes like this: The “so that†connective strongly implies that “law†is something that all mankind is under. So since Torah is for Jews only, Paul must be referring here to some general principle of law, and not Torah.

I think that this is a mistake for at least three reasons:

1. Paul almost always uses the word “Law†to denote the Law of Moses, so why we would he do otherwise here?

2. The phrase “it says to those under the law†strongly suggests that he is talking about a “law†that is limited in its applicability. Otherwise, this qualifier is entirely unnecessary;

3. The context provided by verses 1-18 support a “Torah†reading, specific to Jews, for the word “lawâ€

I will not make the case for point number 1 right here – that would be too lengthy a treatment and that case is made elsewhere. Point 2, I suggest, requires no further elaboration. So I now turn to point number 3 in relation to the understandable objection that it seems that the “so that the whole world….†clause makes it clear that this is some kind of universal law.

So why does he then talk about the whole world being accountable to God if “law†here is Torah, which is for Jews only. One needs to look at the preceding 18 verses where Paul has engaged in separate treatments of Jew and Gentile being sinners.

Here is the important point: He has just finished (in verses 9-18) an argument that the Gentile is a sinner just like the Jew. So his statement about the whole world being accountable is not only in relation to what he has just written about the Law - that could not be true since the Gentiles were never under the Law - but it is rather the capstone of his whole argument.

So Paul's basic point is this:

1. The Jews have been faithless (verses 1-8);

2. The Gentiles, too, are sinners (verses 9-18);

3. While the Law speaks only to those under the Law - the Jews - the whole world nevertheless stands condemned before God.

 

[francisdesales]

I always thought you let others tell you what to believe ! :biglol

Sure...

The Apostles, Jesus, and God.

Is there a problem with them telling me what to do?

Are you trying to tell us that the pope is God ?

Nope. I am not.

I listed Apostles, Jesus, and God. I never said they were all equal. I suppose I forgot to list my wife. And I assure you, she is not God, if I had listed her amongst the people I listen to and obey.

The bishops are successors of the Apostles. Thus, when I hear and obey them, I am obeying Christ (Luke 10:16). But it doesn't follow that the bishops are God.

Regards

 

[glorydaz]

First, thanks for reading through all the posts. I will politely challenge what appears to be a tacit assumption in your material - namely that justification is a "discrete one time event". I suggest that Paul does not see it that way. He frequently refers to believers as having already been justified. Then, at other times, he writes about how believers will be justified.

I suggest that Paul sees justification as having a "tense" structure. We are justified in the present in that we are given the Spirit through grace alone. We are justified in the future based on the good works that the Spirit has produced.

Now I cannot emphasize this enough. This all works harmoniously together precisely because the gift of the Spirit in the present guarantees that (unless you turn your back on God) that the future "good works" judgement will be favourable.

This may seem overly complex, but at least it is true to Paul and his diverse use of tenses in respect to justification. There is a present justification (by faith) and there is a future justification (by works).

So my position does not involve seeing justification as a one-time event.

I can only shake my head...Paul teaches no such thing. You are diminishing the work of the cross and you continue to pile up one error atop another. According to you, Jesus didn't really accomplish anything on the cross because man has the power to undo everything. Your "position" is error. Serious error. You are attacking the very corner stones of the Christian faith. What a shame.

 

[jasoncran]

i wonder if drew thinks that if one stops and backslides from good works, is there any repentance and forgiveness for this?

 

[Mysteryman]

I always thought you let others tell you what to believe ! :biglol[/quote]

Sure...

The Apostles, Jesus, and God.

Is there a problem with them telling me what to do?[/quote]


Are you trying to tell us that the pope is God ?[/quote]

Nope. I am not.

I listed Apostles, Jesus, and God. I never said they were all equal. I suppose I forgot to list my wife. And I assure you, she is not God, if I had listed her amongst the people I listen to and obey.

The bishops are successors of the Apostles. Thus, when I hear and obey them, I am obeying Christ (Luke 10:16). But it doesn't follow that the bishops are God.

Regards[/quote]


Hi Francis

You obey men ? Thus you then are obeying Christ ?

What happen to the truth that comes from the Spirit of truth , which is in us ?

 

[Drew]

Your "position" is error. Serious error. You are attacking the very corner stones of the Christian faith. What a shame.

The evidence of this and other threads is really quite clear. Your position simply does not work - you have been shown this numerous times.

Let me ask you a question I am quite sure you will sidestep or provide an implausible answer for.

Why would Paul actually say that people are given eternal life based on good works if he is about to say that this is impossible?

Why would he do this twice - in Romans 2 and in Romans 8. Please tell us what you think Paul was thinking when he wrote this:

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

I am really interested in your answer to this. Why would Paul say that life (not rewards, but life) is achieved if the believer puts to death the misdeeds of the body if Paul does not believe that life is granted based on how your life is actually led?

Has Paul again, like in Romans 2, made a statement that he knows to be false? You have no other choice gd - you have repeatedly argued that Paul believes that it is impossible for the believer to get life based on how they live.

So you must think that Paul does not mean what he says in Romans 2.

And you must also believe that Paul does not believe what he says in Romans 8.

Please do not simpy assert that I am "in error". Instead, please give us your explanation why Paul would write something he knows to be false in both Romans 2 and Romans 8.

 

[Mysteryman]

At the very least, I challenged you correctly. Show us the originals please ! And if you can't, then you have no ground to stand upon.

Who made the original claim that the word "in" is in the original text.

Me? Fds? Free?

No. Someone named MysteryMan.

What is your explanation? That God whispered this truth in your ear but left it out of the Greek manuscripts.

I am half convinced you are some Yalie having us on....it is not sensible to make a claim that the original manuscripts have the word "in" and then ask us to prove that the original manuscripts do not have that word.

Here. Let me try: The original manuscript of the book of Romans contains the phrase "Coke, it's the real thing". Now, MM, produce an original manuscript to prove me wrong.

Please, a little respect.....

How about a little respect for the Word of God ?

What is the point for God giving the Spirit of truth in us, if the truth does not come through the Spirit of truth ?

 

[Drew]

i wonder if drew thinks that if one stops and backslides from good works, is there any repentance and forgiveness for this?

Sure there is repentance and forgiveness. Guys, your issue is with Paul, not me. I did not write Romans 2. And I did not write Romans 8. I just take Paul at his word, that's all.

 

[Drew]

What is the point for God giving the Spirit of truth in us, if the truth does not come through the Spirit of truth ?

I no longer believe you are a serious poster, so I will not be interacting with you further (unless you modify your position). It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who argues that God has given him a "rewrite" of Romans 2:7 that has been hidden from the rest of the world.

 

[jasoncran]

i wonder if drew thinks that if one stops and backslides from good works, is there any repentance and forgiveness for this?

Sure there is repentance and forgiveness. Guys, your issue is with Paul, not me. I did not write Romans 2. And I did not write Romans 8. I just take Paul at his word, that's all.

not if salvation is based on that, you walked away! how can you return, for that!

 

[Mysteryman]

Your "position" is error. Serious error. You are attacking the very corner stones of the Christian faith. What a shame.

The evidence of this and other threads is really quite clear. Your position simply does not work - you have been shown this numerous times.

Let me ask you a question I am quite sure you will sidestep or provide an implausible answer for.

Why would Paul actually say that people are given eternal life based on good works if he is about to say that this is impossible?

Why would he do this twice - in Romans 2 and in Romans 8. Please tell us what you think Paul was thinking when he wrote this:

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

I am really interested in your answer to this. Why would Paul say that life (not rewards, but life) is achieved if the believer puts to death the misdeeds of the body if Paul does not believe that life is granted based on how your life is actually led?

Has Paul again, like in Romans 2, made a statement that he knows to be false? You have no other choice gd - you have repeatedly argued that Paul believes that it is impossible for the believer to get life based on how they live.

So you must think that Paul does not mean what he says in Romans 2.

And you must also believe that Paul does not believe what he says in Romans 8.

Please do not simpy assert that I am "in error". Instead, please give us your explanation why Paul would write something he knows to be false in both Romans 2 and Romans 8.

Romans 8:13 is just one verse, and if you use it the way you are using it, you are taking everything out of context !

Romans 8:9 tells us that if anyone who does not have the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of Christ in you, then you are none of his.

Romans 8:13 is seperating those who have the Spirit of God , which is the Spirit of Christ in them , and those who do not.

Then in verse 16 it tells us that the Spirit (which is God) beareth witness with our spirit, which is the Spirit of his Son in our hearts, that we are the children of God.

Then comes verse 17 which states - And if children, then heirs; heirs of God , and joint heirs with Christ.

Those who do not have the Spirit of God , which is the Spirit of Christ in them, will not be heirs of God.

Eternal life is promised to those who have the promised seed of Christ in them, for we are sons of God and heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. This is done by predestination, because God foreknew us.

We were saved by grace, and not of works lest any man should boast !

 

[Mysteryman]

What is the point for God giving the Spirit of truth in us, if the truth does not come through the Spirit of truth ?

I no longer believe you are a serious poster, so I will not be interacting with you further (unless you modify your position). It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who argues that God has given him a "rewrite" of Romans 2:7 that has been hidden from the rest of the world.

Hi

I know it is impossible to kick against the pricks. And I didn't rewrite anything ! All I did is replace that which was omitted from the orignals ! Which btw, I gave you Ephesians 5:5 as a strong example of the truth. Yet, you ignored the truth.