Free will or no free will?

[mondar]

Drew, you cannot contribute works to your own salvation in any way. When you stand before God and see the brilliant righteousness of Jesus Christ, you will truly then know how sinful your works were. How can anyone say that their own righteousness can stand next to Christs righteousness for salvation.

We are not righteous, we are accounted as righteous, or righteousness is imputed. (See Romans 4). Justification is only on the bases of faith alone.

I really wish you would stop repeatedly misrepresenting what I think I have clearly and repeatedly stated:

Even though the Scriptures do teach (e.g. in Romans 2:7) that the final justification verdict will
be based on the content of our lifes lived, this does not mean that we can claim the credit for these works - they are the works of the Spirit in us. When you write: "How can anyone say that their own righteousness can stand next to Christs righteousness for salvation", you are really ascribing to me a position that you should know I do not hold if you have read my posts carefully.

Drew, your right, I have done this repeatedly. The reason for that is I see little actual difference between your claim and the claim of unred. You say that before we are justified the Spirit is doing good works in us. When such a person gets to heaven, he might brag about the works that he allowed the spirit to do in him. At least he did better then Adolf Hitler, and so this person earned and deserved his salvation or justification based upon his own merit of allowing the Spirit to do works in him.

I honestly do not see any difference in any all systems of works. In Catholic theology, they believe that the sacraments are the works that contribute to your salvation. They believe that these sacraments are the grace of God. Again, I see little difference in any works based system of justification or salvation. I think most pelagians would fit very well into modern Catholicism. Dont you notice how you and the Catholics agree? Maybe you are Catholic, I do not know.

Drew, I really see little merit (please excuse pun) in distinguishing between any works based system of salvation pr justification.

Paul never teaches that the righteousness of Christ is imputed or ascribed to us.

Romans 4:6 "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,"

In Romans 4:3-10, the word "impute" or "reckoned" (gk-- logozemai) is used 7 times. Each time it is used of imputing Christs righteousness to the believer. I have another post detailing this, but I am too lazy to do all this again.

We are indeed declared to be righteous, but it is not the righteousness of Christ - the judge in the lawcourt scenario (Romans 2). It is the righteousness proper of the acquitted defendent, not the righteousness of the judge.

While I admit that every time the word "justify" is used int he scriptures it is not a "law court" scenario. Nevertheless, the Pauline use of the term is in fact a legal (law court) term.

The use of terms can be determined by context. In Romans 8 we have several terms that are forensic (law court).

Romans 8:33---- "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? Is it God that justifieth.
Notice the term "charge." This is a forensic term (law court) in the very same context with the term justify.
In this same context, verse 34 continues...
"Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
The term "condemneth" is also forensic (law court).

As demonstrated above, there is evidence for a forensic (law court) use of the term "justified."


Also, want to mention that you have the entire law court scenario confused. Christ is not the judge, he is the defense lawyer (intercessor). God (the Father) bangs his gavel and pronounces us innocent on the basis that the defense lawyer payed the penalty. We are then justied by means of the blood of the defense lawyer, not by means of our own works.

When OJ Simpson was acquitted, did that involve the righteousness of Judge Ito being ascribed to him? Of course not.

Maybe thats because the judge did not go to the electric chair in behalf of OJ.

I will politely suggest that you please not misrepresent what I have said - I have never ever argued that the works we exhibit are in any reasonable sense "our own". And I therefore have never placed myself in a position that makes me vulnerable to a charge that I will present "my own righteousness" to God as the basis of my justification.

OK, then you ascribe our own HS prompted righteousness as the basis of justification. Its still not based upon substitutionary cross work of Jesus Christ. The shed blood of Jesus Christ is the only basis for salvation.

Romans 5:9 "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."

 

[Drew]

Drew, your right, I have done this repeatedly. The reason for that is I see little actual difference between your claim and the claim of unred. You say that before we are justified the Spirit is doing good works in us. When such a person gets to heaven, he might brag about the works that he allowed the spirit to do in him. At least he did better then Adolf Hitler, and so this person earned and deserved his salvation or justification based upon his own merit of allowing the Spirit to do works in him.

I honestly do not see any difference in any all systems of works. In Catholic theology, they believe that the sacraments are the works that contribute to your salvation. They believe that these sacraments are the grace of God. Again, I see little difference in any works based system of justification or salvation. I think most pelagians would fit very well into modern Catholicism. Dont you notice how you and the Catholics agree? Maybe you are Catholic, I do not know.

Drew, I really see little merit (please excuse pun) in distinguishing between any works based system of salvation pr justification.

But there are distinctions - really significant ones. And they are not all that difficult to see. You seem to argue that if a human being takes any single action at all, no matter how small, as a free moral agent, even weakly crying out to God for help and then watching as God does all the work - that this all collapses into a "we earn our own salvation" position. I do not see how such reasoning can be sustained.

No reasonable person would say that a person who cries out meekly from his bed in a burning building "saves himself" if this cry is heard by a fireman who then enters the building and rescues the person. No reasonable person, having been rescued in such a way would claim credit for their deliverance of the form "I get credit for my rescue since I cried out". And I know you may well argue that this is a bad analogy, but I think we can at least agree that another issue is introduced if we go down that road.

As I have argued elsewhere, to suggest that even the slightest independent action makes us the author of our justification simply is not true to the fundamental distinction between us and God. We are creatures as distinct from our Creator. I submit that to argue that we must retain at least a smidgen of self-determining free will if the concept of creature is to be honoured at all. If we have no degree of freedom to act, we are no longer creatures, we are objects.

It is indeed true that, in my view, each person, acting "freely" does play a role in their justification. It is the role of crying out "please have mercy on me, a sinner" and then letting God's Spirit do its thing through us. Perhaps I also need to "admit" that this "free will" cry may need to be re-issued "every day" as it were.

I know that some may think that my "creature as distinct from Creator" argument is a philosophical trick. I do not think so. I suggest that the position that many Calvinists take, when examined critically, really does dissolve that distinction into nothingness - how is it that Fred, devoid of self-determining free will, is any different from the apple falling from the true in impersonal obedience to the law of gravity?

I am not Catholic. But if Catholics believe that one is justified by moral self-effort, I would disagree with them.

I hope to address your specific stuff on Romans 4 shortly.

 

[Drew]

Also, want to mention that you have the entire law court scenario confused. Christ is not the judge, he is the defense lawyer (intercessor). God (the Father) bangs his gavel and pronounces us innocent on the basis that the defense lawyer payed the penalty. We are then justied by means of the blood of the defense lawyer, not by means of our own works.

I am only agreeing with Paul:

This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares

I think any attempt to leverage a distinction between God and Jesus really does fall apart here in light of what Paul writes to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:1:

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge

What is your response to what Paul writes to Timothy? How is it that Jesus is not the judge?

I do agree that our justification is fully secured by Christ's sacrificial and atoning death. You may be puzzled to see me write this. Haven't I just posted that we need to "freely" accept this gift, and perhaps even do so "daily"? How can I then claim that Christ's death alone is sufficient.

Well, I freely admit I believe it is fully sufficient within a specific context where I need to retain my specificity as a created being as distinguished from a rock. So you're right - I am operating within a matrix of thought where I honour what I think are the necessary and unavoidable implications of what it means to be a creature and not a rock - the existence of a degree of free will. I politely suggest that to claim that we are not "free" to accept the gift of covenant membership is to say that there are no "creatures" in the universe. Why? Because if there is no free will at work, then the conceptually necessary distinction (in light of our being creatures in the image of God) between us and God disappears.

 

[mondar]

Also, want to mention that you have the entire law court scenario confused. Christ is not the judge, he is the defense lawyer (intercessor). God (the Father) bangs his gavel and pronounces us innocent on the basis that the defense lawyer payed the penalty. We are then justied by means of the blood of the defense lawyer, not by means of our own works.

I am only agreeing with Paul:

This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares

I think any attempt to leverage a distinction between God and Jesus really does fall apart here in light of what Paul writes to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:1:

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge

What is your response to what Paul writes to Timothy? How is it that Jesus is not the judge?

Drew, please don't obtusify the conversation. In fact your post disappoints me. The trhee principles of defining a word is 1--Context 2-Context 3-Context. Maybe I should not have said what I did above because it gives you the chance to go off on a dog trail. In forensic justification it does not absolutely matter who is judge and who is defense lawyer. My main point was that the word justify is forensicly defined its onw context in Romans 8:33-34.

Nevertheless, my response would concern the basic issue of context.

How do you define the question of who is the judge in justification? You go to any context with the concept of judge and totally ignore that the issue is the word "justify."

Drew, do you understand the concept of defining a word by the context in which it exists? Let me give you an illustration of what you are doing.

The english word "lead." It can be used of a "lead pencil," or it can be used of a person who "lead" his dog to his house. Can you go to a sentence where the word is not even used to determine the meaning of the word "lead?" If I keep this illusatration as a parallel, you are off at another sentence with the word "dog house" trying to define the meaning of "lead" when the word does not even occur in the context. This of course would make no sense. Neither does your arguments carry the least bit of weight. The word justify does not occur in any of the contexts you quoted. How then can you define who is the judge in justification?

Certainy Christ is a judge in many other contexts. I am not disputing that. But Christ is not the judge in the context of justification. But again, that issue is not even important to what is being discussed (forensic justification).

So then, where does the word "justify" does occur? It is in the context of Romans 8:33-34. In that context it is God that pronounces the just to be justified (33). "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. The judge pronouncing the elect to be just is God, not Christ. He is then the judge that bangs the gavel in that context.

I do agree that our justification is fully secured by Christ's sacrificial and atoning death. You may be puzzled to see me write this. Haven't I just posted that we need to "freely" accept this gift, and perhaps even do so "daily"? How can I then claim that Christ's death alone is sufficient.

I am not sure how the two statements you make can go together. If Christ fully (100%) did everything that needed to be done to complete our justification, then we are justified. On the other hand, I suspect that you are saying that Christ did not do everything that needed to be done for a completed justification. I suspect that you view Christ blood as a theoretical possibility that maybe justification could happen depending upon the sovereign free will of man. So then, justification depends upon us, and not Christ. Of course I strongly disagree that Christ did nothing but make salvation possible at the cross. Certainly I agree that faith is the necessary qualification for justification, but faith comes from the sovereign Lord who draws man to faith (John 6:44).

Well, I freely admit I believe it is fully sufficient within a specific context where I need to retain my specificity as a created being as distinguished from a rock. So you're right - I am operating within a matrix of thought where I honour what I think are the necessary and unavoidable implications of what it means to be a creature and not a rock - the existence of a degree of free will. I politely suggest that to claim that we are not "free" to accept the gift of covenant membership is to say that there are no "creatures" in the universe. Why? Because if there is no free will at work, then the conceptually necessary distinction (in light of our being creatures in the image of God) between us and God disappears.

Drew, do you understand the Calvinist concept of "will?" If I understand your paragraphs above, you are misrepresenting Calvinism. This seems to be a straw man. Calvinist affirm man has a will and man makes spiritual choices. We can choose any path of sin we please. In fact we are totally free to choose whatever sin pleases us. So then, I dont see how you can say Calvinists deny choices. Now I agree that there is one choice that Calvinists say that unregenerate man cannot make. Unregenerate man cannot choose Christ. This claim is in the scriptures very clearly in John 6:44. The verse says
"No man can come to me"
The word "can" speaks of ability. It is the greek word "dunamai."
Out of the thousand paths and decisions man can make, when Calvinists say unregenerate men cannot choose God, that leaves 999 alternate choices. There is Budah, Vishnu, Allah, and many many other faiths, there is athiesm, there is choices of sin. So many choices. Yet when Calvinists say unregenerate man cannot choose God, non-Calvinists assume that we are saying man is a rock and cannot make any choices at all.
The difference is who is making the primary choice? Whose will is sovereign, ours or Gods. The question of will concerns who chose first? Did we choose God, and then God chose us because we chose him (of course then God made no true choice and his will is then not free)? Or did God first chose us, and then regenerate mans nature so that his will can and does choose God? In this case Gos has the sovereign will and man choice is then secondary in that man's faith is a response to the Word and the work of God.

The freedom is Gods, the responsibility is mans. God will receive all glory, man receives none.

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar:
The difference is who is making the primary choice? Whose will is sovereign, ours or Gods. The question of will concerns who chose first? Did we choose God, and then God chose us because we chose him (of course then God made no true choice and his will is then not free)? Or did God first chose us, and then regenerate mans nature so that his will can and does choose God? In this case Gos has the sovereign will and man choice is then secondary in that man's faith is a response to the Word and the work of God.

God loved us first, all of us, his whole creation, the whole world. Because he loved us, God sovereignly chose to give all mankind free will to choose him or reject him. How hard is that to understand?

quote by mondar:
The freedom is Gods, the responsibility is mans. God will receive all glory, man receives none.

Your argument is so convoluted, it is hard to imagine how you could have such an illogical view.

God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him. Are you saying that God is a rewarder of those who don’t seek him? Do you really believe that God is going to choose a few evil men and change their hearts to follow him, and then reward them for being obedient? Why not change all hearts then? Read this:
Proverbs 24
11If you forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;
If you say, Behold, we knew it not; does not he that ponders the heart consider it? and he that keeps your soul, does not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?
God condemns those who don’t try to save those who have strayed from the path of righteousness, yet this is what you accuse him of doing. Proverbs 24 goes on to say:

19 Fret not yourself because of evil men, neither be you envious at the wicked:
20 For there shall be no reward to the evil man; the candle of the wicked shall be put out.
But you say some wicked men are going to live forever in heaven. Uh huh. Sure.

Proverbs 13:13
Whoso despises the word shall be destroyed: but he that fears the commandment shall be rewarded.
14The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.
Notice that the despisers will be destroyed, not changed into altar boys who inherit the promises given to the faithful and the godly, who have followed the commandments that taught them to escape the snares of sin and death.


But God plans to glorify those who follow Christ:
Proverbs 11:18
The wicked works a deceitful work: but to him that sows righteousness shall be a sure reward.

John 12:43
For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
Not these.

Romans 2:29
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Not those who follow the letter (but not the spirit) of the law of love but are not really loving others from their hearts.

1 Corinthians 9:17
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

There has to be a willing participation of the person in the gospel or it won’t get them a reward at all, even if God still causes them to do his will and preach the gospel.

Psalm 31:23
O love the LORD, all you his saints: for the LORD preserves the faithful, and plentifully rewards the proud doer.

Colossians 3:24
Knowing that of the Lord you shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for you serve the Lord Christ.

1 Corinthians 4:5
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

God not only loves his creatures, but he loves to praise them for a job well done. He doesn’t mind giving praise to those who have obeyed him from the heart in true faith that he can be trusted to give us the reward he has promised to those who love him. If you work real hard, Mondar, you will hear God say, well done, good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord.



Luke 6:35
But love you your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
Why is he kind to the evil? Know you not that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? How do you become a child of God? By loving your enemies and doing good.


Matthew 16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Revelation 22:12
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
There’s that word again, ‘work.’ The reward is eternal life and the requirement to inherit eternal life is works of love and faith done from the heart in truth with mercy and forgiveness for others. If you did some work, does that mean that God had to give you a reward? No, God graciously has offered to freely pardon those who repent of their sin and abundantly reward those, who by faithful continuance in well doing, seek for the honor that comes from God himself, with eternal life. I believe that comes from one of your favorites….Romans 2? :-D

 

[francisdesales]

'Keep my commandments and live'. Isn't that what Jesus said we should do? His instructions/words are pretty clear to me.

In the end, that's the bottom line, the determiner of whether one is bound for heaven or not. Those who deny that are teaching an incomplete or false gospel. Those who believe OSAS are teaching a false gospel. Am I then doing the devil's work by emphasizing what Jesus taught, to love others and keep His commands?

Regards

 

[MarkT]

'Keep my commandments and live'. Isn't that what Jesus said we should do? His instructions/words are pretty clear to me.

In the end, that's the bottom line, the determiner of whether one is bound for heaven or not. Those who deny that are teaching an incomplete or false gospel. Those who believe OSAS are teaching a false gospel. Am I then doing the devil's work by emphasizing what Jesus taught, to love others and keep His commands?

Regards

You've got the wrong idea about the gospel. The good news is Jesus Christ came in the flesh. But you have the right idea about the bottom line. I don't agree with Original Sin for example. I think the Calvinists neglect the role of the devil. They don't understand the flesh or the desire of the flesh. The bottom line, however, is how we treat our brother. Reprove him if you think he is wrong but don't judge him or you will bring judgment on yourself. That's the commandment. No one is perfect in their knowledge.

We don't have the spirit of the world. By that I mean the spirit to reject God. We don't see things the way the world sees things. If your eye causes you to sin/hate your brother, pluck it out.

Was Jesus sent to plead our Father's case?

'On this rock I will build my church.' Jesus is the builder. We are the building; as a whole and individually parts of it. When God builds something, it doesn't breakdown. The wineskin that he pours his Spirit into is new. It is not like the old wineskin of flesh and blood.

Does GM build cars to break down? Does Firestone build tires to go flat? Does God give us the spirit to reject him? Did God build his church to fall? Does he give us the Spirit to fail? Saying that he has built us to last is not saying that we are not tires, to use the analogy, or that tires can not breakdown. It's just saying God builds them not to.

If God gave the creature the ability to reject him, he did so for his purpose; to take the enemy. But the Spirit of God does not reject God. If his Spirit is in you, and you are in Christ, then you have found true freedom. As Paul said, 'we have the mind of Christ'.

The world has the spirit to reject him, but we are not of the world. Can we still have this spirit which is of the world and be in Christ at the same time?

 

[Drew]

Romans 4:6 "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,"

In Romans 4:3-10, the word "impute" or "reckoned" (gk-- logozemai) is used 7 times. Each time it is used of imputing Christs righteousness to the believer. I have another post detailing this, but I am too lazy to do all this again.

I have read your other post where you are argue about logozemai in detail and the issue you raise is interesting but I think I can make a case that Paul's use of this word does not require us to construe it as involving specifically the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us. If you can make a case, that of course does not beg the question at issue, that this term must admit to no other reading than the one you give it (i.e. that it entails the imputation of righteousness of Christ to us), then by all means do so.

For my part, I will attempt to more fully develop the case that Paul does not teach that Christ's righteousness is in any sense imputed or acribed to us. And I shamelessly admit that my argument will be a hodge-podge of my own ideas and those of others (including, but not limited to, NT Wright). Although I wish I could do things more compactly, I suspect that multiple posts will be required.

First I believe there are at least 2 senses to the term "righteousness" in the context we are dealing with. There is what might be called "forensic" righteousness (perhaps my term is not ideal but I will now explain what I mean) - a state where one has been deemed to be "clean of sin, "in the right", "not guilty" if you will. This is the status of the acquitted defendent. When OJ was acquitted (travesty of justice though that was), he was ascribed this kind of "positional" or "forensic" righteousness. Was he therefore deemed to be a "morally righteous" man? Of course not.

This introduces the second sense of the term - a sense where "righteousness" describes the moral behaviour of someone. This is an entirely different sense of term, a version I was call "moral" righteousness. When God acts, he acts with this kind of "moral" righteousness. You (mondar) seem to be rather clearly arguing that Christ's own moral righteousness is imputed or ascribed to us. This is where I disagree. If you mean something other than this, please explain.

I believe that the Scriptures teach that we (believers) get the "forensic" righteousness of the acquitted defendent, not the imputed "moral" righteousness of the judge, who has been shown to be Jesus, despite your claims to the contrary. Paul clearly identifies Jesus as the judge in the lawcourt setting in this text from his second letter to Timothy:

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead,...

To finish off this first post, I jump right into Romans 4, the text you use to make your case about "logozemai". This is Romans 4:6-8 as rendered in the NKJV which explicitly renders the word "impute":

just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.

In this text we see that the man is blessed because sin has not been imputed or ascribed to him - the essence of the blessing is in this very thing. Does the text show that the man is blessed because Christ's own moral perfection has been ascribed to him? No it does not. The man is blessed, like OJ was, because sin was not ascribed to him - the man is declared to have the status of the acquitted defendent in the lawcourt, he is not declared to have the moral righteousness of some other person, such as Jesus.

More later.

 

[Drew]

Drew, do you understand the concept of defining a word by the context in which it exists?

I do not believe that such blatant condescension is called for. The very heart of my extended argument against your position on Romans 4 is all about context. I will let the readers judge by the content of my posts whether I know what "context" is all about.

 

[Drew]

Certainy Christ is a judge in many other contexts. I am not disputing that. But Christ is not the judge in the context of justification. But again, that issue is not even important to what is being discussed (forensic justification).

So then, where does the word "justify" does occur? It is in the context of Romans 8:33-34. In that context it is God that pronounces the just to be justified (33). "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. The judge pronouncing the elect to be just is God, not Christ. He is then the judge that bangs the gavel in that context.

There is obviously some context in which Jesus Christ is acting as the judge since we have this from 2 Timothy 4:

I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at[a] His appearing and His kingdom

By your argument there would seem to have to be 2 lawcourts. The one you describe where God (and not Jesus) who bangs the gavel and the other, as per 2 Timothy 4 where Christ is clearly set in the position of the judge. What, exactly, is happening in this second lawcourt according to you?

Let me try to lay out the challenge I think that you face:

1. You have claimed that there is a lawcourt setting, described in Romans 8, in which God and not Christ acts as the judge who bangs the gavel.

2. In that lawcourt, I believe you claim that Christ's righteousness is ascribed to us.

3. From your position, you must see the lawcourt in 2 Timothy 4:1 as a different lawcourt, since it is clearly Jesus who is the judge. Fine.

4. In that lawcourt, which by the text of 2 Timothy 4:1 takes place in the future, Christ judges all.

5. When a justified person appears in future lawcourt, by the terms of your argument, Christ as judge looks out and basically sees himself in the dock when a person, justified by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, appears before him.

I find such a picture to be incoherent - how can Christ be the judge and the defendent in the dock? It would be coherent if God were the judge who looks and sees the righteous Christ instead of Fred, but it is indeed Christ who is the judge here.

 

[Drew]

All such considerations aside, Romans 2 indicates that in the future there will be a "lawcourt" setting in which some will be upheld and some will be found guilty. Arguments that the believing Christian will not appear in this lawcourt and be judged simply do not work - they require Paul to be the most incompetent writer one can imagine - providing a highly integrated and detailed story of judgement and presuming the reader to understand that only "half" of it is actually going to happen - the half about those who are condemned. Apparently Paul is not intending his readers to believe the bits about how people will be justified by their "persistence in doing good".

7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

And who is the judge here? It is Jesus:

16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares

And these texts apply to both Jews and Gentiles - Paul repeats this basically three times.

The argument goes that later in Romans 3:20, Paul undercuts his statement in Romans 2:7 and 2:13 when he writes this:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

At a first uncritical glance, there indeed appears to be grounds for such an argument. But Paul never hints in the actual content of chapter 2 that he "just kidding about the bit where people are justified by their works". So do we really need to read this qualifier back in?

No we do not. A solution presents itself that enables us to avoid the awkward and implausible "Paul did not mean what he says in Romans 2:7 and 2:13" argument. In Romans 3:20, Paul is not talking about "good works" - he is talking about the works of Torah, that is, those practices which mark Israel out from among the nations - circumcision, Sabbath, purity laws.

And there is a powerful contextual argument to the effect that this is so. I am all too happy to provide it.

So what Paul says in 3:20 harmonizes perfectly well with what he says in chapter 2. If he were talking about "clean livin' " in 3:20, there would indeed a conflict with what he says in verse 7, where it is clear that "clean livin' " is indeed a basis for justification.

Verse 13 from chapter 2 is a little more tricky. It might seem that 3:20 conflicts with 2:13. But they do not, because they can be argued to be about 2 different ways of keeping Torah. Is this a rationalization on my part to preserve my take that Paul is describing how people actually will be justified in accordance with their works as per chapter 2?

Well, I am just following Paul who draws this very distinction:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even (BI)the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

We need not rewrite 2:7 and 2:13. Paul means what he says - we will be justified by keeping Torah in a "by faith" way. What is the difference between these 2 ways of keeping Torah? I have some thoughts but will have to wait for another post.

We simply do not need to see Paul in chapter 2 asserting something that he will later essentially "retract" or "override" or say "that was the old system", etc.

If I were critiquing my own position on all this, I would say that the biggest puzzle is its intricate complexity (and I am really presenting my understanding of NT Wright - I take no credit for coming up with this way of looking at Romans). I can certainly understand that people will say "how can justification be so complex". Fair enough. But I think that Wright is correct when he insists that Paul means what he says in 2:7 and 2:13and that we need to develop a solution that works with that verse.

 

[unred typo]

quote by Drew:
All such considerations aside, Romans 2 indicates that in the future there will be a "lawcourt" setting in which some will be upheld and some will be found guilty. Arguments that the believing Christian will not appear in this lawcourt and be judged simply do not work - they require Paul to be the most incompetent writer one can imagine - providing a highly integrated and detailed story of judgement and presuming the reader to understand that only "half" of it is actually going to happen - the half about those who are condemned. Apparently Paul is not intending his readers to believe the bits about how people will be justified by their "persistence in doing good".

7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

And who is the judge here? It is Jesus:

16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares

And these texts apply to both Jews and Gentiles - Paul repeats this basically three times.

The argument goes that later in Romans 3:20, Paul undercuts his statement in Romans 2:7 and 2:13 when he writes this:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

At a first uncritical glance, there indeed appears to be grounds for such an argument. But Paul never hints in the actual content of chapter 2 that he "just kidding about the bit where people are justified by their works". So do we really need to read this qualifier back in?

No we do not. A solution presents itself that enables us to avoid the awkward and implausible "Paul did not mean what he says in Romans 2:7 and 2:13" argument. In Romans 3:20, Paul is not talking about "good works" - he is talking about the works of Torah, that is, those practices which mark Israel out from among the nations - circumcision, Sabbath, purity laws.

And there is a powerful contextual argument to the effect that this is so. I am all too happy to provide it.

So what Paul says in 3:20 harmonizes perfectly well with what he says in chapter 2. If he were talking about "clean livin' " in 3:20, there would indeed a conflict with what he says in verse 7, where it is clear that "clean livin' " is indeed a basis for justification.

Verse 13 from chapter 2 is a little more tricky. It might seem that 3:20 conflicts with 2:13. But they do not, because they can be argued to be about 2 different ways of keeping Torah. Is this a rationalization on my part to preserve my take that Paul is describing how people actually will be justified in accordance with their works as per chapter 2?

Well, I am just following Paul who draws this very distinction:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even (BI)the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

We need not rewrite 2:7 and 2:13. Paul means what he says - we will be justified by keeping Torah in a "by faith" way. What is the difference between these 2 ways of keeping Torah? I have some thoughts but will have to wait for another post.

We simply do not need to see Paul in chapter 2 asserting something that he will later essentially "retract" or "override" or say "that was the old system", etc.

If I were critiquing my own position on all this, I would say that the biggest puzzle is its intricate complexity (and I am really presenting my understanding of NT Wright - I take no credit for coming up with this way of looking at Romans). I can certainly understand that people will say "how can justification be so complex". Fair enough. But I think that Wright is correct when he insists that Paul means what he says in 2:7 and 2:13and that we need to develop a solution that works with that verse.

It’s always a pleasure to read your careful analysis of scripture, Drew. Whatever you don’t clear up completely, with your explanations, defines the question and encourages further consideration of the chapters.

I think it is easy enough to see what parts of the Jewish laws are part of the ‘old covenant’ which are fulfilled in Christ, and which are ‘the new covenant’ because these are things that Jesus sets forth in his teaching about love for one another and God. The sacrifices and the myriad of laws pertaining to the choice of animal and the process of sacrifice are done away in Christ. We don’t have to be concerned, for instance, with whether to burn the skin and fat of the bullock, or wash it or dump it outside the city gate. To make sure there is no question about this, we can see that the temple was removed from service in 70 AD when it was completely destroyed.

We as Gentiles don’t have to become Jewish to follow Christ either, as per the judgment of the first apostolic councils that argued over these things for the establishment of the church ‘house rules’ that were given to the disciples to hash out in Matthew 16:18-19. No circumcision, no Sabbath stoning, no stoning for disobedient children or fornicators, no abstaining from eating unclean animals or worry over wearing mixed fabric clothing and planting with mixed seed. The only rules that were laid out for Gentiles were to “keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.†in Acts 21:25. The ‘new covenant’ in his blood is the obtaining of forgiveness of sins, not through the temple priests and their dead rituals, but through confession and repentance to the Holy Spirit who takes the blood of Christ and cleanses us from all unrighteousness as it says in 1 John 1:9. The law of love is the new law and yet it is the one we have had from the beginning, 2 John 1:5, and it is the same one written on our hearts by God himself.

And as you mentioned before, there is no real new covenant either because it is the same covenant we have had since Adam and Eve were promised a redeemer that would crush Satan’s head, Genesis 3:15, and we are also living out the one given to Abram concerning the descendants of faith. It’s all good, Drew. :wink:

 

[ChristineES]

I haven't posted here since about August and I can't believe that this discussion is still going on. :o

 

[unred typo]

I haven't posted here since about August and I can't believe that this discussion is still going on. :o

LOL. Yup. Some people never change, and some people don't have to. When you're right, you don't need to do anything but convince everyone else around here, it seems... :-D :wink: JK....

 

[unred typo]

quote by ChristineES :I haven't posted here since about August and I can't believe that this discussion is still going on.

Actually, we were going for a record 50 pages. Do you think you could possibly contribute a post or two? It may be tax-deductible. (Consult your accountant.) :wink: I don’t really recall your stand on the issue of free will. Do you have one, either or both?
( a stand, free will )
I hope so since most of the other topics I enjoy reading have dried up, gone into redundancy or hit a wall of blank stares, and I‘m quite bored. I may have to tune in to the Simpsons… :smt100 so you can consider a fresh post as having a redemptive quality, even if you’re wrong. I promise to be as nice as I can be, depending on the content of your post, naturally. :smt047 But even if I snap, it’s not personal and how could it be? I wouldn’t know you if you met me on the street and slapped me with a halibut. :-D Most of my bad behavior is overrated, or can be attributed to cabin fever anyway. :smt069 Tennis, anyone?

 

[Vic C.]

50 pages isn't a record. One of our UR threads exceeded 100 pages. 8-)

 

[unred typo]

quote by vic C. on Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:55 am
50 pages isn't a record. One of our UR threads exceeded 100 pages.

Well, I didn’t want to scare her off. You certainly have raised the bar… is that the real reason UR discussion is banned? You ran out of pages? :wink: :-D

 

[MarkT]

If God wanted to blind someone, could he do that? Can a blind person see he is blind, or make himself see? But here, I'm not talking about eye sight. I'm talking about perception; perceiving truth.

I agree the creature has freewill, being a creature, but it doesn't mean the man inside can see. The man inside can not will himself to see and understand. That happens by the grace of God.

His sheep hear his voice. And what we say is only what we hear. And apparently not everyone gets the same gifts. Jesus said, 'many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.' Mt. 13:17

Can a leopard change its spots? No. A leopard can not change its spots. I'm refering to Judas, for example. Jesus said he was a devil. The LORD said, 'Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard change his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.' Jer. 13:23

We didn't choose to be who we are. We are who we are. Everyone is who he is. In that sense, we don't look at everyone as being equal, or that they come from the same father. Paul said, we no longer regard anyone from a human point of view. Keep these facts in mind.

A fig tree does not bear thistles. I'm talking about its fruit. It can whither. It can be unfruitful. It can be cut down. But, if it is a good tree, then it bears figs; it bears fruit in season. A good tree is simply one that is planted by God. A good tree doesn't grow by exerting its will. It grows because God gives it growth.

 

[unred typo]

quote by MarkT:
If God wanted to blind someone, could he do that? Can a blind person see he is blind, or make himself see? But here, I'm not talking about eye sight. I'm talking about perception; perceiving truth.

I agree the creature has freewill, being a creature, but it doesn't mean the man inside can see. The man inside can not will himself to see and understand. That happens by the grace of God.

If God wants to blind someone, he can certainly do that. Why would he be doing that, MarkT? If it is his will that every man come to the knowledge of the truth, why would he blind them? I think you have misunderstood God’s mission to the world. He desires all men everywhere to repent and come to understand and obey the gospel. It is Satan that blinds men with the darkness of sin and evil. The call has gone out for all those that have been made captive by sin and Satan that they have been made free, they can come out of their prisons if they only will choose to do so. It is Satan who tells us that we cannot. As my mother in law always used to say, “Can’t never could do anything.â€Â

The Spirit is there among all sinners and all the children of darkness to reprove them of sin:

Ephesians 5:13-15
13But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever does make manifest is light.
14Wherefore he says, Awake you that sleeps, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.
15See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,

quote by MarkT:
His sheep hear his voice. And what we say is only what we hear. And apparently not everyone gets the same gifts. Jesus said, 'many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.' Mt. 13:17

His sheep hear his voice and they follow him. If you want to be his sheep, you must follow him. That’s the point. If you are speaking something other than what he taught, you are repeating something you have heard from the enemy. You have been listening to that ‘Tokyo Rose’ who tries to undermine the salvation of our souls.

quote by MarkT:
Can a leopard change its spots? No. A leopard can not change its spots. I'm refering to Judas, for example. Jesus said he was a devil. The LORD said, 'Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard change his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.' Jer. 13:23

This means that you better not get accustomed to sin. This is why we all are exhorted to root out bitterness and sin from our hearts and lives. When you have thoroughly embraced evil, you cannot do good. You have to repent first and forsake your sin and this will be a painful process when you are addicted to any sin. You are going to have to get unaccustomed to doing sin, if you want to do good. First though, you must exercise the will to change. When you choose to do good, you must first refrain from evil, and become unaccustomed to sin. Does a drug addict do any good when he is craving his drug? He will steal from his own mother to get high. He can’t ‘change his spots’ while he is under the control of his addiction. He must first choose to change.

Remember he spoke these words to his elect, his beloved people of Judah and Jerusalem:
Jer. 13:24Therefore will I scatter them as the stubble that passes away by the wind of the wilderness.
25This is your lot, the portion of your measures from me, says the LORD; because you have forgotten me, and trusted in falsehood.

God does cast them away because he hates them, or because he wants to punish them so they will repent and return to him?

Read the preceding verses, MarkT:

9Thus says the LORD, After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem.
10This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.
11For as the girdle cleaves to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, says the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.

Do you see that they chose to walk after other gods, even though God caused them to cleave unto him? Why? Because they had free will to do what they chose to do, even though it was God’s will to make them be his praise and glory. This is how it is with everyone, MarkT. God chose for all mankind to be for his praise and glory but he lets us choose whether we will reject him or not. He is going to judge us by the decisions that we make and the works that result from those choices. Choose wisely, redeeming the time.

quote by MarkT:
We didn't choose to be who we are. We are who we are. Everyone is who he is. In that sense, we don't look at everyone as being equal, or that they come from the same father. Paul said, we no longer regard anyone from a human point of view. Keep these facts in mind.

No, we are all born to different circumstances, and we are all given a different measure of faith. If we have higher obstacles, he gives more grace. No matter if we are slaves in an idolatrous nation or the adored children of Baptist ministers, we still are given an opportunity to choose our own destiny. God will judge fairly and he will judge us according to what we were given and how we used it.

quote by MarkT:
A fig tree does not bear thistles. I'm talking about its fruit. It can whither. It can be unfruitful. It can be cut down. But, if it is a good tree, then it bears figs; it bears fruit in season. A good tree is simply one that is planted by God. A good tree doesn't grow by exerting its will. It grows because God gives it growth.

The fig tree is a metaphor. Your use of biblical metaphors is downright scary, MarkT. You have to read them in context and not go off on a tangent. You can’t take a metaphor and use it for other purposes than what the writer intended. For instance, when Jesus says, “I will make you fishers of men,†you can’t take that metaphor and go around saying he wants us to capture men, cut off their heads and eat them. You haven’t said that but what you have said is as confused as that.

I keep correcting these metaphorical absurdities but I really wish you would use your own God given common sense to discern what the simile is attempting to convey. :-? The simile of the fig tree is not telling us that we are stuck being one kind of tree or another. We can choose to bear good fruit or we can choose to be willful and disobedient and produce thistles. God has given us both the ability to choose what we will produce and the responcibility to choose wisely.

 

[Bubba]

May 03rd 2008
“ A WOMAN who was trafficked across the border from Pakistan with her son, 3, was handed to an Afghan who raped her, then beat the toddler to death as she watched.
He was jailed for 20 years for murder - but the woman, Rukhma, was jailed, too.
She had put up with her mistreatment for three months before going to authorities.
But in December, Rukhma, who doesn’t know her age but looks younger than 20, was given a four-year sentence for adultery and “escaping her house†in Pakistan.
The Taliban’s fall six years ago heralded new rights for women: to go to school or get a job.
Their rights are now enshrined in the constitution.
But except for a small urban elite, a woman fleeing domestic violence or accusing a man of rape herself often ends up seen as the guilty party.
So this poor woman not only was violated, she watched her son die at the hands of a “tolerant and peaceful†Muslim. Then she joins her attacker in jail. I am sure that once she signs a confession, apologizes for being raped, and promises never to be raped again, the terrorists in charge of the jail will commute her sentenceâ€Â.

I read this account a few weeks ago in the news. My question for those who believe in “freewill’, how does a 20 year old illiterate woman in Afghanistan ever get free of the Muslim faith and male dominance, when this is the only life she will ever know, short of Divine intervention? Mine you this scenario is happening all over the world.
Bubba