Good News for True Christian Believers!

[Drew]

Drew, there is no atonement in Romans 2. The context is simply not about salvation in Christ.

Romans 2 does indeed have an "atonement" connection to material that is more obviously about the atonement such as the doctrine of atonement that is neatly captured in the first few verses of Romans 8. I am talking about the conditions upon which eternal life is granted. And Romans 2 teaches that we are given eternal life on a future day of judgement based on the "content of our lives as lived". And, of course, I am not asserting that we earn such an award - it is the Spirit that properly gets the credit.

But now to argue that there is indeed a link between texts like Romans 2:7 and the atonement theology given in Romans 8. In typically Pauline fashion, Paul teases us with material in Romans 2 that he will later unpack (e.g. in Romans 8). If we just looked at Romans 2, we could not arrive at the theology of justification that we get from Paul. And by this I will appeal to what perhaps little common ground you and I have on this issue: we both believe that we do not "earn" our justification in any reasonable sense of the term (and here I am getting into the subtlety that perhaps distinguishes my position on this from that of unred).

Having introducted what seems to be a works-based salvation in Romans 2, Paul now "resolves his Romans 2 teaser" in Romans 8:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death...."

And he goes on to basically explain that it is through the atonement - the condemning of sin in the flesh of Jesus - that the power of sin is broken and the Spirit given. I think that when Paul writes this:

And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit

He is basically saying that you now have the resources to live - to act - according to the Spirit.

So there is indeed an element of the atonement in Romans 2. In chapters 3 through 7, Paul develops his argument and then in Romans 8, he can then, and only then, effectively deal with the stuff from Romans 2 by explaining exactly how it is that we will most assuredly meet the "works"-based granting of eternal life we see in Romans 2. It is not our work - it is the work of the Spirit.

 

[mondar]

Drew, there is no atonement in Romans 2. The context is simply not about salvation in Christ.

I never suggested that Romans 2 is about atonement in the sense that atonement is neatly captured in the first few verses of Romans 8. I am talking about the conditions upon which eternal life is granted. And Romans 2 teaches that we are given eternal life on a future day of judgement based on the "content of our lives as lived". And, of course, I am not asserting that we earn such an award - it is the Spirit that properly gets the credit.

Yes, I understood. You assert that the HS comes into our lives and produces works before we are saved or justified. Yet please show me one verse that remotely suggests that the HS produces any works that contribute to our salvation n the life of unbelievers.

Romans 2 is only about judgement.

 

[mondar]

Drew, there is no atonement in Romans 2. The context is simply not about salvation in Christ.

Romans 2 does indeed have an "atonement" connection to material that is more obviously about the atonement such as the doctrine of atonement that is neatly captured in the first few verses of Romans 8.

Romans 2 no where has the concept of atonement. Show me it. Romans 8 is a separate context.

I am talking about the conditions upon which eternal life is granted. And Romans 2 teaches that we are given eternal life on a future day of judgement based on the "content of our lives as lived". And, of course, I am not asserting that we earn such an award - it is the Spirit that properly gets the credit.

But now to argue that there is indeed a link between texts like Romans 2:7 and the atonement theology given in Romans 8. In typically Pauline fashion, Paul teases us with material in Romans 2 that he will later unpack (e.g. in Romans 8). If we just looked at Romans 2, we could not arrive at the theology of justification that we get from Paul. And by this I will appeal to what perhaps little common ground you and I have on this issue: we both believe that we do not "earn" our justification in any reasonable sense of the term (and here I am getting into the subtlety that perhaps distinguishes my position on this from that of unred).

Having introducted what seems to be a works-based salvation in Romans 2, Paul now "resolves his Romans 2 teaser" in Romans 8:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death...."

And he goes on to basically explain that it is through the atonement - the condemning of sin in the flesh of Jesus - that the power of sin is broken and the Spirit given. I think that when Paul writes this:

And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit

He is basically saying that you now have the resources to live - to act - according to the Spirit.

So there is indeed an element of the atonement in Romans 2. In chapters 3 through 7, Paul develops his argument and then in Romans 8, he can then, and only then, effectively deal with the stuff from Romans 2 by explaining exactly how it is that we will most assuredly meet the "works"-based granting of eternal life we see in Romans 2. It is not our work - it is the work of the Spirit.

There is no contextual connection between Romans 2 and Romans 8. If anything they are opposites in context. As you have pointed out, Romans 8 is about "no condemnation. Romans 2 is about the condemnation of the law.

Thus the point stands, there is no atonement in Romans 2.

 

[Drew]

Romans 2 is only about judgement.

To make this claim is make a truly untenable argument - that Paul, in the middle of a tightly argued passage, makes statements about judgement that will be fulfilled for some and mixes them with statements about the granting of eternal life that are true for none. I just don't think Paul is that confused a writer. He means what he says in Romans 2:7 - eternal life is indeed granted based on the content of lives lived.

What kind of writer would say this:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism

and really mean this

God "will give to each person according to what he has done [***well not really, it is only the 'judgement' set that has some people in it who will be judged by works]."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life [***actually no one will meet this criteria]. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile [***some will be judged this way]; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good [***zero people will be judged this way]: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

What kind of a writer would say "X will happen to some Jews and Gentiles and Y will happen to the other Jews and Gentiles and actually mean that X will not actually happen after all while Y will indeed happen?

I have already posted two posts in a serieus where I contest your claim about Romans 4. To make that argument work, I need more room than one post will allow. I hope to finish it off sometime soon.

In fact, I think I will excise those 2 posts and start a thread where I focus on the whole Romans 4 thing. Then all can judge for themselves whether a case has been made against the "traditional" position on Romans 4.

 

[mondar]

Romans 2 is only about judgement.

To make this claim is make a truly untenable argument - that Paul, in the middle of a tightly argued passage, makes statements about judgement that will be fulfilled for some and mixes them with statements about the granting of eternal life that are true for none. I just don't think Paul is that confused a writer. He means what he says in Romans 2:7 - eternal life is indeed granted based on the content of lives lived.

Certainly Paul is not a confused writer, but that does not mean there are not confused readers. When Paul concludes the section of Romans in 3:19-20 he makes it clear that by the deed of the law shall no flesh be justified. The law is merely the knowledge of sin. So is works. By any works shall no flesh be justified, for missing the mark of perfect works is the knowledge of sin. Just as there is no propitiation or atonement in Chapter 1, there is no atonement in Chapter 2. No on is found righteous until Chapter 3:21ff, and that is not by works, but by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ through the blood. The passage in 3:21 is the beginning of Pauls teaching on the method of justification. While justification is mentioned in 2:13 it is mentioned only in the negative.

The fact that you do not read Romans 2:13 correctly is also evidence of your misunderstanding of Romans 2. You believe that that verse speaks of works as a part of justification. It is clear, that works do not justify in Romans 2:13, but only the works of the law are spoken of in that verse. Tell me drew, how do you read the phrase ...
"doers of the law" in vese 13?



As I said, there is no atonement or propitiation in Romans 2. Up until Romans 3:19-20 all are under Gods wrath.

 

[Hugo]

Mondar, I think you've rightly divided here. Good work.

Reading the first several chapters of Romans is intriguing. The reader can sense the condemnation building and then comes:

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

This is a pivotal point. Paul is countering what he has been saying. Then he goes on to discuss what our response should be to this justification. I would venture to say that all these chapters must be read together to correctly understand each of them.

 

[unred typo]

quote by bibleberean:
Unred typo,

I really don't think you addressed the points saying anything new or giving a clear refutation of what is written.

I appreciate your effort but I am not going spend much of my energy trying to refute what I have already refuted. (for the time being anyway) And I am sure you feel the same way.

I am giving a bible study tonight and have to get ready. I do appreciate our conversation.

God bless and keep studying,

Robert

[/quote]

If you don’t think I addressed the points, obviously you haven’t read what I wrote. I didn’t think I needed to say anything new when you haven’t acknowledged what I wrote in the first place. It is quite consistent with what I have been saying right along. If you are not able or willing to accept it, there isn’t much more I can say. If you don’t have the time or the heart to refute what I wrote, just say so but don’t claim I didn’t address your points. I had a feeling that the ‘conversation’ would end up this way when I first saw your list. No offence but there is nothing too special about a list of 'stand alone' verses with a 'feel good' comment attached to them.
:smt102

 

[unred typo]

quote by Hugo:

Mondar, I think you've rightly divided here. Good work.

Yup, cut it right in half and separated the head from the body. Can’t have the body responding to the commands of the head. The main thing with Calvinists is they are death against having any responsibility for their own salvation fall on their grubby little shoulders. God has to do it all or it’s not getting done. If they do anything in the works department, it’s not because they have to so he is going to have to reward them above and beyond their eternal life, because he has already promised them salvation and there‘s no way he can back out.

quote by Hugo
Reading the first several chapters of Romans is intriguing. The reader can sense the condemnation building and then comes:

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

This is a pivotal point. Paul is countering what he has been saying. Then he goes on to discuss what our response should be to this justification. I would venture to say that all these chapters must be read together to correctly understand each of them.

LOL. I think Drew has a pretty clever thesis, written as if it were written by Paul. I would venture to say you haven’t read it. It has the situation pegged and how silly it renders the Calvinist stand is really priceless, unless you happen to be a Calvinist, I suppose.

 

[mondar]

quote by Hugo:

Mondar, I think you've rightly divided here. Good work.

Yup, cut it right in half and separated the head from the body. Can’t have the body responding to the commands of the head. The main thing with Calvinists is they are death against having any responsibility for their own salvation fall on their grubby little shoulders. God has to do it all or it’s not getting done. If they do anything in the works department, it’s not because they have to so he is going to have to reward them above and beyond their eternal life, because he has already promised them salvation and there‘s no way he can back out.

Unred, I would once again tell you that Calvinists believe in human responsibility, but it seems to fall upon deaf ears. Oh well, feel free to go on setting up your straw man.

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar:
Unred, I would once again tell you that Calvinists believe in human responsibility, but it seems to fall upon deaf ears. Oh well, feel free to go on setting up your straw man.

Calvinists believe that works are necessary for salvation? News to me. Wait til I tell JM, Solo, AVBunyan… that ought to bring them back from the dead threads to straighten you out.
:-D

 

[Vic C.]

Unred, PLEASE stop with the petty, personal attacks.

The main thing with Calvinists is they are death against having any responsibility for their own salvation fall on their grubby little shoulders.

It has the situation pegged and how silly it renders the Calvinist stand is really priceless,
unless you happen to be a Calvinist, I suppose.

and...

Wait til I tell JM, Solo, AVBunyan… that ought to bring them back from the dead threads to straighten you out.

This isn't necessary and isn't conducive toward real discussion. :-? No need to respond to this post.

 

[unred typo]

The main thing with Calvinists is they are death against having any responsibility for their own salvation fall on their grubby little shoulders.

Vic, this is not how I portray mankind. This is the Calvinist view of how God sees man's efforts. 'Totally depraved' is such a boring, overused phrase. As for the other comments, I meant no offence. We are people here after all with personalities of our own and I didn't consider it a personal attack. If you consider it so, I apologize.

 

[Drew]

Drew, there is no atonement in Romans 2. The context is simply not about salvation in Christ.

The context of Chapter 2 is eminently clear. IT is about the works of the Mosaic Law. The context is easily identifiable as Jewish in nature.

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:17 But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest upon the law, and gloriest in God

We have been down this road before - the material that I have quoted in Romans 2 obviously deals with all humanity in respect to who will be judged and on what basis they will be judged. Paul repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly, states that he is talking about a judgement (with good results for some, and bas for others) that will be applied to all people in the world:

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 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. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

The underlined portions remove any doubt - the scope of the judgement to be rendered is not limted to the Jews.

Reader, please do not be confused. It is indeed true that at some point in the middle of Romans 2, Paul does turn to address the Jews in particular. But that turn occurs after the judgement texts to which I refer - texts which clearly show that eternal life will be granted at the end of the life lived and will be based on "works".

 

[Drew]

Now if you look in Romans 4 you will see a gospel. Chapter 4 is absent of a Jewish context. I know unred foolishly asserted that Chapter 4 is about the Law. The absurdity of that can easily be demonstrated by looking at the very first illustration of faith in the life of Abraham. Was Abraham before or after the law? He was before the law. So then the works found in Romans 4:2 refer not to the works of the law, but just simply works. Thats why Paul asserts that works only brings debt in verse 4. Paul quotes Abraham in Romans 4:3. Abraham was not even circumcised in Genesis 15:6. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. There is no other gospel.

Romans 4 indeed does provide a deeply Jewish context and Romans 4:2 does indeed refer to the Torah and not to "good works" generally. And finally, the reference to a man who works in Romans 4:4-5 is a metaphor which has been widely taken too literally and an erroneous conclusion has been drawn that Paul is saying something which denies works-based justification at the end of life for all, as Romans 2:7 teaches. And the gospel is not "salvation is by grace" but is rather "Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead and is lord of the universe", with "salvation by grace" being but one consequence of the gospel. Paul is no dummy. He knows what the word "gospel" meant to his contemporaries. I quote NT Wright on the matter of the "gospel":

On the other hand, in the context into which Paul was speaking, "gospel" would mean the celebration of the accession, or birth, of a king or emperor. Though no doubt petty kingdoms might use the word for themselves, in Paul's world the main "gospel" was the news of, or the celebration of, Caesar.

It is important to stress, as Paul would do himself were he not so muzzled by his interpreters, that when he referred to "the gospel" he was not talking about a scheme of soteriology. Nor was he offering people a new way of being what we would call "religious". Despite the way Protestantism has used the phrase (making it denote, as it never does in Paul, the doctrine of justification by faith), for Paul "the gospel" is the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth is Israel's Messiah and the world's Lord. It is, in other words, the thoroughly Jewish, and indeed Isaianic, message which challenges the royal and imperial messages in Paul's world.

If the reader is interested in the actual case that underlies my position on the matter of works and Romans 4, please refer to this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30673