If you believe you can lose your salvation, you are not saved!(explanation)

[Drew]

The law was literally given to the people of God--which has ALWAYS been composed of both Jew and gentile (Exodus 12:38 NASB).

It is the bigoted Jews who decided it was all there's and only there's. Big mistake.
They don't even know their own law.

Here is Romans 3:1-2, NASB:

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

If the "oracles of God" is not a category that includes the Law of Moses, what does this category contain?

And consider this from Romans 9:

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,..... [Romans 9:1-4, NASB]

Are you going to dispute that Paul clearly characterizes the nation of Israel as the people to whom the Law belongs? I do not see how this can be disputed. If you are going to say that this text does not rule out the possibility that the Law is also for the Gentiles, I think you then have to accept that the Temple was to be open to Gentiles as well. And I think that's a non-starter.

 

[JLB]

You have it backwards. Your justification (being MADE righteous with Christ's righteousness) is what affects whether you help or not. John says that here:

"The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous." (1 John 3:7 NASB)

Your the one who has it backwards.

Those who practice righteousness are righteous.

A person must turn to God, first, in a righteous act of obedience and confess Jesus as Lord, then He will receive the forgiveness of his past sins, which brings him into a state of being justified.

as it is written -

I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." Luke 5:32

A sinner is justified by his obedience to repent.


JLB

 

[JLB]

You have it backwards. Your justification (being MADE righteous with Christ's righteousness) is what affects whether you help or not. John says that here:

"The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous." (1 John 3:7 NASB)

But you have it as 'the one who does right is made righteous just as he is righteous'. Big difference.

The only justification that is a process is in regard to you showing the righteousness you have through faith your n Christ. That is what we are growing up into. It is our legal declaration of righteousness already completed for us in full that is being revealed in us in ever-increasing measure. We are not obtaining being made legally righteous in ever-increasing measure. That's done already. Christ did that for us one time for all time (Colossians 1:22 NASB).

Obedience is what makes faith, faith.

Without obedience faith is dead.

Faith comes from God, when He speaks.

Faith is an intangible reality that we receive from God, and becomes a tangible reality when we obey the word that produced faith within us.

Faith is the substance of the thing hoped for... our cooperating, corresponding obedience with this substance of the thing we are hoping for produces the reality of that substance, and results in our obtaining the reality of that substance.


Example:

20 And suddenly, a woman who had a flow of blood for twelve years came from behind and touched the hem of His garment. 21 For she said to herself, “If only I may touch His garment, I shall be made well.” 22 But Jesus turned around, and when He saw her He said, “Be of good cheer, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And the woman was made well from that hour. Matthew 9:20-22

It wasn't her her believing "all by itself" within her, but the corresponding action her touching the hem of His garment, that brought about the divine result of her obtaining the thing she hoped for.

Your theology would have us believe that the woman who was sick, would have gotten healed by simply believing within herself, with no corresponding action.


I going to ask you a simple straightforward, yes or no question, to see if you will honestly answer it.


If the woman did not touch the hem of His garment, would she have been healed?

Yes or No?


JLB

 

[stovebolts]

(Lol, are you JLB in disguise?)
No, NOT really. I explained that we don't get it ALL until the end.


In the meantime, we continue in our faith, that faith manifesting itself in--because of the nature of what faith does--an ever increasing life of righteous behavior. IOW, continuing faith means you will continue to grow in righteous behavior. A cessation of growth in righteous behavior means you lost your faith--the faith that makes you righteous--somewhere along the line. The righteous behavior doesn't make you righteous. The faith that motivates it does.


Correct. And that's assuming that the believing is of a quality that will be able to produce righteous works. If it has that inherant ability to produce righteous behavior, then, yes, it is the faith that justifies. When it does produce that righteous behavior, that is when we will KNOW it was a faith that secured a declaration of righteousness for us.


Yes. The promise is conditioned on faith.
Just like if the promise was conditioned on work you would have to continue to work to gain the inheritance.


The Bible tells us what will happen to the person who loses their faith:

"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. 28Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:26-29 NASB)

I'm not the Judge. The real Judge knows how to dole out this horrible, but just, judgement on former believers in truth and knowledge. I refuse to pass judgment on the theoretical person you presented in your argument. I just know what will happen to him if God judges him/her responsible for their failure of faith.

OSAS for me is not a matter of what will happen if you abandon your faith. The Bible is crystal clear about that. OSAS for me is about whether or not a person can really lose their faith. Are the warnings not to lose your faith only theoretical because it's impossible for a believer to lose their faith? The more I read the scriptures the more I'm seeing it's not just a theoretical warning. Besides, we get people in this very forum from time to time who say they have lost their faith....and want it back, but can't get it back. I leave them to the mercy of God and his just Judgments. He knows if they have sinned to point of no repentance. I sure don't.



It means they have NO belief in Christ, where they once had it. That's what Hebrews 10:26-31 is about--people who once believed--people who walked in their faith. The author even details the works of their faith in the very same passage: "But remember the former days" (Hebrews 10:32 NASB). And that they should persevere in those works of faith to the very end.


How can a person who has been sanctified by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:29 NASB) not also be justified?



If I understand JLB's and dadof10's arguments, that is what they say.

I only say one must do right to secure the promised inheritance on the Day of Wrath in that the 'doing right' is the manifestation of a continuing faith in the forgiveness of Christ.

I see.

Sorry for not parsing your responses. It would be way hard to give a reply to each and every reply you've given me. But I do thank you for taking your time to respond. I do appreciate it.

The reason I asked you those questions was to see how thoughtful you might be toward others. You see, I did not speak of any theoretical person. I spoke of a distant relative of mine who grew up in the church and was a devout follower. She was a wonderful woman from what I've been told, but then she lost her son to a tragic accident and she didn't take that very well. A year later and she lost her second son to an unrelated tragic accident. Well, she has never recovered from it.

From where I sit, she belonged to a very self righteous, rigid church in a very small community. She never received the compassion and mercy when she started acting out. Instead, she was told to get in line, and that she shouldn't feel the way she felt. Instead, she was told how she was supposed to feel and her emptiness, hurt and loss was "sin" according to those around her.

She no longer goes to church and she even talks bad about the church. And yes, she's a bit crazy at times and you never know what's going to set her off. The saddest part is that she flip flops between needing God and hating God because of the church. After all, the church is supposed to be a reflection of Chris himself. But in this case, it's not.

She is still a wonderful woman, and she has a good heart. She helps others when they need help. Not because she's looking for attention or appreciation, but because she sees another in need and she's the first to help another in need.

Now that you know what's driving my questions, go back with a new set of eyes to how you replied... and tell me if you would have answered any different.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes, the Law of Moses was to be followed by aliens, but only those otherwise already living in the midst of the Jewish nation. But over and over again, the Old Testament makes it clear that one function, perhaps the most important function of the Law of Moses was to mark out the Jew from the Gentiles:

25You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean.26Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine. [Leviticus 20:25-26, NASB]

I believe I can find many other examples.

And from the New Testament, it is also clear that Paul understands the Law of Moses as only applying to the Jew:

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; [Romans 2:12, NASB]

Paul clearly sees the Law of Moses as applying to only the Jew - the Gentile is not under the Law. And things are more even clear here in Romans 3:

28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, [Romans 3:28-29]

The logic of this short text only works if the Law (obviously, the Law of Moses) applies exclusively to the Jew. In other words, it is precisely because only the Jew is under the Law that Paul needs to argue that justification has nothing to do with performing the works of the law, if the Gentile, too, can be justified. If the Gentile were under the law, the argument would make no sense.

I know you are not a big fan of scholars, but I would bet a flagon of ale that the overwhelming majority of scholars would agree that the Law of Moses was given to the Jews and only the Jews, except of course the limited exceptions where non-Jews were otherwise already integrated into Jewish society.

"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." (Romans 3:19 NIV)

To think that the whole world is not condemned along with the Jews by the law because the gentiles are (supposedly) exempt from the law of Moses is not supported in the verse above. If the law was given ONLY to the Jew then it would be impossible for God to condemn the whole world by a law that they are not even subject to. Perhaps what you are really trying to say is the gentile is not under the covenant he made with the Jews. But even that has it's problems (i.e. circumcision).

And simply looking at the context here in Romans it's easy to see Paul is talking about the WHOLE law of Moses, not just parts of it.

"What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;

10 as it is written,
“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;

11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”

13 “THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,”
“THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”;

14 “WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”;

15“THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,

16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,

17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.”

18 “THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.”

19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:10-20 NASB)

Just because the gentile doesn't have a complete knowledge of the law of Moses doesn't mean he's not subject to it. As I showed, Paul says the whole world is made accountable by the law. How? Because "they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" (Romans 2:15 NASB). THAT'S how the gentile is 'under' the law along with the Jew and held accountable to God.

As I will show, your argument is rather moot anyway. It doesn't matter if you were arguing that the 'work' Paul is talking about that can't justify is tying fifteen balloons to your ankles and jumping in the air. What Paul contrasts 'work' with is what sets it apart from ANYTHING a person can do to be justified (made righteous) in God's sight. We don't need to pinpoint what it is exactly that can't justify. What does justify automatically disqualifies everything else. This is the point I'm trying to get across to dadof10.

I'll be chiming in as time permits. I'm still a working man. My debts have not been forgiven, so I have to work to pay them off. That makes it hard to spend the amount of time here threads like this require.

 

[dadof10]

Romans 3:27-28 in the NASB:

27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

What are these works of the Law that cannot justify? “Good works” in general, or the practices or “works” of the Law of Moses?

Paul is addressing the Law of Moses here, not “good works”. The “boast” (verse 27) is not the boast of the person who thinks he can climb to heaven by a ladder of good works, it is the boast of the Jew who thinks that being part of the ethnic group who do Law of Moses will justify him.

This is borne out by verse 29 which makes no sense if "good works" or "or obedience to a general law" is in view in verse 28, but which makes perfect sense if the works are those of the Law of Moses:

29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

Paul is amplifying the implications of verse 27 and 28, focusing on how the Jew and Gentile are both members of God’s family. In verses 27 and 28, he has written that “works” do not justify. In verse 29, it becomes clear that these are the works of Law of Moses since it is by doing the works of Law of Moses that the Jew could boast "God is God of the Jews only". What marks out the nation Israel from the Gentile? Possession and doing of Law of Moses, of course. Not good works. How do we know that Paul does not think good works marks the Jew from the Gentile. Why he has just told us, a few breaths earlier:

9What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10as it is written,
"There is none righteous, not even one;
11There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12All have turned aside, together they havebecome useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one." [Romans 3:9-12, NASB]

The logic seems inescapable: when Paul writes that one is not justified by "works of the law", he is simply saying "God does not justify only Jews". Of course, if you are dead set on seeing "works of the law" as denoting "good works" and you are willing to ignore the logic of the larger argument in Romans and you are willing to ignore Romans 2:6-7, you can indeed think Paul is denying that good works play a role in salvation / justification. Shockingly, many here seem to be willing to take that line.

All this makes perfect sense, especially in light of Acts 15. That Luke chose to give the council so much space in his account of the first few years of Christianity, speaks volumes to me that it was the defining issue within that time. We can't read Scripture in a vacuum, especially letters that were written in reaction to certain real life issues. Whether "good deed saved" was not an issue to the early Church, whether a Gentile had to become a Jew first and KEEP THE LAW, was.

 

[JLB]

Just because the gentile doesn't have a complete knowledge of the law of Moses doesn't mean he's not subject to it. As I showed, Paul says the whole world is made accountable by the law. How? Because "they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" (Romans 2:15 NASB). THAT'S how the gentile is 'under' the law along with the Jew and held accountable to God.

There is no law of Moses before Moses gave the law, and it was added... Added means it came into effect WHEN it was added, some 430 years after the Covenant was made with Abraham.

11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law
13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. Romans 2:11-16


Paul is making his case for Gentile believers who are not under the law, but have God's law written on their heart, which is a New Covenant promise. This did not take place until Christ.

Only the New Covenant promises this writing of the His law upon the heart and mind, and is clearly a future promise from when the Lord foretold of this Future Covenant through the mouth of Jeremiah.

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
Jeremiah 31:31-34


Again, the promise of the New Covenant was: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God...

This was not the case until Jesus Christ and the Cross.

This was not the case before the cross.

Paul makes it clear about those who will be judged without the law and those who will be judged by the law.
For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law.


Without the law means WITHOUT the law.



JLB

 

[dadof10]

Okay, but remember while you're reading, that the law of Moses was not only for the Jew:

29 One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien." (Numbers 15:29 NASB)

The only thing I can think of in the law that was specifically for the native born Jew only was the dwelling in Booths (Leviticus 23:42 NASB). Everything else the gentile could do, and was supposed to do. It was the Jews themselves and their stupid rabbinical add-on laws that prohibited the gentiles from participating in the common wealth of Israel. So don't forget that while you are reading.

Huh? I have never heard this take before? Do you mean that God expected the Gentiles to keep the entire Mosaic law, circumcision and all? The verse you posted has to do with "foreigners" or "sojourners" that live within Israel. This section of Numbers has specific ordinances that these "foreigners" had to keep if they wanted to live in Israel. There were some specific "laws" they had to obey, but certainly you don't think the "law" for them and the "law" for the Jews was the same "Law", according to Paul, to do you?

"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law." (Rom. 2:14 ESV)

 

[dadof10]

You have it backwards. Your justification (being MADE righteous with Christ's righteousness) is what affects whether you help or not. John says that here:

"The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous." (1 John 3:7 NASB)

But you have it as 'the one who does right is made righteous just as he is righteous'. Big difference.

The only justification that is a process is in regard to you showing the righteousness you have through faith your n Christ. That is what we are growing up into. It is our legal declaration of righteousness already completed for us in full that is being revealed in us in ever-increasing measure. We are not obtaining being made legally righteous in ever-increasing measure. That's done already. Christ did that for us one time for all time (Colossians 1:22 NASB).

What happens if a justified person chooses not to help? What happens if you disobey what you know to be right? My point was that it looks the same to both of us. Neither one of us can walk by this person and be OK with the decision. I believe that it affects our justification directly, you believe that it shows the state of our justification. Either way, we both MUST HELP, it's not optional.

 

[dadof10]

All this makes perfect sense, especially in light of Acts 15. That Luke chose to give the council so much space in his account of the first few years of Christianity, speaks volumes to me that it was the defining issue within that time. We can't read Scripture in a vacuum, especially letters that were written in reaction to certain real life issues. Whether "good deed saved" was not an issue to the early Church, whether a Gentile had to become a Jew first and KEEP THE LAW, was.

I tried to edit the above and ran out of time. Here is the verse from Acts 15 that proves there was a contingent of "Judiazers" who were teaching the early Church that "a Gentile had to become a Jew first and KEEP THE LAW".

"But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1 ESV)

 

[Drew]

"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." (Romans 3:19 NIV)

To think that the whole world is not condemned along with the Jews by the law because the gentiles are (supposedly) exempt from the law of Moses is not supported in the verse above. If the law was given ONLY to the Jew then it would be impossible for God to condemn the whole world by a law that they are not even subject to.

I do not agree with how you interpret Paul's logic. You seem to think that Paul is saying something like this:

The whole world is accountable to God because the whole world is under the law.

I think he is saying:

Given that I have just argued that even though the Jews have the Law (part of the "oracles" from verse 2 which are clearly specific to Israel), the Jews are no better than the Gentiles who also know what is right and wrong without even having the Law (as I argued in chapter 1) and yet still do wrong. So, the Law is the means by which those under it will be held accountable - the Jews- but the Gentiles are still accountable as per what I said at the end of Romans 1.

I think that even if the verse 19 in isolation clearly could read either way - that the Law only applies to Jews or that it applies to everyone - the broader argument from chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter make it clear that it only applies to Jews.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Do you mean that God expected the Gentiles to keep the entire Mosaic law, circumcision and all?

If he didn't, why did he require them to keep the same law as the native Jew? He didn't say, "oh, you are gentiles, you don't have to keep the law of Moses. Only real Jews have to keep the law." During this time, if a gentile turned to the God of the Isrealites they were required to keep the law of Moses. They were not exempted from it on the basis of being gentiles. The wicked Jews are the ones who held them at arms length with their stupid rabbinical add-on laws. Christ abolished those foolish, misguided add-on laws when he brought Jew and gentile alike close to himself through the cross (Ephesians 2:17-18 NASB).

The only exemption gentiles had from the law of Moses was simply not knowing about it. But even then, Paul explains that even they had the law of Moses written on their hearts to some extent. Not to the letter I'm sure, but written there, nonetheless. Paul said so (Romans 2:15 NASB).

But this is a moot argument--what works can or can't justify. Paul makes it clear what DOES justify. And it hardly leaves any debate as to what works of the law, or obedience, or good deeds (as if they're different) can justify. NONE of them justify because the justification that is by faith is the faith that God will forgive your sin for the asking. We are made right with God (that is, justified) by having our unrighteousness wiped away through the blood of Christ. This instantly rules out any consideration of what works, good deeds, etc. can do that.

"all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption (the forgiveness of sins--Colossians 1:14 NASB) which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith." (Romans 3:23-25 NASB)

You and I are righteous because our sins have been forgiven, not because we did something righteous. Doing things has zero power to atone for wickedness. This is what the gospel is ALL about. What the law was powerless to do for us (yes, us, the people of God), the blood of Christ does perfectly and forever.....for those who have faith in that blood. And continue in that faith.

 

[stovebolts]

If he didn't, why did he require them to keep the same law as the native Jew? He didn't say, "oh, you are gentiles, you don't have to keep the law of Moses. Only real Jews have to keep the law." During this time, if a gentile turned to the God of the Isrealites they were required to keep the law of Moses. They were not exempted from it on the basis of being gentiles. The wicked Jews are the ones who held them at arms length with their stupid rabbinical add-on laws. Christ abolished those foolish, misguided add-on laws when he brought Jew and gentile alike close to himself through the cross (Ephesians 2:17-18 NASB).

The only exemption gentiles had from the law of Moses was simply not knowing about it. But even then, Paul explains that even they had the law of Moses written on their hearts to some extent. Not to the letter I'm sure, but written there, nonetheless. Paul said so (Romans 2:15 NASB).

But this is a moot argument--what works can or can't justify. Paul makes it clear what DOES justify. And it hardly leaves any debate as to what works of the law, or obedience, or good deeds (as if they're different) can justify. NONE of them justify because the justification that is by faith is the faith that God will forgive your sin for the asking. We are made right with God (that is, justified) by having our unrighteousness wiped away through the blood of Christ. This instantly rules out any consideration of what works, good deeds, etc. can do that.

"all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption (the forgiveness of sins--Colossians 1:14 NASB) which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith." (Romans 3:23-25 NASB)

You and I are righteous because our sins have been forgiven, not because we did something righteous. Doing things has zero power to atone for wickedness. This is what the gospel is ALL about. What the law was powerless to do for us (yes, us, the people of God), the blood of Christ does perfectly and forever.....for those who have faith in that blood. And continue in that faith.

{cough}...
Gentiles were only under the 8 Noahide laws.
The Hebrews went into a covenant at Mt Sinai and agreed to the 614 laws. It was views as a marriage ceremony

This can be affirmed in Exodus 20 where the people said in one voice "we agree". Note, Gentiles were not a part of that covenant nor are they bound by the 10 commandments

As far as the Romans 3 passage, even those with 8 laws fell short of Gods Glory....
And those who did Gods Law not knowing it was Gods law, it became a law unto themselves... Not the Mosiac law

 

[Drew]

If he didn't, why did he require them to keep the same law as the native Jew? He didn't say, "oh, you are gentiles, you don't have to keep the law of Moses. Only real Jews have to keep the law." During this time, if a gentile turned to the God of the Isrealites they were required to keep the law of Moses. They were not exempted from it on the basis of being gentiles.

I agree with all this, except with the proviso that only Gentiles who were actually integrated into the daily life of the nation of Israel were required to keep the Law. We have lots of evidence that God gave the Law to the nation of Israel alone:

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,...

I don't see how this text alone does not settle the matter (Romans 2 notwithstanding, I will get to that) - the Law was for the nation of Israel only. Again, I politely point out that I believe almost all scholars are in agreement on this. I suppose you could argue that while the Law was given to Israel, their mandate was to spread it to all the nations. I doubt very much that case can be made (I would politely warn that texts that speak of a future obedience of all the world to the "Law" do not make this case - we are talking about what was the case back then).

The wicked Jews are the ones who held them at arms length with their stupid rabbinical add-on laws. Christ abolished those foolish, misguided add-on laws when he brought Jew and gentile alike close to himself through the cross (Ephesians 2:17-18 NASB).

I disagree; both Jesus and Paul declare that the Law of Moses itself - not just the human add-ons - is retired at the cross. What does Jesus say in Mark 7?

17When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. [Mark 7:17-20, NASB]

This is in direct contradiction to many elements of the Law of Moses that declare that a whole range of foods were unclean. Is Jesus sinning? Of course not; as God, He has the authority to set aside the Law of Moses.

I realize Romans 2 is tricky about the Gentile and the Law - I will get to that later.

 

[Drew]

c

But this is a moot argument--what works can or can't justify. Paul makes it clear what DOES justify. And it hardly leaves any debate as to what works of the law, or obedience, or good deeds (as if they're different) can justify. NONE of them justify because the justification that is by faith is the faith that God will forgive your sin for the asking. We are made right with God (that is, justified) by having our unrighteousness wiped away through the blood of Christ. This instantly rules out any consideration of what works, good deeds, etc. can do that.

Although we disagree about who the Law of Moses was for, I probably agree that this matter is beside the point in relation to the matter of justification. And I am happy to go along with your "good works are needed at a coming judgment unto salvation as evidence of saving faith" position. But getting this issue right for the following reason: Probably more than 50 % of the people on this site believe that good works are entirely decoupled from matters of salvation. And they base that belief - that both you and I reject - on the, erroneous I suggest - belief that when Paul denies that "works justify", he is saying "good works do not matter". Instead, I believe Paul is basically critiquing the Jew who believes that only those who have the Law and do it - the nation of Israel - will be justified at the end.

In short, I believe Paul is arguing against "justification is only for Jews" and not "justification has nothing to do with good works".

Now, if I understand you properly, you in particular have not fallen victim to the "let's sweep Romans 2:6-7 under the rug" movement that clearly some here have adopted. However, the fact (if my view is right, of course; I would never suggest I am above being mistaken) that you have not "stumbled" even though, in my view, you misunderstand the nature of Paul's critique of "justification by works", this doesn't mean that others have not stumbled. And it's an important issue - I have encountered believers who clearly believe that once they have their "ticket to heaven", they can go on living as they did before.

And I suggest we both agree that this a huge problem.

 

[dadof10]

If he didn't, why did he require them to keep the same law as the native Jew? He didn't say, "oh, you are gentiles, you don't have to keep the law of Moses. Only real Jews have to keep the law." During this time, if a gentile turned to the God of the Isrealites they were required to keep the law of Moses. They were not exempted from it on the basis of being gentiles. The wicked Jews are the ones who held them at arms length with their stupid rabbinical add-on laws. Christ abolished those foolish, misguided add-on laws when he brought Jew and gentile alike close to himself through the cross (Ephesians 2:17-18 NASB).

The only exemption gentiles had from the law of Moses was simply not knowing about it. But even then, Paul explains that even they had the law of Moses written on their hearts to some extent. Not to the letter I'm sure, but written there, nonetheless. Paul said so (Romans 2:15 NASB).

Usually you give pretty good insights and, even though I disagree, you make me think. You are way off on this one, buddy. Paul says the Gentiles don't have the law.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. (Rom. 2:12 ESV)

There are those "without the law".

13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. (ibid.)

The Gentiles do not have the law, but if they obey their consciences...

15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (ibid.)

Since they don't have the Mosaic Law to guide them, they can follow their consciences, which they will be judged by. You're way off on this one. Jethro.

 

[JLB]

Usually you give pretty good insights and, even though I disagree, you make me think. You are way off on this one, buddy. Paul says the Gentiles don't have the law.

 

[dadof10]

If he didn't, why did he require them to keep the same law as the native Jew? He didn't say, "oh, you are gentiles, you don't have to keep the law of Moses. Only real Jews have to keep the law." During this time, if a gentile turned to the God of the Isrealites they were required to keep the law of Moses.

I just reread this and it struck me...are you talking about Gentile converts to Judaism? If so, I agree that they would have to "keep the entire Mosaic law" to be considered Jewish. But then, they would no longer be Gentiles, but Jews.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

In short, I believe Paul is arguing against "justification is only for Jews" and not "justification has nothing to do with good works".

If it's only a justification for the Jews argument, why does he make the point about what DOES justify--faith in the blood of Christ?

"all all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption (the forgiveness of sin-Ephesians 1:7 NASB) that came by Christ Jesus . 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,i through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith (not work)." (Romans 3:24-25 NASB parentheses mine)

The argument for the blood of Christ received through believing instantly and utterly nullifies any debate about anything else being able to justify a person. What work, what obedience, what good deed in and of itself can wipe away sin guilt and replace it with the righteousness of Christ? There isn't one, of course.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Usually you give pretty good insights and, even though I disagree, you make me think. You are way off on this one, buddy. Paul says the Gentiles don't have the law.

I think what you're confused about is the gentiles were not in the first covenant. But they were certainly condemned by the same law as the Jew and required to 'keep' it to be right with God. The gentile church to this day has gentile unbelievers 'under' the law. We use it to evangelize them. We don't explain to them how they are not 'under' it's condemnation. We never tell them the law is utterly and completely about and for the Jew, not you gentiles. We certainly are not being true to the doctrine you and Drew are pushing. How do you explain this duplicity? I see it often among us gentiles.

Look, here's Paul telling us that we actually (gasp!) fulfill the law of Moses--this law that is not for us:

"For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”" (Galatians 5:14 NASB bold mine)

Why is he making the point to the gentiles at Galatia that they fulfill the ENTIRE law of Moses if, as you say, we gentiles were not given the law? He didn't say to the Galatians, "Oh, you don't have to keep the law that you are keeping. Let it go," and then stops there. No, he goes on to explain to them what fulfills the law and how to do it--this law that you are so sure was/is not for the gentiles.