Ignoring Romans 2: An Error of Exegisis

[francisdesales]

Consider the Gospels. Does Jesus ever speak about salvation dependent upon HIS faith in God - or is eternal life based upon faith in Who He is and having faith in THAT? Please reconsider...

I have not really read your and gd's posts about this "faith" thing.

But I will offer this: There is indeed a sense in which it makes sense to speak of Jesus "faith". It is the sense of covenant faithfulness, where Jesus acts as Israel's representative Messiah to be faithful to the covenant, whereas Israel herself had been unfaithful.

Yes, there is at times a comparison between the first Adam and the Second. There is also a sense of a comparison between the fidelity of Christ vs the fidelity of the Jews as a people. I see this comparison and agree.

But does the Christian proclamation speak about believing in the faith of Jesus or believing in Jesus Himself? GD pointed me to the KJV and several instances of the "of", while I noted the majority of other translations and other texts within KJV do not make Jesus' personal faith as salvific for us, except in the sense that He fulfilled the Will of God. Now, is this work called "the faith of Jesus", I don't think so. At least in the 21st century, maybe it was in the 16th century when the KJV was written.

Regards

 

[Drew]

Nevertheless, when verses 5-6 are read together in context, we can see that the judgment of Chapter 2 relates to wrath, not blessing.

5 but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 who will render to every man according to his works:

You seem to assume that just because this is indeed a day of wrath, it cannot also be a day of salvation from wrath. And in verses 6 and 7 it becomes clear that there will indeed be those who get eternal life. Paul refers to "the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God". Why do you assume that the righteous judgement of God will not result in the justification of some? Does Paul say that it will be a day of wrath to the exclusion of rescue from wrath? More to the point, why would Paul speak of the awarding of eternal life at this judgement if, as you say, the judgement is only one of wrath?

What works are in verse 5 that verse 6 is referring to? The righteous judgment of God treasures up wrath for a day of wrath when God will judge every man according to his works.

Here is what Paul writes:

you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God

This statement from Paul is entirely open to the possibility that something other than wrath will be forthcoming: there will be wrath and there will be revelation of righteous judgement of God.

You rephrase this into: “The righteous judgment of God treasures up wrath for a day of wrathâ€. The way you have worded this indeed suggests that the righteous judgement results only in wrath. But Paul’s wording identifies the fact that there will be wrath and there be God’s righteous judgement. This is at least open to a reading where there are some who will escape this wrath.

But besides, I simply do not understand how this “wrath only†position can survive in light of verse 7. Yes there will be wrath on that day. But what else happens on that day?:

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

You seem to believe that zero persons will get this eternal life. Why would Paul talk about a category of people who get eternal life, if, as you suggest, there is only wrath?

Let’s be clear – it could be the case that Paul is talking about an impossibility - about something that is only hypothetically true. But there would need to be an actual argument for that. Somewhere there would be evidence that Paul is engaging in a “what if†kind of argument, as in “people would get eternal life at such a judgement if it were possible to get eternal life based on works, but its not possible to get eternal life that wayâ€.

Well, where is the evidence? Certainly not in statements about how one cannot be justified by the works of the Law of Moses – which is what Paul is saying in Romans 4:2 and Ephesians 2:8-9. A statement that one cannot be justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses is not a statement that you cannot get justified by doing good works.

 

[glorydaz]

The faith in Christ for what?

Define Faith, first, and then, tell me what Christ had "faith" in, according to that definition...

Secondly, what does JESUS say is necessary to be saved? Does Jesus ever refer to HIS faith???

I do not think the Bible supports YOUR interpretation - and even though the KJV SAYS "OF", I think it is more correctly translated, in modern English, as "IN". We are to have faith IN Jesus.

Over and over, the Bible speaks of believing in Jesus, not in His faith...

Paul is speaking of His own faith, a result of Christ's presence within Paul... I don't see this as proving that we must have faith in Jesus' faith...

Read that again, brother. It's Jesus speaking to Paul. Jesus says we are forgiven and sanctified by the faith that is in Him.

And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

He NEVER speaks of His OWN faith as salvific - but rather, the faith IN HIM. Would you like me to cite Him??? (I have found that most Protestants prefer to cite Paul then Jesus Christ, for some reason...)

Christ has His own faith...He is the Just One, and the just shall live by faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God, and God said, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased". Whatever is not faith is sin, and Jesus was sinless. So He had His own faith/trust in the Father. Some of the verses speak of this faith of Christ.

Others speak to this....Faith is also fidelity, faithfulness, obedience (obedient faith), and Jesus was obedient unto death....obedient to His mission of redemption. The righteousness of God was brought to light by the faith of Christ. That's why it is by the faith of Christ that we are justified.

We deny self...renouncing our own identity, and are put in Christ who is righteous. His righteousness is imputed unto us. Our faith could never justify us before a righteous God. It had to be Christ's perfect faith and perfect obedience that forgives sin, justifies and sanctifies.

Certainly not every verse on faith is speaking of the faith of Jesus Christ, but it's His faith that does the work. We're to believe in His faithfulness and fidelity and His mission of redemption. We're given a measure of faith, and the fruit of the Spirit is faith...we can increase our faith, but we can never have the righteous faith necessary to justify ourselves before God.

Verses such as this would make absolutely no sense if changed to, "the promise by faith in Christ might be given to them that believe." This is what the NIV and other translations do with Christ's faith.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

 

[glorydaz]

Of course Judaism seeks justification by the Mosaic Law. God will impartially judge both unsaved Jew, and pagan Gentile on the basis of works.

He will indeed. But what mondar seems to screen out is what the result of that judgement will be - eternal life.

Quite an inflammatory statement. Rather then address what I am saying you use emotional terms like "screen out" as though I ignore evidence. While such Rhetoric might emotionally rally the faithful works oriented people, it does nothing to promote the discussion. I think you jump to accusations too fast. I am not screening out anything.

Nevertheless, when verses 5-6 are read together in context, we can see that the judgment of Chapter 2 relates to wrath, not blessing.

5 but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 who will render to every man according to his works:

What works are in verse 5 that verse 6 is referring to? The righteous judgment of God treasures up wrath for a day of wrath when God will judge every man according to his works.

When we get to verses 7-11 Paul is simply speaking about God as an impartial judge. He is not opening up the discussion to the possibility of a future justification by works. Notice Pauls conclusion in verses 7-11....
11 for there is no respect of persons with God.
Verse 11 is the application of verses 7-10. Paul is telling us what verses 7-10 mean.

The entire issue of a future justification is based not upon these verses, it is based upon verse 13. Their is where the future passive indicative of ?????????????? (will be justified) is found. When Paul gets to that point in his argument he is referring to the Mosaic Law. (I will not repeat arguments that verse 13 is about the Mosaic law here---please refer to my previous post.)

The context is a contrast between unsaved hypocritical Jews, and pagan Gentiles. The Jews seek justification by the Law of Moses, the pagan Gentiles seek justification by their own works and become as verse 14 says... "a law unto themselves."

This is not correct. Look at the wider context:

14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts,

The error of exegesis here is that it avoids what I stated in my previous post. Verses 14 and 15 is a parenthetical thought. The ASV even inserts a parenthesis into the text. While that is an editors insertion, it is correct.
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);
Notice how verse 14 begins.... it begins with a comment "for the Gentiles." This is a contrast with verses 12-13 which speak of the Jews and the Mosaic Law.
(more on verses 14-15 later--- It does not refer to the New Covenant)

Notice the connection of the context from before the parenthetical though and after....
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish [u]without the law]:[/u] and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
**** Notice the term "hearers of the law" ----- a very awkward term for a universal law that is not codified and cannot be read.
**** Also notice the contrast in these verses set up between the hearers of the law, and those not under the law (IE Gentiles)... Gentiles are not under the Mosaic Law, but are under the universal law.
**** Finally notice the connection to the verses after the parenthetical thought of verses 14-15.
16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
17 But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest upon the law, and gloriest in God,
18 and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,
19 and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness,
20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth;
21 thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples?
23 thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou God?

The person familar with the Old Testament will know what this allusion to the Law being written on the heart is all about - it is about what will happen to God's people, not pagan Gentiles seeking salvation by their own works:

Paul is actually saying just the opposite as what Drew is suggesting. Paul is actually not talking about the people of God, but he is talking about Pagan Gentiles. Again, as I have said above, notice the way verse 14 begins....
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law...Paul is suggesting that even pagan, unregenerate Gentiles do some of the things in the Mosaic Law. Even Gentiles know it is wrong to steal, or commit adultery. As such they practice some of the Law. Does this save them? Certainly not! What Paul is talking about in the parenthetical thought is the guilt of the Jews! Think about it! The unregenerate unsaved Jew claims that he will be justified because he hears the law but what good will that do him, even the unregenerate unsaved Gentiles (the context here flows from chapter 1) by nature are practicing some things in the law.
---This relates not to the new covenant that is for "Israel and Judah" but refers to creation. In the original "image of God" in man at creation, the law was written on mans heart. It was marred in the fall, but part of that image remains. Enough remains in a pagan Gentile that he will keep part of the Mosaic Law by nature.

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

This is, of course, about believers, not pagan Gentiles.

This does not pertain to Romans 2. I would certainly not disagree that this passage from Deuteronomy is about believers. It is slick the way Drew makes it look like a passage from Romans 2. Notice he does not give the full reference. Just a warning to unsuspecting readers.

And this:

"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, " I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

This quote from Jeremiah 33 is certainly about the new covenant. While the heart language of Romans 2 might sound related to the New Covenant, it is not. I have addressed this above. It is related to the heart condition of man during creation. At creation, God wrote the law upon Adams heart. In verses 14-15 notice the connection to "conscience."
the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith,
Conscience began at creation.

It is clear that Paul here is talking about the saved Gentile enabled by God to do good. Paul is not, as mondar appears to be asserting, talking about the pagan Gentile seeking justification by works apart from God.

I am asserting exactly what Drew says I am because that is the context. Paul is not talking about the saved Gentile in verse 13, he is talking about the unsaved Jew and the Mosaic Law.

Please excuse the long post, but it takes more time to correct errors then to state erroneous views. Hopefully the reader will not just join in some emotional argumentation about the contribution of works man can contribute to his final justification. Please be driven to consider the text and the context.

I'm thrilled you showed up on this thread, Mondar. I can only say a big, Amen. :amen

 

[Drew]

I'm thrilled you showed up on this thread, Mondar. I can only say a big, Amen. :amen

I wonder if mondar agrees with your assertions about how all the translations of Romans 2:6-7 have erroneously added the phrase "he will give".

mondar, please tell us - do you think the translators have made these unwarranted additions?

Now gd, since you embrace mondar's position, perhaps you would care to engage one of my counterarguments to it, as follows:

Your interpretation has the awkward idea that those who sin without the law are not Jews, and that the law they do not sin under is not the Mosaic Law. Obviously they are Jews, and verse 13 is obviously talking about the Mosiac Law. This is also backed up by the context a few verses later....

I should probably have provided the argument I am about to give before the post I just made about how there are two “laws†on Paul’s mind in Romans 2. The problem is this: the fact that there are indeed two laws does not mean that the law in verse 13 in particular is not the Law of Moses, as mondar is asserting.

Showing that there are two laws only shows that it is plausible that, in verse 13, Paul is referring to something other than the Law of Moses. However, it is not hard to see how the “law†in verse 13 cannot be the Law of Moses:

11For (V)there is no partiality with God. 12For all who have sinned (W)without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is (X)not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

Here is the argument:

1. It is clear that Paul is dealing with God’s impartial treatment of Jew and Gentile (verse 11).

2. It is clear that “those without the Law†in verse 12 are Gentiles, while those “under the Law†in verse 12 are Jews;.

3. Now we have a situation where Paul has clearly both Jew and Gentile in mind and how God will treat them without partiality. So when he makes his statement in verse 13, he cannot simply be talking about Jews. No competent writer would build an argument as to how God will treat Jews and Gentile equally, and then entirely overlook Gentiles in his conclusion about who gets justified.

4. Since we know from verse 14 that Paul sees that there is a law that the Gentile can indeed keep, and since this cannot be the written code which the Gentile simply does not have, the “law†in verse 13 cannot be the Law of Moses.

5. Note the connective “for†between verses 12 and 13. As often with Paul, this functions as a “becauseâ€. In verses 11 and 12, Paul asserts that both Jew and Gentile will be judged impartially…..for….. it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. Clearly, Paul still has both Gentile and Jew in view and therefore “law†here cannot be the Law of Moses. No one would say “God is impartial, Jew and Gentile will both be judged for the Jew will be judged by the Law of Mosesâ€. This makes no sense at all – clearly verse 13 has to be about something that applies to both Jew and Gentile.

Now that it is clear that “law†in verse 13 is not the Law of Moses, the argument of my earlier post can be deployed to fill in the rest – the “lawâ in verse 13 is this other “law†that Paul has in mind.

 

[glorydaz]

I'm thrilled you showed up on this thread, Mondar. I can only say a big, Amen. :amen

I wonder if mondar agrees with your assertions about how all the translations of Romans 2:6-7 have erroneously added the phrase "he will give".

mondar, please tell us - do you think the translators have made these unwarranted additions?

Now gd, since you embrace mondar's position, perhaps you would care to engage one of my counterarguments to it, as follows:

Your interpretation has the awkward idea that those who sin without the law are not Jews, and that the law they do not sin under is not the Mosaic Law. Obviously they are Jews, and verse 13 is obviously talking about the Mosiac Law. This is also backed up by the context a few verses later....

I should probably have provided the argument I am about to give before the post I just made about how there are two “laws†on Paul’s mind in Romans 2. The problem is this: the fact that there are indeed two laws does not mean that the law in verse 13 in particular is not the Law of Moses, as mondar is asserting.

Showing that there are two laws only shows that it is plausible that, in verse 13, Paul is referring to something other than the Law of Moses. However, it is not hard to see how the “law†in verse 13 cannot be the Law of Moses:

11For (V)there is no partiality with God. 12For all who have sinned (W)without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is (X)not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

Here is the argument:

1. It is clear that Paul is dealing with God’s impartial treatment of Jew and Gentile (verse 11).

2. It is clear that “those without the Law†in verse 12 are Gentiles, while those “under the Law†in verse 12 are Jews;.

3. Now we have a situation where Paul has clearly both Jew and Gentile in mind and how God will treat them without partiality. So when he makes his statement in verse 13, he cannot simply be talking about Jews. No competent writer would build an argument as to how God will treat Jews and Gentile equally, and then entirely overlook Gentiles in his conclusion about who gets justified.

4. Since we know from verse 14 that Paul sees that there is a law that the Gentile can indeed keep, and since this cannot be the written code which the Gentile simply does not have, the “law†in verse 13 cannot be the Law of Moses.

5. Note the connective “for†between verses 12 and 13. As often with Paul, this functions as a “becauseâ€. In verses 11 and 12, Paul asserts that both Jew and Gentile will be judged impartially…..for….. it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. Clearly, Paul still has both Gentile and Jew in view and therefore “law†here cannot be the Law of Moses. No one would say “God is impartial, Jew and Gentile will both be judged for the Jew will be judged by the Law of Mosesâ€. This makes no sense at all – clearly verse 13 has to be about something that applies to both Jew and Gentile.

Now that it is clear that “law†in verse 13 is not the Law of Moses, the argument of my earlier post can be deployed to fill in the rest – the “law†in verse 13 is this other “law†that Paul has in mind.

As I've stated before, this is talking about the law of Moses for the Jews and the eternal law of God written on the conscience for the Gentiles...so man is without excuse. Paul has said the Jews will perish under the law and the gentiles will perish without the law because all have sinned. Since only the doers of the law will be justified...none will be justified under the law...whether the law is written or unwritten. Paul is addressing the state of mankind in general...not believers. He hasn't gotten to grace yet...he's leading up to that.

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Now, as to your comment about Romans 2:7. I have consistantly stated your translation is wrong, and I continue to say so. I have never said eternal life isn't in the verse. I've said your translation changes a comma to the words, "He will give" eternal life. After reading how the NIV has adulterated the Scripture about the "faith of Jesus Christ", I have absolutely no respect for any translation that changes or adds to what is written.

Here it is from the KJV. It does not say, He will give eternal life.
This passage is speaking of judgment. This verse is not addressed to believers, so your interpretation of this verse is not correct. It's speaking of those who seek after eternal life by well doing. He may receive glory and honor in this life...but not before God (as Romans 4 makes clear). No amount of persistance will take away sin, so when man is judged on his works, he will be found guilty without the grace Paul is about to bring up in the next chapter. As I've said, repeatedly, you insist on taking this verse out of context, and you, therefore, distort Paul's message...which is that good deeds do not cover sin.

To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

 

[Drew]

Now, as to your comment about Romans 2:7. I have consistantly stated your translation is wrong, and I continue to say so. I have never said eternal life isn't in the verse. I've said your translation changes a comma to the words, "He will give" eternal life.

So then all these translations are wrong - all the scholars have made the same mistake? Note how each version clearly has God in the position of implementing a "he will give" or "he will render" action:

NIV: God "will give to each person according to what he has done". To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, he will give eternal life

NASB: who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

NLT: will judge all people according to what they have done. He will give eternal life to those who persist in doing what is good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers.

BBE: Who will give to every man his right reward: To those who go on with good works in the hope of glory and honour and salvation from death, he will give eternal life:

NRSV: For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

NKJV: who "will render to each one according to his deeds": eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality

Now let’s be clear: The “comma†argument does not get you off the hook. If a teacher says: “I will reward each student according to their deeds: to those who pass, a gold starâ€, this is clearly an assertion that the teacher will give a gold star to those students who pass.

 

[francisdesales]

Read that again, brother. It's Jesus speaking to Paul. Jesus says we are forgiven and sanctified by the faith that is in Him.

Acts 26:15-18"
And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

The Greek does not say that. You yet again quote from a misleading bible translation. Check out this Greek Interlinear online...

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act26.pdf

Having been holyized to belief (faith) the into me...

In addtion, the Strong Lexicon notes the following for "eis" (G1519)

"into, unto, to, towards, for, among"

Nothing about "of". All of the words point to another object. In this case, faith in Jesus.

Rather than just say that the KJV is just dead wrong, perhaps we can just say that the KJV, written in the 16th century, has a different sense of "faith of Jesus" then we do today. That is why EVERY transalation from the Greek that I've seen cites that we have faith IN Jesus.

And of course, another point, this is just more of the same, a circular argument, presuming KJV is the BASIS for all other translations... It's not.

Christ has His own faith...

I have asked you to define what faith IS, according to the Bible (Hebrews) and then tell me in what way Jesus can have faith based upon that definition, knowing that Jesus is God and cannot NOT know something... You refuse. Than you tell me about a definition of faith that include all kinds of works! I thought faith alone saves, without any works?

Perhaps you are confused with the comparison between Jesus' fidelity vs the Jews or mankind. Perhaps you are making faith = action. But you will have to do better than this to convince me that we are to believe in the faith OF Jesus, vs having faith IN Jesus...

His righteousness is imputed unto us. Our faith could never justify us before a righteous God.

You are now talking reformer talk - I don't buy it. It is a misrespresentation of the Bible...

The problem is that you STILL oppose God's righteousness to man's, without recognizing that God Himself comes to dwell in our souls during justification. This is not "imputed rightouesness" alone, God's presence MAKES us righteous. There is no pretend justice here. It's real. That idea of fidicuary justice is an invention from the 16th century found nowhere in Christianity before. It separates religion from ethics, and even many Protesatnts rebeled against such insanity as Luther's mindset that we SHOULD sin, as long as we have faith. This turns the Pauline corpus upsdie down.

THis is the slippery slope you introduce to Chrisitainity by such nonsense of saying we do not share in God's righteousnses. Man's sin REMAINS in your version of theology. This defeats the ENTIRE PURPOSE Of sancitification!!

WHY BOTHER doing all of those things Paul talks about, Jesus talks about, IF we are "covered"????

Ridiculous.

It had to be Christ's perfect faith and perfect obedience that forgives sin, justifies and sanctifies.

Christ's OBEDIENCE, not Luther's definition of faith. Definitions are important. Luther did not consider faith as "obedience". If you are now going to do so, then you must re-evaluate your entire idea of OSAS, because it depends upon fiduciary justification, not an idea of obedience, love, repentance, or any other such thing. All of these happen in MAN as a result of the New Creation! Thus, you contradict yourself...

 

[francisdesales]

Now, as to your comment about Romans 2:7. I have consistantly stated your translation is wrong, and I continue to say so. I have never said eternal life isn't in the verse. I've said your translation changes a comma to the words, "He will give" eternal life. After reading how the NIV has adulterated the Scripture about the "faith of Jesus Christ", I have absolutely no respect for any translation that changes or adds to what is written.

Here it is from the KJV. It does not say, He will give eternal life.

It certainly does. He will render onto men according to their deeds.

RENDER WHAT????

To the good, eternal life.
BUT, to the evil, indignation and wrath.

This passage is speaking of judgment. This verse is not addressed to believers,

Every word in Romans is addressed to believers. Paul was not writing parts to Gentiles and parts to Jews and another part to Christians. He was writing the letter to a CHRISTIAN community, a community where "some" were teaching that the Jews were superior, and thus, Gentiles must become Jews FIRST.

Paul denies that thoroughly, for it is not works of the Law that saves. Furthermore, pagans can become AS circumcised (spiritual Jews), enabling them to attain eternal life. This is not a "natural law", but a law written by God in the pagan's heart. God is at work in the believer, whether it is pagan or Jew.

The judgment CLEARLY is for all men, to include the Jews, who think they have an advantage over Gentiles. The series of rhetorical questions blows Jewish superiority before God out of the water. During judgment, EVERYONE'S good deeds will be judged, for life or wrath. The Jews will also undergo wrath, if they are found wanting.

This is QUITE a shock to Jewish Christians, it is unheard of that the Gentiles didn't need the Mosaic Law. But there Paul says, the Mosaic Law is not needed - for some are saved without ANY knowledge of it whatsoever.

Thus, Paul says "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?" 3:1

He just tore them up, saying "you don't NEED the Mosaic Law"!

:o

so your interpretation of this verse is not correct. It's speaking of those who seek after eternal life by well doing.

Wrong. YOU place that meaning onto Scriptures because you ALREADY have a false dichotomy in your head about faith vs works. Paul clearly says that men are saved WITHOUT the LAW, becoming spiritual Jews - BY what they do! There IS NO WORKS VS FAITH HERE!!!

He may receive glory and honor in this life...but not before God (as Romans 4 makes clear).

Romans 4 speaks about earning salvation through the Mosaic Law. That is why he brings up Abraham! Circumcision is nothing in soterielogy

Regards

 

[Free]

Now, as to your comment about Romans 2:7. I have consistantly stated your translation is wrong, and I continue to say so. I have never said eternal life isn't in the verse. I've said your translation changes a comma to the words, "He will give" eternal life. After reading how the NIV has adulterated the Scripture about the "faith of Jesus Christ", I have absolutely no respect for any translation that changes or adds to what is written.

Here it is from the KJV. It does not say, He will give eternal life.
This passage is speaking of judgment. This verse is not addressed to believers, so your interpretation of this verse is not correct. It's speaking of those who seek after eternal life by well doing. He may receive glory and honor in this life...but not before God (as Romans 4 makes clear). No amount of persistance will take away sin, so when man is judged on his works, he will be found guilty without the grace Paul is about to bring up in the next chapter. As I've said, repeatedly, you insist on taking this verse out of context, and you, therefore, distort Paul's message...which is that good deeds do not cover sin.

Rom 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
Rom 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: (KJV)

It is abundantly clear that "he will give" is what is being spoken of--"render" means "to give."

 

[glorydaz]

Read that again, brother. It's Jesus speaking to Paul. Jesus says we are forgiven and sanctified by the faith that is in Him.

Acts 26:15-18"
And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

The Greek does not say that. You yet again quote from a misleading bible translation. Check out this Greek Interlinear online...

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act26.pdf

Having been holyized to belief (faith) the into me...

In addtion, the Strong Lexicon notes the following for "eis" (G1519)

"into, unto, to, towards, for, among"

Nothing about "of". All of the words point to another object. In this case, faith in Jesus.

Rather than just say that the KJV is just dead wrong, perhaps we can just say that the KJV, written in the 16th century, has a different sense of "faith of Jesus" then we do today. That is why EVERY transalation from the Greek that I've seen cites that we have faith IN Jesus.

And of course, another point, this is just more of the same, a circular argument, presuming KJV is the BASIS for all other translations... It's not.

Christ has His own faith...

I have asked you to define what faith IS, according to the Bible (Hebrews) and then tell me in what way Jesus can have faith based upon that definition, knowing that Jesus is God and cannot NOT know something... You refuse. Than you tell me about a definition of faith that include all kinds of works! I thought faith alone saves, without any works?

Perhaps you are confused with the comparison between Jesus' fidelity vs the Jews or mankind. Perhaps you are making faith = action. But you will have to do better than this to convince me that we are to believe in the faith OF Jesus, vs having faith IN Jesus...

His righteousness is imputed unto us. Our faith could never justify us before a righteous God.

You are now talking reformer talk - I don't buy it. It is a misrespresentation of the Bible...

The problem is that you STILL oppose God's righteousness to man's, without recognizing that God Himself comes to dwell in our souls during justification. This is not "imputed rightouesness" alone, God's presence MAKES us righteous. There is no pretend justice here. It's real. That idea of fidicuary justice is an invention from the 16th century found nowhere in Christianity before. It separates religion from ethics, and even many Protesatnts rebeled against such insanity as Luther's mindset that we SHOULD sin, as long as we have faith. This turns the Pauline corpus upsdie down.

THis is the slippery slope you introduce to Chrisitainity by such nonsense of saying we do not share in God's righteousnses. Man's sin REMAINS in your version of theology. This defeats the ENTIRE PURPOSE Of sancitification!!

WHY BOTHER doing all of those things Paul talks about, Jesus talks about, IF we are "covered"????

Ridiculous.

It had to be Christ's perfect faith and perfect obedience that forgives sin, justifies and sanctifies.

Christ's OBEDIENCE, not Luther's definition of faith. Definitions are important. Luther did not consider faith as "obedience". If you are now going to do so, then you must re-evaluate your entire idea of OSAS, because it depends upon fiduciary justification, not an idea of obedience, love, repentance, or any other such thing. All of these happen in MAN as a result of the New Creation! Thus, you contradict yourself...

You either don't know how to read or you're just plain willfully pig-headed. You actually don't believe Jesus has faith? Oh my. I may as well be talking to a brick wall. :yes

You claim Paul was talking about his faith...it was Jesus talking to Paul on the road to Damascus. If you're so stubborn you can't even read the verse I gave you then you aren't worth wasting any more time on. I can understand why Jesus wondered if He'd find any faith when He returned. He won't because you all will be claiming what little you have is enough...and I can guarantee you, it won't be.

 

[glorydaz]

Now, as to your comment about Romans 2:7. I have consistantly stated your translation is wrong, and I continue to say so. I have never said eternal life isn't in the verse. I've said your translation changes a comma to the words, "He will give" eternal life. After reading how the NIV has adulterated the Scripture about the "faith of Jesus Christ", I have absolutely no respect for any translation that changes or adds to what is written.

Here it is from the KJV. It does not say, He will give eternal life.

It certainly does. He will render onto men according to their deeds.

RENDER WHAT????

To the good, eternal life.
BUT, to the evil, indignation and wrath.

This passage is speaking of judgment. This verse is not addressed to believers,

Every word in Romans is addressed to believers. Paul was not writing parts to Gentiles and parts to Jews and another part to Christians. He was writing the letter to a CHRISTIAN community, a community where "some" were teaching that the Jews were superior, and thus, Gentiles must become Jews FIRST.

Paul denies that thoroughly, for it is not works of the Law that saves. Furthermore, pagans can become AS circumcised (spiritual Jews), enabling them to attain eternal life. This is not a "natural law", but a law written by God in the pagan's heart. God is at work in the believer, whether it is pagan or Jew.

The judgment CLEARLY is for all men, to include the Jews, who think they have an advantage over Gentiles. The series of rhetorical questions blows Jewish superiority before God out of the water. During judgment, EVERYONE'S good deeds will be judged, for life or wrath. The Jews will also undergo wrath, if they are found wanting.

This is QUITE a shock to Jewish Christians, it is unheard of that the Gentiles didn't need the Mosaic Law. But there Paul says, the Mosaic Law is not needed - for some are saved without ANY knowledge of it whatsoever.

Thus, Paul says "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?" 3:1

He just tore them up, saying "you don't NEED the Mosaic Law"!

:o

so your interpretation of this verse is not correct. It's speaking of those who seek after eternal life by well doing.

Wrong. YOU place that meaning onto Scriptures because you ALREADY have a false dichotomy in your head about faith vs works. Paul clearly says that men are saved WITHOUT the LAW, becoming spiritual Jews - BY what they do! There IS NO WORKS VS FAITH HERE!!!

He may receive glory and honor in this life...but not before God (as Romans 4 makes clear).

Romans 4 speaks about earning salvation through the Mosaic Law. That is why he brings up Abraham! Circumcision is nothing in soterielogy

Regards

Seems like everybody in the world knows what Paul is saying except you two. I'll be at the Bema Seat while you two are counting off your deeds. Just remember...one sin and you're outa there. :biglaugh

 

[glorydaz]

LOL...Ya gotta love it. Some will stand on a verse that does not say what they think it says when the answer to the question is found right up that Roman Road. I'll be watching from the junction when you all stumble into the road sign that says, "Oh, and BTW, you can't earn your way into salvation." The faith OF Christ needs to be utilized for your justification because sin is the problem. Apparently no one bothered to read the "scholars" I posted (that supposedly don't exist), which understand that Paul is laying out an argument for salvation that will shoot down all those good deeds the hypocrites (which is who he's talking to) are counting on as they SEEK eternal life. Paul is telling them about the judgment they will be facing as they're looking past that to the prize. They won't be getting the prize until they get to chapter three. :yes

oops...here's one of them. I had it on another thread, but I can see it's needed here, too.

This is exactly what I've been telling Drew.

We first must recognize that only Jesus is the righteous one. He walks this path of good works alone. Man always fails. No one can completely carry out God’s ways. We err before we are two years old. Paul will speak more of this later in the book when he speaks of the character of our old nature. In drawing this conclusion, it declares that all men have discredited themselves from this path of good works. Moralists and religionists profess an attempt to do good works but this is clearly not what they have. They smear their lives with a coating of self-righteousness.

The only way to gain these good works is through belief in Christ. Paul is providing us the right perspectives of life so that we have what we need to gain eternal life. He is at this point especially
destroying the confidence of the self-righteous person. Everyone else would easily confess to their lack of a righteous life. Before one can or will claim Christ’s righteousness, though, he must first admit (confess) to his lack of a righteous life and the need to have that righteous life.

In summary, Paul is stating that our eternal state is judged not by what we believe about ourselves but by how we live before God. Paul will amplify this thought in the verses to come. It is important for us to realize that Paul is not addressing the issue as to how to get to heaven (he does this later) but who is going to heaven (no one because they fall short as he will teach in the last part of chapter 2 and the first part of chapter 3). This argument is similar to I John where there exists tests to determine one’s salvation.

Paul is attacking the false security of the men and women who are supposedly saved by their righteous deeds. Paul confronts them right where they feel the strongest, but it is their deception that makes them so blind. Again, one cannot presume to be saved on the basis of who a person is, such as being a Jew, an elder, a faithful church goer, but one’s genuine sense of security is derived from a godly life. Paul has everyone to look at their own behavior rather than on their background, for otherwise, man will be able to hide his sin. Paul further aids us to do this through the following verses.

http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Re ... mans02.05-

 

[Mysteryman]

Now, as to your comment about Romans 2:7. I have consistantly stated your translation is wrong, and I continue to say so. I have never said eternal life isn't in the verse. I've said your translation changes a comma to the words, "He will give" eternal life. After reading how the NIV has adulterated the Scripture about the "faith of Jesus Christ", I have absolutely no respect for any translation that changes or adds to what is written.

Here it is from the KJV. It does not say, He will give eternal life.
This passage is speaking of judgment. This verse is not addressed to believers, so your interpretation of this verse is not correct. It's speaking of those who seek after eternal life by well doing. He may receive glory and honor in this life...but not before God (as Romans 4 makes clear). No amount of persistance will take away sin, so when man is judged on his works, he will be found guilty without the grace Paul is about to bring up in the next chapter. As I've said, repeatedly, you insist on taking this verse out of context, and you, therefore, distort Paul's message...which is that good deeds do not cover sin.

Rom 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
Rom 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: (KJV)

It is abundantly clear that "he will give" is what is being spoken of--"render" means "to give."

Yes, rewards and the possibility of receiving crowns

 

[stranger]

glorydaz wrote:

The faith OF Christ needs to be utilized for your justification because sin is the problem. Apparently no one bothered to read the "scholars" I posted (that supposedly don't exist), which understand that Paul is laying out an argument for salvation that will shoot down all those good deeds the hypocrites (which is who he's talking to) are counting on as they SEEK eternal life.

Hi gd,

Can we agree to reserve 'good deeds' to refer to the genuine 'fruits of the Spirit?' Thus 'good deeds the hypocrites do' won't lead anywhere (except to death) so why call them 'good deeds'? As a courtesy I won't refer to 'evil deeds that the righteous do'. Please continue your argument...

blessings brother

 

[francisdesales]

Yes, rewards and the possibility of receiving crowns

That's not what Romans 2 says. The two possibilities are eternal life and wrath.

 

[francisdesales]

You either don't know how to read or you're just plain willfully pig-headed. You actually don't believe Jesus has faith? Oh my. I may as well be talking to a brick wall. :yes

Yea, I have thought that about you...

You aren't going to get anywhere by beginning your response to my long thoughtful reply with that...

Since you are unable or unwilling to define "faith" after I have asked you several times (leading me to believe you are just being argumentative...), I'll do it for you...

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

FAITH is believing in something hoped for but yet unseen.

Now, pray tell, what exactly did Jesus hope for but WAS UNSEEN??????????????????

You are confusing fidelity/faithfulness with Paul's definition of faith. As usual, you read into Scriptures the sacred cow, rather than reading the plain words and let them go where they will.

Again, I ask you, does Jesus refer to HIS OWN FAITH as salvific in the NT? Or is it perhaps that the KJV improperly interpreted the verse in question (as the actual Greek suggests)?

I'm going to bet that the NUMEROUS translations are correctly rendering "FAITH IN JESUS". In the context, the summary of the Kerygma, we are to believe in Jesus and His works.

You claim Paul was talking about his faith...it was Jesus talking to Paul on the road to Damascus. If you're so stubborn you can't even read the verse I gave you then you aren't worth wasting any more time on.

Paul was speaking about his faith in the works of Jesus. Not Jesus' belief in God and trust that God would raise Him up.

Are you going to cry because I will not submit to your begging the question???

You give me a faulty translation and then complain that I don't follow it, when it makes very little sense? The majority of translations do not follow the KJV, they follow the Greek, so get over it. I gave you the Greek interlinear and the meaning of the Greek word used. Probably just ignored it, like the vast majority of my posts... Apparently, you just like to argue.

Even the KJV elsewhere speaks about having faith IN Jesus. Which is it? Are we saved by OUR faith in Jesus, a gift of God or is EVERYONE saved by Jesus' faith, which is not a gift given to us?

I can understand why Jesus wondered if He'd find any faith when He returned. He won't because you all will be claiming what little you have is enough...and I can guarantee you, it won't be.

Don't guarantee me anything. You don't have what it takes to do that. Given these discussions, your opinions have little theological weight with me. Having little temper tantrums will not convince me you are correct. Rather than your cliches, perhaps you could actually address my arguments...

 

[Mysteryman]

Yes, rewards and the possibility of receiving crowns

That's not what Romans 2 says. The two possibilities are eternal life and wrath.

Using the whole Word of God as the context, and then you "might" see things differently.

There are way too many who base a certain (man made) doctorine on one verse of scripture !

 

[Drew]

Yes, rewards and the possibility of receiving crowns

No. Paul says eternal life.

Crown, rewards, yes.

But also eternal life.

Please do not pretend that this material does not entail a promise about eternal life. All the translations have "eternal life".

 

[francisdesales]

That's not what Romans 2 says. The two possibilities are eternal life and wrath.

Using the whole Word of God as the context, and then you "might" see things differently.

State your evidence from the Bible...

We've discussed this, judgment is universally narrowed down to heaven or hell, life or wrath. This is NOT "one verse". Over and over, judgment is based upon what one does in life. There is precious little about being judged good, but losing rewards. Even 1 cor 3 doesn't speak about losing anything, just that some will have to go THROUGH something FIRST before they receive heaven. It doesn't mention anything about lesser rewards.

No one has inherited "rewards" at different levels of heaven. In other words, God doesn't say "MM, your inheritance is level 5 of heaven", then if you don't do so well in life, you are bumped down to level 3. The inheritance is simply "HEAVEN". That's it.

"Lesser rewards" is just not found in Scriptures. We have not been given a particular "reward level" in heaven to "lose" a reward level.

If something is lost, it is salvation to heaven. You get wrath, not a lesser reward...

That's the Bible's view on it, as we have discussed before.