Ignoring Romans 2: An Error of Exegisis

[glorydaz]

It would be better for you to rip them out, than for you to twist and adulterate them the way you do.

Moi? Adulterate? Please....

I am not the one who disagrees with Paul that those who walk in the Spirit get life. That is what you believe - that life is not attained by how we live in the Spirit. Now one of us is misrepresenting what Paul says here:

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. 12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

Now, gd, are you saying that this text does not have Paul asserting that the person who gets life is the one who lives according to the Spirit?

Please ensure that you explain to us precisely what this statement means, then:

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

Golly gee, Drew. I'm almost positive we obtain life when we receive Jesus Christ into our heart.

Paul does not say our works in the Spirit earn us life. Christ in us imparts life. You really shouldn't add to the Word of God. Life is not attained by "how" we live in the Spirit. It is attained because Christ lives in us. So, yes...it is postional. We have life because we have Christ...not because we produce good works after we already have life. See how that works?

If you, unsaved man, live according to the sinful nature that is in you, you will die. If you, by the Spirit put to death the misdeeds of the body, you live. We do that when we have Christ in us. We are dead to sin. Do you believe that?

We live because we're dead to sin and alive unto God through Christ. All those people you think are spiritual, walking in the flesh, are the natural man still under the law of sin and death. The spiritual men are sons of God and are dead to sin through Christ Jesus. You're in error to lump believers in with unbelievers to support your theory of works ultimately resulting in salvation.

God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

 

[francisdesales]

I could tell you where every comma is in the OT.

but you tell me about christians not being subject to Judgment, while the OT is FULL of the People of God being subject to judgment???

:biglaugh

But be that as it may, there are still two judgements !

One is the "bema" - Judgement seat of Christ
The other is the "thronos" - White throne judgement

No, they are the same. There is only one judgment, and it is based upon what you do in life. Did you follow the promptings of the Spirit, faith working in love; or did you not?

That's it. The entire Bible's view on judgment can be found in that one sentence. The "Bema" seat is the "White throne" refered to in Revelation. This idea of two separate chairs is a false construct to attempt to work the Bible into sola fide.

 

[Mysteryman]

I could tell you where every comma is in the OT.

but you tell me about christians not being subject to Judgment, while the OT is FULL of the People of God being subject to judgment???

:biglaugh

But be that as it may, there are still two judgements !

One is the "bema" - Judgement seat of Christ
The other is the "thronos" - White throne judgement

No, they are the same. There is only one judgment, and it is based upon what you do in life. Did you follow the promptings of the Spirit, faith working in love; or did you not?

That's it. The entire Bible's view on judgment can be found in that one sentence. The "Bema" seat is the "White throne" refered to in Revelation. This idea of two separate chairs is a false construct to attempt to work the Bible into sola fide.

There are two resurrections ,and there are two judgement seats. If you can not recognise this, so be it.

 

[francisdesales]

There are two resurrections ,and there are two judgement seats. If you can not recognise this, so be it.

One judgment to determine heaven or hell. We aren't talking about resurrection.

 

[Drew]

Get over these ridiculous accusations concerning the motive behind my "intentions", will you?
Just grow up.

I am only defending Paul from those who, intentionally or otherwise, bend what he actually writes, into something other than what he actually writes.

Drew. What you're failing to understand is that all who are filled with the Spirit are living according to the Spirit. You may not think they are, but they are, nonetheless.

I fully understand this. But what you will not, or cannot, accept is that Paul's words are clear - it is this living according to the Spirit that is the stated condition for getting eternal life. I will not let you hide from Pauls' words here:

if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

Living according to the Spirit means we no longer live in our old sinful nature. Notice it says, "by the Spirit" you put to death the misdeeds of the flesh. Jesus did that for us...

I am afraid that however much you wish to believe otherwise, this is not what the text says. Does Paul instruct Jesus to walk in the Spirit?

No! It instructs the believer. I cannot understand how you do not see how you are morphing Pauls' words entirely out of shape.

How do you justify these moves?

No creature could possibly be carnal, sold under sin, brought into captivity to the law of sin and death, and at the same time be made free from that law of sin and death, by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. These two opposite states can never exist in the same person at the same time. Therefore your argument fails.

Again, it is clear from the Romans 8 that Paul understands that while the believer is indeed in a new state, the possibility exists that he can slip back into the "old man". Read the words, please:

Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

The problem, frankly, is this: you decide that you have the authority to rewrite Paul's text.
Even it were not clear from Paul's text - which it is - it is obvious that the believer does not entirely escape sin in this life.

 

[Drew]

You're evidently confused about the Judgment Seat of Christ. Those who stand before the Bema Seat do not come under condemnation. Eternal life has already been granted to those who are in Christ, so it is not at issue.

You are ignoring the content of my argument and making an assertion of a position. That is not acceptable if you are looking to engage in proper debate.

LOL Really, Drew...you are not the one to lecture me on "proper debate".

Most often when people hurl out as many charges as you have concerning my motives, I shake the dust off and move along. I just find you a special case, and so I perservere.

My critique is valid - you never engaged my argument.

You are doing what many others do. They think that because they believe "A" to be the case, they are simply not required to engage the content of scriptural arguments that challenge "A".

Even if you have an argument to support "A" you also need to defeat other arguments that challenge "A".

In proper argument, it is not sufficient to produce a case for "A" (which you do not do successfully anyway, but that's not the present point). You also need to show the errors in any and all arguments that purport to disprove A.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

What is judgement according to you?

I believe that I ascribe to the standard "sense" of this term": Judgement is effectively a "lawcourt" concept - an evaluation of whether some party has, or has not, conformed to some standard or "law".

I'm also pretty sure that you hold anything that is not a 'good work' to be sin, right?

I am not sure. If you live in the wilderness and basically just sit there, have you done "good works"? Probably not. Is it sin to just sit there? Well, I guess so, but only in the sense that you are evading your responsibilty to participate in the redemption of world. So, I suppose I agree that if activity "X" ins not a good work, it is probably sin. What about sleep? A good work? Probably not. But also not sin. So I am not entirely sure I would ascribe to your generalization in all cases.

Are faith and good works separable?

I think so. Or at least I read Paul (and others) as drawing a conceptual distinction between "heart belief" (faith) and how you live. Of course, the fact that I think that faith and good works are conceptually distinct does not, repeat does not, mean that I think that "real" faith does not always results in good works, through the action of the Spirit.

In fact, this is what I believe: True "heart belief" faith results in the gift of the Spirit which invariably produces good works.

Now some here simply cannot hear this, but I trust that you are not so burdened with pre-supposition that you cannot understand this concept, even if you do not agree with it.

 

[Drew]

What exactly is 'believing in Christ' ?

I am not sure I can answer this question.

As you will know if you are familiar with the Old Testament, there is a strong theme of "representative Messiahship" whereby the king acts on behalf of his people. Now assuming that we agree that Jesus is King (Christ means "king", not "divine being", or something to that effect).

So there is this sense that the king is "Israel rolled up into one person". I suggest that Paul deploys this theme in respect to our relation to Jesus - what is true of Jesus is true of those who are "in Him". There is some of this stuff in Romans. So although this answer will probably raise more questions than it responds to, I will assert that when we place believing trust in Jesus, we "participate" in His entire life trajectory - we "die" with Him and we are raised to new life with Him. I am not talking "future", I am talking right now.

So to "believe in Christ", through what I understand is "basic simple trusting faith", we become "connected" to Him and inherit what He inherited. What is true of the Messiah Jesus is true of those who are "in HIm".

Is that at all clear?

 

[Drew]

Drew,Why did Jesus have to die on the cross and resurrect to eternal glory?

I will take a very superficial shot at this.

Jesus had to die on the cross to substantially defeat the true enemy - Satan. At the risk of sounding snotty, I take Paul at his word and I do not deform what he writes: in Romans 8:3, who is condemned on the cross? Jesus?

No. It is sin that is condemned on the cross even though, of course, Jesus dies in the process.

I will now say the bit that will no doubt make people even more upset with me than many are already: I believe that certain elements of the reformation have misunderstood the very nature of the atonement, seeing the death of Jesus as satisfying "God's need to punish somebody" to maintain some kind of cosmic ledger of justice.

I do not think that was going on at all. Instead, I suggest that we see the cross as almost a medical procedure - "sin" (which, if you read Romans 7 carefully, Paul sees as an agency, or a force) needs to be de-activated and defeated. That is at least part of what I think Paul sees as happening on the cross. I think we need to abandon this idea that God's "sense of justice" demands that somebody undergoes suffering for sin in the form of some punishment. What kind of a God is that?

Think of chemotherapy. Is the doctor punishing the patient because of all the unpleasantness that is involved? No. The patient is suffering because the chemotherapy is defeating an enemy, an enemy that will lead to death if not defeated. I think that this is a crude, but appropriate way to conceive of the cross. Jesus does not suffer to satisfy some, frankly, “childish†need to punish somebody. He needs to suffer because sin is tainting and destroying this world and us along with it. And, for some reason, the only way to defeat sin is for Jesus to “bear it in his body†while God “attacks itâ€. Or, perhaps, sin “burns itself out†as it attacks Jesus on the cross. Sadly, Jesus dies in the violence of that interaction.

So I do not think that God was in any sense punishing Jesus on the cross. His real target was what Paul says it was – sin.

Again, we need to be faithful to Paul in the details. He means what he says in Romans 8:3 just has he does in Romans 2:6-7.

 

[ivdavid]

Drew,

I believe we've hit upon the fundamental beliefs - and yours seem grossly in contradiction with Scriptures. So my suggestion is to put a hold on every other argument and to get these fundamentals sorted out. Build on the solid rock - start from Jesus Christ.

I will now say the bit that will no doubt make people even more upset with me than many are already: I believe that certain elements of the reformation have misunderstood the very nature of the atonement, seeing the death of Jesus as satisfying "God's need to punish somebody" to maintain some kind of cosmic ledger of justice.

You're most probably right - this will make a lot of people upset! It already has made me upset. "Certain elements of the reformation have misunderstood"? Which elements didn't misunderstand? Who actually goes about denying that Jesus died in place of us for our iniquities and sins to declare the righteousness of God? I want to know if this is the majority view as you make it out to be.

I think we need to abandon this idea that God's "sense of justice" demands that somebody undergoes suffering for sin in the form of some punishment. What kind of a God is that?

Exactly the kind of God He claims He is - Just and Righteous.
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

What is meant by propitiation for remission of "past sins"? And why is God to be "declared" Just?
Isn't it because He overlooked the sins of the world through His forbearance until the coming of Christ? And any perfect judge isn't to overlook any sin. Only Christ's sacrifice declares God's justice in dealing with sin. The innocent Lamb was slaughtered for our sins. What else do you think the OT sacrifices symbolized? What do you think atonement means? Why do we need to get reconciled with God and be justified in His presence if sin were only a disease? And still you think we need to abandon this idea?

We walked in sin. The wages of sin is death. Hence, we are to die. Period.
But Christ takes our place, faces the wrath of God on the cross on our behalf, reconciles us with God - having justified us by His blood through faith working in love.

So I do not think that God was in any sense punishing Jesus on the cross.

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to crush Him; to grieve Him; that He should put forth His soul as a guilt-offering.....
Fighting and "deactivating the force of sin" isn't the same as defeating the power and guilt of sin. We no longer are held captive by our guilt for we are forgiven in Christ. If not for Christ's guilt-offering, we wouldn't be free from the accuser of the brethren and our own guilt. We are also given the Spirit of power - hence no longer under the power of sin. This doesn't mean that our sinful nature(flesh) is deactivated. We are only freed from being enslaved to it through the propitiatory work of Christ on the cross.

 

[ivdavid]

Re: Fundamentals 2

...continued from previous post.

And what's the point of saying that we'd be justified by good works if we're not then condemned by our sins. What happens when we sin again now? Don't we confess and seek forgiveness and remission of sins? What exactly are we doing here? Aren't we appealing to Christ's sacrifice on the cross on our behalf to justify us inspite of our sins? Aren't we appealing to God's mercy to not impute this sin on us? But if God is to be Just, the sin has to be dealt with - this is exactly what happened when our sins were imputed on Christ at the cross. By Jesus's blood we are justified.

And now if our sins are not imputed to us, then we aren't condemned by our sins. And if we aren't condemned by our sins, then what is the point in saying we are saved by our good works? As if there is a third alternative besides good works and sin - there is no neutral - either you're for God or against God; either you walk according to the flesh or you walk according to the Spirit; either you do good works or you sin.

So, I suppose I agree that if activity "X" ins not a good work, it is probably sin. What about sleep? A good work? Probably not. But also not sin. So I am not entirely sure I would ascribe to your generalization in all cases.

We'll have to agree upon a working definition for "good works". You seem to hold a "neutral level" and anything above that is "good work" and anything below that is "sin". I look at it as "by the Flesh" and "by the Spirit" - this way it is binary and there is no neutral.

Actually, I concluded from these verses what exactly would be considered sin -
Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
Rom 14:23 ...... for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

So, according to the James verse, if I slept when I knew I had to do a good work(work, according to the Law of the Spirit) but ignored it, then sleep is sin. It's a gratification of the flesh and not walking in the Spirit.
But how do I know how long I can sleep before I do that work? This I gather from the Romans verse which says that I should act according to faith - If I lack faith in my decision/action, then it is sin.

Would you agree?

 

[ivdavid]

Justification, as Paul uses the term, is primarily a covenantal term - it is the declaration that a person is a member of God's true family. And it is not a statement about how you got into that family, but rather a declaration that you are in.

So you'd agree with the common working definition of justification - to be declared righteous before God; to be put right with God; to be reconciled with God etc., right?

I believe that I ascribe to the standard "sense" of this term": Judgement is effectively a "lawcourt" concept - an evaluation of whether some party has, or has not, conformed to some standard or "law".

And since we are not under the Law of Moses now, can we safely assume that this law is the Law of the Spirit of Life(Rom 8:2) or the Law of faith(Rom 3:27)?

I think so. Or at least I read Paul (and others) as drawing a conceptual distinction between "heart belief" (faith) and how you live. Of course, the fact that I think that faith and good works are conceptually distinct does not, repeat does not, mean that I think that "real" faith does not always results in good works, through the action of the Spirit.

Just to clarify, when you say - "[it] does not mean that I think that "real" faith does not always results in good works, through the action of the Spirit." - do you imply that good works can happen without faith (separable in this sense)?
I hope not, considering this verse -
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

If not, then faith and works are inseparable in practice, right?
This reply of yours, depends on your concept of faith.

In fact, this is what I believe: True "heart belief" faith results in the gift of the Spirit which invariably produces good works.

You've explained what happens when you believe and through your belief but what exactly is the substance of your belief? And if this is not answered confidently, then what is it that you believed in? And if you're unsure of what you believed in, then how are you so sure of being justified? For only those who believe in Christ are saved; how then can a person be saved without believing? And how can a person believe without being sure of what he believes in?

From what you've said, I think you mean that you "believe in Christ" to give you the Holy Spirit. And according to you here -

According to your belief, since all our good works are wrought by the Holy Spirit, then all who have the Spirit will be saved, right?

Yes, most definitely.

Now, if faith is all that is required to be given the Holy Spirit and if all who have the Spirit do good works and are saved, then isn't faith the only differentiating criteria?

Now, when you put your faith in receiving the Holy Spirit from Christ, you're actually putting your faith in being saved eternally by the free gift of Christ and this you receive through faith - in short, eternal life through faith. What then is the argument about?

To avoid the above conclusion, one must state that actually, not all who have the Holy Spirit do good works. But can man live an entire life of continual unrepentant sin and still have the Holy Spirit?

 

[Drew]

I believe we've hit upon the fundamental beliefs - and yours seem grossly in contradiction with Scriptures.

I trust you have read enough of my posts to know that I take the scriptures very seriously. If you can make a case that I have misinterpreted them, I am all ears.

You're most probably right - this will make a lot of people upset! It already has made me upset. "Certain elements of the reformation have misunderstood"? Which elements didn't misunderstand? Who actually goes about denying that Jesus died in place of us for our iniquities and sins to declare the righteousness of God? I want to know if this is the majority view as you make it out to be.

I have never denied that Jesus took our place. But to "take our place" does not necessitate a strict "punishment model". Let's say that you have some kind of virus that can only be destroyed by being blasted with radiation while in a human body. If I volunteer to have your virus-laden laden blood transfused into me (while you get my "clean" blood) and I then volunteer to blasted with radiation, I have "died in your place" even though I am not being specifically punished. Do you see what I mean now?

Remember exactly what Paul says in Romans 8:3 - who gets condemned on the cross? Jesus? No. Sin.

 

[Drew]

I think we need to abandon this idea that God's "sense of justice" demands that somebody undergoes suffering for sin in the form of some punishment. What kind of a God is that?

Exactly the kind of God He claims He is - Just and Righteous.

I was unclear in my earlier posts. I am not saying that evil does not need to be punished. I am saying that the Bible does not really lead us to conclude that Jesus was punished. I read Paul carefully in the details. And Romans 8:3 tells us that sin was the real target of condemnation at Calvary.

Jesus bore sin as sin was condemned. This does not, repeat does not, require us to understand Jesus as being punished. I suggest it is more consistent with Paul's Roman 8:3 statement (and other things as well) to conclude that sin was punished on the cross, not Jesus.

Which only makes sense, after all.

 

[Drew]

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

What is meant by propitiation for remission of "past sins"? And why is God to be "declared" Just?
Isn't it because He overlooked the sins of the world through His forbearance until the coming of Christ? And any perfect judge isn't to overlook any sin. Only Christ's sacrifice declares God's justice in dealing with sin. The innocent Lamb was slaughtered for our sins. What else do you think the OT sacrifices symbolized? What do you think atonement means? Why do we need to get reconciled with God and be justified in His presence if sin were only a disease? And still you think we need to abandon this idea?

I politely suggest that you read these texts through a grid of interpretation that you bring to these texts.

These texts can be perfectly read through the "cleansing / repair" model that I am advocating, rather than the "punitive subsitution" model that you appear to embrace.

But I politely suggest that you have inverted Paul's model of justification, making justification primarily a forensic term, when, in fact, I believe that Paul uses the concept of justification in primarily a covenantal mode.

For Paul, to be justified means (primarily) to be declared to be within the confines of God's true family. For Paul, the lawcourt model is really just an explanatory grid of metaphor through which to explicated the fundamentally covenantal meaning he ascribes to justification.

And let's indeed talk about the Old Testament. Why, and please be precise, do you believe that the sacrificial system represented God "punishing" these "flawless" animals as specifically contrasted with an interpretation where the animals become the "repository" for sin and the animal dies as God, symbollically at least, executes judgement on the "sin" in these animals.

 

[Drew]

We walked in sin. The wages of sin is death. Hence, we are to die. Period.

I agree, but this is not an argument that God punishes Jesus on the cross. Paul says that God punished sin on the cross.

But Christ takes our place, faces the wrath of God on the cross on our behalf, reconciles us with God - having justified us by His blood through faith working in love.

I trust that you understand that Christ can take our place and still not be target of God's wrath.

It is sin that is borne in the flesh of Jesus that is the target of God's wrath. Or at least that is what Paul says.

So I do not think that God was in any sense punishing Jesus on the cross.

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to crush Him; to grieve Him; that He should put forth His soul as a guilt-offering.....

You are doing it again - assuming that this "crushing" and being put forward involves Jesus being punished. One can read this perfectly well as Jesus being the place where sin is heaped, and then sin is defeated through crushing the "vessel" - Jesus who bears this sin.

This is no more "punishment" than a man who dives on top of a live grenade is "punished" in order to allow his comrades to live.

 

[Drew]

This doesn't mean that our sinful nature(flesh) is deactivated. We are only freed from being enslaved to it through the propitiatory work of Christ on the cross.

A number of translations render Romans 3:25 without the concept of propitiation. This is important. The concept of propitiation involves have Jesus put forward to sate the wrath of God. But look how two reputable translations have rendered this text:

God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. 5 This was to demonstrate 6 his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed;

The "propitation" translation is at least questionable. One could also interpret the Greek as referring to the importantly different concept of expiation. What is expiation? It is the wiping away of something that is unclean.

I trust you see how the "expiation" reading coheres perfectly with the model I am supporting.

 

[Drew]

Re: Fundamentals 2

...continued from previous post.

And what's the point of saying that we'd be justified by good works if we're not then condemned by our sins.

At the risk of sounding like a smart-aleck, you will have to ask Paul that question. But it is with Paul in Romans 2 and Romans 8 (and elsewhere) that you have an issue. Are you saying that we need to "perfect" to enter heaven? If so, I would like to the evidence for that.

ivdavid, what do you think Paul is telling us here:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

I am not saying I have "all the answers". I am saying that I take Paul seriously - when he says that ulitmate justification is by good works, I have to believe him. Does Paul here say that eternal life is only granted to those who never sin? No. He says it is granted to those who persist in the pursuit of good.

 

[Drew]

Re: Fundamentals 2

So, according to the James verse, if I slept when I knew I had to do a good work(work, according to the Law of the Spirit) but ignored it, then sleep is sin. It's a gratification of the flesh and not walking in the Spirit.
But how do I know how long I can sleep before I do that work? This I gather from the Romans verse which says that I should act according to faith - If I lack faith in my decision/action, then it is sin.

Would you agree?

I would agree with you on this point.

 

[Drew]

Justification, as Paul uses the term, is primarily a covenantal term - it is the declaration that a person is a member of God's true family. And it is not a statement about how you got into that family, but rather a declaration that you are in.

So you'd agree with the common working definition of justification - to be declared righteous before God; to be put right with God; to be reconciled with God etc., right?

Well, I think we need to be more precise. I believe that Paul uses justification primarily to denote the declaration: " you are a member of my true family, you are a true descendent of Abraham". But I think that the forensic meaning is important too. So yes, when God "justifies" you, this is a statement that you have been found to be in the right. But this does not means that you are seen as entirely perfect or that "God sees Jesus" when He looks at you. I am prepared to argue that the concept of the imputation of Christ's righteousness is not a Biblical one.