Is Calvinism of the Bible?

[beloved57]

unred says

Perhaps you are thinking of this verse?
Romans 8
1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

I was going to use that verse but I foresaw the problem it would cause becuase of that phrase " who walk not after the flesh"

But I really have no problem with it , because all true believers are spiritual , and cannot walk after the flesh... All true believers have been severed from the flesh .

gal 5:

24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Walking after the flesh merely means a person is not regenerated or born again...not that we dont get caught up in the flesh sometimes and for very long times at that..

David who was a very spiritual man and Loved God..He probably was out of fellowship the whole time he began lusting after uriah wife up until nathan was sent by God to rebuke him..Its no telling how long of a span of time that was..David plotted the mans mureder on top of that, but david was never under the Judicaial condemnation of God, for God always viewed David in christ..In fact David penned these words :

ps 32

1Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.

2Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

I thank you greatly err my friend undo if you think that the elects not being condemned is depedent upon their practical life, thats works... Not walking after the flesh means one is in christ and walks by the faith of the son of God..

It is only the natural man who is not spiritual as in 1 cor 2 14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The new man or the regenerated man is spiritual in fact that man cannot sin according to 1 jn 3:

9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

And no I am not promoting a sinless perfection for the believer here on earth, but this is a principle to say that all true believers are spiritual and are not in condemnation ever because they are in christ..their saviour...

 

[Drew]

Verse 7 is not referring to a means of justification. The conclusion of this unit of material is found in 3:19-20. Verses like verse 7 leave all the world guilty before God since there is no one who meets the standard of "patient continuance in well doing." Of course those words are in the context of Judiasm. Verse 1 tells us that the reason for such statements is that the Jew is inexcusable" in judging others because they do not practice the law themselves.

The reason the Jew (or anyone in the world for that matter) always fails in "patient continuance) is found in verse 5. There is the hardness of the impenitent heart. This is not something man can change. If Deuteronomy 29:4 is consulted, you will see why the Jew could not repent, it was because God did not give them the heart. The circumcised heart is an act of God (Deut 30:6). Thats why chapter 2 concludes by talking about the inward Jew (Rom 2:29). So then, those justified by faith alone are they that continue in well doing. This begins with the heart circumcision of God. Those like you Drew that function like the Jew and try to achieve the standard of verse 7 will fail and see only guilt before God.

Verse 7 speaks of "seeking." Romans 3:11 makes it clear that no one seeks after God. When the just seek God, it is only by the ministry of God after salvation.

I believe this argument simply does not work. Plus you misrepresent my position. I will return to this.

Any claim that that Romans 2 is about "Judaism" or "Jews only" simply cannot be sustained by the text. Rome was a church of both Jew and Gentiles and Paul addresses the latter to all members of his church:

To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

How do you justify your statement that "Of course those words are in the context of Judiasm. Verse 1 tells us that the reason for such statements is that the Jew is inexcusable" in judging others because they do not practice the law themselves", given that chapter 1 gives no reason at all to conclude that Paul is only speaking to the Jewish component of the church at Rome?

Paul cannot be such a bad writer as to make a clear statement that people get eternal life based on the content of their life lived - as he clearly does in Romans 2:7 - and then later say something that implies that actually no people will get eternal life in this way.

Nowherere in the text leading up to Romans 2 does Paul say he is describing a way of justification that, while theoretically open to all, will in fact never be attained by anyone. Let the reader, if s/he is able, let go of Reformationally informed ideas and simply ask themselves this: Does the following text represent how you, as a writer, would present the idea that there is a "justification by works" pathway available to all persons, but that, in fact, will not be attained by anyone.

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism. 12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

I do think it is both fair and important to underscore how confusing this text is if the real intent is to communicate a path to justification that no one will actually attain. I think is rather self-evident that in verses 1 to 6, Paul is talking about a real judgement that will actually be carried out, not a "here is a theoretical scenario that will never be realized in reality".

Think of how odd it would be to write the following in verses 8 and 9, presumably intending to suggest that some will meet this criteria:

8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;

and yet in the very next breath make a statement that you know no one will meet (as you, the writer of this material, would then go on to explain in chapter 3)

10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

I just cannot accept that Paul is this muddled a writer.

You also argue as if Romans 3:11 forces us to see Romans 2:7 as a category that will have zero members in. I suggest that Romans 3:11 is basically saying, "without the Spirit, there is indeed no one who does good". Are you going to accuse me of inserting this "without the Spirit" qualifier? I suggest that such a claim will backfire since you seem to be basically doing the same thing in respect to Romans 2:7 - not taking it "as it reads" and instead reading an unstated "by the way, I am actually talking about a set with zero members in it" qualifier back into it.

And the following, as the careful reader will know is simply not a criticism that applies to my argument. The careful reader will know that I never argued that the believer's attaining to the standard of Romans 2:7 was something accomplished by my moral effort as the following strongly implies:

Those like you Drew that function like the Jew and try to achieve the standard of verse 7 will fail and see only guilt before God.

More about this later...

 

[Drew]

This is a little more complex than the the more simple: justification is a one-time event that occurs when we accept Christ. I wish things were that simple.

That is the simple Gospel. You reject that Gospel for another gospel (Galatians 1:8-9)

I have no idea where people get the idea that the gospel is that we "we are justified by accepting Christ by faith". The Gospel is not this at all, although justification by faith indeed results from it.

The gospel is the proclamation that Jesus has risen from the dead and is lord of the Universe, not "justification by faith".

To quote NT Wright on the matter:

The gospel’ is not ‘you can be saved, and here’s how’; the gospel, for Paul, is ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’.

This announcement draws together two things, in derivation and confrontation. First, Paul is clearly echoing the language of Isaiah: the message announced by the herald in Isaiah 40 and 52 has at last arrived. Saying ‘Jesus is Messiah and Lord’ is thus a way of saying, among other things, ‘Israel’s history has come to its climax’; or ‘Isaiah’s prophecy has come true at last’. This is powerfully reinforced by Paul’s insistence, exactly as in Isaiah, that this heraldic message reveals God’s righteousness, that is, God’s covenant faithfulness, about which more anon. Second, since the word ‘gospel’ was in public use to designate the message that Caesar was the Lord of the whole world, Paul’s message could not escape being confrontative: Jesus, not Caesar, is Lord, and at his name, not that of the Emperor, every knee shall bow. This aspect lies at the heart of what I have called ‘the fresh perspective on Paul’, the discovery of a subversive political dimension not as an add-on to Paul’s theology but as part of the inner meaning of ‘gospel’, ‘righteousness’, and so on.

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar:
Verse 7 is not referring to a means of justification. The conclusion of this unit of material is found in 3:19-20. Verses like verse 7 leave all the world guilty before God since there is no one who meets the standard of "patient continuance in well doing." Of course those words are in the context of Judiasm. Verse 1 tells us that the reason for such statements is that the Jew is
inexcusable" in judging others because they do not practice the law themselves.

The reason the Jew (or anyone in the world for that matter) always fails in "patient continuance) is found in verse 5. There is the hardness of the impenitent heart. This is not something man can change. If Deuteronomy 29:4 is consulted, you will see why the Jew could not repent, it was because God did not give them the heart. The circumcised heart is an act of God (Deut 30:6). Thats why chapter 2 concludes by talking about the inward Jew (Rom 2:29). So then, those justified by faith alone are they that continue in well doing. This begins with the heart circumcision of God. Those like you Drew that function like the Jew and try to achieve the standard of verse 7 will fail and see only guilt before God.

This argument is nothing more than man’s desperate attempt to place the responsibility to work out salvation upon God. There is hardness and an impenitent heart here because some are stubbornly insistent that God must not only give them salvation, but he must give them faith to believe, and a heart to do his will, otherwise, they will have no desire to do it, therefore relieving them of the responsibility. The truth is that God gives you the circumcision of the heart when you choose to follow Christ and his laws that he has written upon every heart. When we make the choice to obey, he gives us the needed strength to do it, as long as we are giving it our best. Is our best, perfect? No, we are human and perfection is not what we do, but God makes up the difference whenever we do give him our all.

quote by mondar:
Verse 7 speaks of "seeking." Romans 3:11 makes it clear that no one seeks after God. When the just seek God, it is only by the ministry of God after salvation.

No, Romans 3 makes it clear there is no difference between the Jew and Gentile as far as salvation is concerned, but that God is impartial even though the Jews were elect, they are still going to be judged by their works, just like everyone else. They are no better just because they are ‘the chosen people,’ as we know from their past history that Paul refers to in an example of their nearly total apostasy which was on a par with Gentile wickedness.

quote by mondar:
Drew wrote; “First, I did not write Romans 2:7, Paul did.â€Â

This is your first violation of your own theology. It was a very arrogant statement. You are not seeking patient continuance in well doing here. Now you have failed. You are guilty before God. To demonstrate your lack of repentance, just do a self check. You will do things like this again. Why? Because you are guilty.

Are you kidding? Drew has done nothing of the sort. He is merely stating a fact here. You read arrogance into it yourself. Coming from you, it might be an arrogant statement. As for the failure to be repentant, when the Holy Spirit corrects, that is when Drew will either repent or continue to grieve the Spirit. Since working out our salvation is an ongoing thing, we will constantly be growing in our new creation in Christ, as we learn how to please him and as we mature and get stronger with every test.

quote by mondar:
Verse 7 offers no atonement. In fact in all of Chapter 2 there is no atonement. There is no reckoning of righteousness from Christ. So then you are completely inconsistent in assuming that there is an atonement in chapter 2. You are on your own in Chapter 2, you are without Christ. By works, christ has become of no effect to you. You have fallen from Grace by your own works. Chaper 2 is not about the atonement, it is about the works of the law. So if you seek justification by the law, you will be judged by the law.
A sad testimony of your understanding of the atonement. The atonement does nothing more for you then the giving of the Spirit. For you there is no substutionary atonement since you go about to establish your own righteousness. Show me the atonement in Chapter 2.

Silly. When you faithfully continue in good works, in accordance with love, you are not just following the law, you are following Christ and when you love one another, the blood of Christ cleanses you from all sin, as promised in 1 John 1:7:
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin.

quote by mondar:
No, you and unred are on the same page.

I think we are definitely in the same book, but our views may vary from page to page as we read the Bible, having come to the same basic conclusions from different directions, which is further evidence of the truth of our position where we do agree.

quote by mondar:
Drew wrote: “And there is no conflict with Romans 4 at all. Following NT Wright, I will argue that we can coherently say that we are indeed justified by faith in that we indeed can now know with certainty that those who have faith in Jesus in the present will be justified by their works in the future.â€Â

Such a statement is a complete refusal to even read Romans 4:4-5. To the one who works, debt comes. That was made clear in chapter 2. This debt is the debt of one not under the atonement. You, unred, and others are some who work for your salvation. You have only debt.

Verse 5 is clear, those who recognize that they are helpless sinners, and that only faith can save, our faith is reckoned for righteousness. That is imputed righteousness. IT is Christ that is righteous, and the value of this righteousness is transfered to our side of the ledger. God judges us righteous on that basis. It is Christs righteousness that propitiates Gods wrath, not our own righteousness (Rom 3:25).

Of course it is Christ’s righteousness that propitiates God’s wrath against sin, but it by faith in the promise of eternal life that we work out the salvation he has made possible for us by his death.

quote by mondar:
That is the simple Gospel. You reject that Gospel for another gospel (Galatians 1:8-9)

The error here is Paul is not talking about a route to justification. This is the whole point of my statement that your theology makes justification a tautology. Maybe I used a word you did not understand. Your concept of justification is a tautology because it is meaningless for God to pronounce you innocent if you are already innocent.

I actually had to look it up. You’re just a wealth of new vocab.
1. linguistic redundancy: the redundant repetition of a meaning in a sentence, using different words 2. instance of linguistic redundancy: an instance of redundant repetition of a meaning in a sentence, using different words 3. logic: logical true proposition: a proposition or statement that, in itself, is logically true
I think I’ll go with 3. Our concept of justification is a logical true proposition, that is, in itself, logically true.

quote by mondar:
You who thing you have found something in yor own repentance according to your own flesh (Romans 4:1) and will try to boast before God in what you have done (Romans 4:2) will not be justified at all. You do it not by faith. So because you will fail in "patient continuance in well doing," you will be "judged by the law (Rm 2:12)." You will only stand guilty before God (Rm 3:19). You ask me to meet a standard you yourself will not keep. You are exactly like the Jew of Romans 2.

No, Mondar. We ask you to follow Christ, walk in love and depend on the blood of Christ to wash away your sin, when you repent and confess them daily. That is what patient continuance in well doing is. Knowing that it will be what you are going to be judged by will give you the incentive to persevere. See how the gospel sets you free to rise above the law and gives you power to press toward the mark of the high calling of Christ?

 

[unred typo]

quote by beloved57 on Wed Nov 28, 2007:
unred says:

Perhaps you are thinking of this verse?
Romans 8
1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.


I was going to use that verse but I foresaw the problem it would cause becuase of that phrase " who walk not after the flesh"

LOL. So you were going to use it but it actually supported what I’m saying and not what you’re touting. Truth in advertising. Good for you. Most people just cut it off at the offending point and present a truncated verse. You just made a slight inference that was more subliminal, hoping for the impact without the messy clean up. You don’t know me very well, do you?

quote by beloved57 :
But I really have no problem with it , because all true believers are spiritual , and cannot walk after the flesh... All true believers have been severed from the flesh .
gal 5: 24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

You have no problem with it because you have no compunction to simply change what it says to fit with your theology. Your new verse doesn’t help you either. Notice it says that “they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh†which is guess what? Works. It means that if you are Christ’s then you must take up your cross daily and crucify the evil desires of your flesh. Lucky for you I was able to find that chapter in Gal. 5 and give you the list:

19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

quote by beloved57 :
Walking after the flesh merely means a person is not regenerated or born again...not that we dont get caught up in the flesh sometimes and for very long times at that..

Actually no, ‘walking after the flesh’ means that a person is doing the things on the list Paul gave us, so there won’t be any confusion. When David was lusting after Bathsheba, committing adultery and plotting how to cover his sin, he was walking according to the flesh. When he confessed his sin and repented before God and the prophet, he was then reconciled to God. He still was judged and paid dearly by losing his beloved child by Bathsheba.

quote by beloved57 :
David who was a very spiritual man and Loved God..He probably was out of fellowship the whole time he began lusting after uriah wife up until nathan was sent by God to rebuke him..Its no telling how long of a span of time that was..David plotted the mans mureder on top of that, but david was never under the Judicaial condemnation of God, for God always viewed David in christ..In fact David penned these words :
ps 32
1Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
2Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

I bet you wish you could chop verse 2 right after the comma. Pity. Notice it is ‘those in whom there is no guile’ that God doesn’t ‘impute iniquity’ to. Would you like to talk about that? My dictionary says guile is cunning and deceitfulness: a cunning, deceitful, or treacherous quality. IOW, when we are honest and forthright about our sin, he forgives us. Not because we are in sin and it’s OK because we are the chosen few that he turns a blind eye to. Here is David’s confession:

Psalm 51:2 Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.

quote by beloved57 :
I thank you greatly err my friend undo if you think that the elects not being condemned is depedent upon their practical life, thats works... Not walking after the flesh means one is in christ and walks by the faith of the son of God..

It is only the natural man who is not spiritual as in 1 cor 2 14

It’s unred, not undo, but thanks for your concern. I am also concerned for you. Walking by the faith of the Son of God is doing works of faith, love and obedience. These words have meaning. They are practical and not just something we say that sounds good. You can’t just say them and not acknowledge what they mean. The natural man is a man who lives according to his sinful lusts of the flesh. Of course such a man is not being spiritual. We have all been called to live a spiritual life and put to death the flesh with it’s sinful lusts. Not just church goers and Bible readers, but everyone has been called to this way of salvation. I know that doesn’t make you feel special and important to God, but truth is, you’re not even going to be saved if you don’t follow Christ.

We have liberty from sins of the flesh and salvation in following Christ because following Christ is walking in love, which is the way we “walk by the faith of the Son of God:â€Â

13For, brethren, you have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Serving is work. Who told you there would be no works in salvation? ‘No boasting’ is not the same as ‘no works.’ You still work, you just don’t get to boast about it as if God saved you because he needed your paltry efforts, no matter how great and wonderful they are. Get real. God could create a rock to do what you do.

quote by beloved57 :
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The new man or the regenerated man is spiritual in fact that man cannot sin according to 1 jn 3:
9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

And no I am not promoting a sinless perfection for the believer here on earth, but this is a principle to say that all true believers are spiritual and are not in condemnation ever because they are in christ..their saviour…

Phew. I thought you might actually believe the verse to say what it says. I think it does say that the man who is born of the spirit doesn’t sin. I think we need to look at just who those born again people are. I know we can’t enter heaven until we are born again, but I bet not many attain to that level here on earth. I would even guess there were more in Paul’s day than today, at least there aren’t many in this worldly, greedy, lustful, backslidden nation of America.

BTW, could we shorten these a little? Starting with your reply... :wink: Vic's gonna be mad at me for taking too much space here. : :-D

 

[mondar]

The truth is that God gives you the circumcision of the heart when you choose to follow Christ and his laws that he has written upon every heart.

This is one of the most scripturally indefensible statements I have seen in a long time. Unred, nowhere does the scripture say that you have to choose God to have the law of God written upon the heart. Show me one verse that says there is a human requirement for the circumcised heart.

The Jew could not repent and follow God in the OT because God did not do a work in the heart of the Jewish heart. The OT is clear.

"Deut 29:4 but Jehovah hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day."

Repentance is the work of God in man. It is not the work of man for God. Without the work of Jehovah in the heart of man, no man has a heart to know, eyes to see, and ears to hear. There will be no knowledge of God or repentance without the work of God in the circumcised heart.

"Deut 30:6 And Jehovah thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live."

The person who loves God with all the heart, soul, is the person that God has circumcised their heart.

[quote:11057]quote by mondar:
Verse 7 offers no atonement. In fact in all of Chapter 2 there is no atonement. There is no reckoning of righteousness from Christ. So then you are completely inconsistent in assuming that there is an atonement in chapter 2. You are on your own in Chapter 2, you are without Christ. By works, christ has become of no effect to you. You have fallen from Grace by your own works. Chaper 2 is not about the atonement, it is about the works of the law. So if you seek justification by the law, you will be judged by the law.
A sad testimony of your understanding of the atonement. The atonement does nothing more for you then the giving of the Spirit. For you there is no substutionary atonement since you go about to establish your own righteousness. Show me the atonement in Chapter 2.

Silly. When you faithfully continue in good works, in accordance with love, you are not just following the law, you are following Christ and when you love one another, the blood of Christ cleanses you from all sin, as promised in 1 John 1:7:
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin. [/quote:11057]
When I raise the point that there is no atonement in Romans 2. You post some drivel that does not relate to the absence of the atonement in Romans 2.

[quote:11057] quote by mondar:
That is the simple Gospel. You reject that Gospel for another gospel (Galatians 1:8-9)

The error here is Paul is not talking about a route to justification. This is the whole point of my statement that your theology makes justification a tautology. Maybe I used a word you did not understand. Your concept of justification is a tautology because it is meaningless for God to pronounce you innocent if you are already innocent.

I actually had to look it up. You’re just a wealth of new vocab.
1. linguistic redundancy: the redundant repetition of a meaning in a sentence, using different words 2. instance of linguistic redundancy: an instance of redundant repetition of a meaning in a sentence, using different words 3. logic: logical true proposition: a proposition or statement that, in itself, is logically true
I think I’ll go with 3. Our concept of justification is a logical true proposition, that is, in itself, logically true. [/quote:11057]
Your concept of justification is not only scripturally wrong, but is a tautology. If you are already righteous enough to receive eternal life, what difference would it make for you to be pronounced righteous by the divine judge, God. The reduncy of Gods pronouncement of justification is meaningless if you are already righteous. What does it add? What would it do? Justification such as this totally misses the point of the recocking of righteousness in Romans 4.

 

[mondar]

That is the simple Gospel. You reject that Gospel for another gospel (Galatians 1:8-9)

I have no idea where people get the idea that the gospel is that we "we are justified by accepting Christ by faith". The Gospel is not this at all, although justification by faith indeed results from it.

The gospel is the proclamation that Jesus has risen from the dead and is lord of the Universe, not "justification by faith".

To quote NT Wright on the matter:

The gospel’ is not ‘you can be saved, and here’s how’; the gospel, for Paul, is ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’.

This announcement draws together two things, in derivation and confrontation. First, Paul is clearly echoing the language of Isaiah: the message announced by the herald in Isaiah 40 and 52 has at last arrived. Saying ‘Jesus is Messiah and Lord’ is thus a way of saying, among other things, ‘Israel’s history has come to its climax’; or ‘Isaiah’s prophecy has come true at last’. This is powerfully reinforced by Paul’s insistence, exactly as in Isaiah, that this heraldic message reveals God’s righteousness, that is, God’s covenant faithfulness, about which more anon. Second, since the word ‘gospel’ was in public use to designate the message that Caesar was the Lord of the whole world, Paul’s message could not escape being confrontative: Jesus, not Caesar, is Lord, and at his name, not that of the Emperor, every knee shall bow. This aspect lies at the heart of what I have called ‘the fresh perspective on Paul’, the discovery of a subversive political dimension not as an add-on to Paul’s theology but as part of the inner meaning of ‘gospel’, ‘righteousness’, and so on.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith.
---The only Gospel Paul could be talking about is the concept found in the development of Romans concerning justification.

Romans 5:1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
---Justification is by faith. Works only brings debt. No works brings justification.
Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.

Drew, you have no means of identifying a context. If you see the theology of a context disagrees with your theology you say "Oh, thats a jewish context." You determine what theology you want to believe and then dismiss any context that disagrees with your theology as "Jewish."

 

[Drew]

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith.
---The only Gospel Paul could be talking about is the concept found in the development of Romans concerning justification.

Romans 5:1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
---Justification is by faith. Works only brings debt. No works brings justification.
Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.

Drew, you have no means of identifying a context. If you see the theology of a context disagrees with your theology you say "Oh, thats a jewish context." You determine what theology you want to believe and then dismiss any context that disagrees with your theology as "Jewish."

With respect to your last statement, I am not the one who has claimed that Romans 2 is "about the Jews" - this is your claim. Since you seem to know so much about discerning the proper context, perhaps you can explain to the readers how it is that you have determined that Romans 2 is about the Jews when I see no statement at all to this effect. Quite the contrary, in Chapter 1, Paul addresses the letter to all at Rome - this would include both Jews and Gentiles.

And do you think the readers will not know that you are forced to say that Romans 2:7 applies to a set of persons with precisely zero members - this sounds very much like "dismissing" the plain sense of what Paul is saying here. What kind of a writer would expound at length about a means of justification that exactly zero persons will attain to? Why does he not preface his Romans 2 material with a "I am now going to tell you how people would be justified by works if they could be justified by works" disclaimer? I will post on this matter more later. In short, for Paul to wish to convey the sense you ascribe to him would make him a very confused writer - mixing statements about how people will actually be condemned with statements about how they won't be justified.

And on the matter of what the word "gospel" means, let me ask you a direct question: Are you disputing Wright's claim that history shows us that "the word ‘gospel’ was in public use to designate the message that Caesar was the Lord of the whole world". A simple yes or no will suffice.

But Paul tells us what the gospel is in chapter 1. Let the reader judge whether the gospel message is "the concept found in the development of Romans concerning justification" as you claim or whether it is that "Jesus Christ is risen from the dead and is lord of the Universe" as I claim:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

I also will challenge your interpretation of Romans 4:4 in a later post.

 

[Drew]

Just for the sake of the argument, let's suppose that it is indeed true that in Romans 2 all of Paul's statements about future justification by works describe a path to justification that none will successfully take. Let's suppose that Paul was a student in an English class and had submitted the entire book of Romans as an essay. Here is how I suggest that Paul would need to annotate a chunk of Romans 2 to explain to the teacher how it is this text is about the Jews (as I believe mondar has stated) and, more importantly, I would think, how the described path to justification will be successfully followed by precisely zero persons (as I believe mondar has also stated):

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things {***Even though I have not said the following stuff is about the Jews only, and even though in chapter 1 verse 7, I address this to all in Rome, I am really only talking about the Jews}. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. {***I do not really mean what I say here because later in this letter, chapter 3, I am going to write something different - that some will be justified without any reference at all to works, despite what I have just said. So while I have just said that those who persist in doing good will get eternal life, I intend to later say that there are zero persons in that set, but, by contrast, I do mean what I have just said in terms of the "wrath" - that set of person will contain a non-zero number of members. So even though it seems like I am talking about one real judgement with both 'good' and 'bad' verdicts rendered, I intend to communicate that this judgement will actually take place only in respect to the set who will experience wrath} 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile {***Yet I am really only talking about the Jews here, even though I refer to the Gentiles as well}. 11For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous {***I do not really mean what I am saying here about being declared righteous by the law - I am really talking about a path to justification that cannot be attained. For some reason I am telling you about how you won't be justified}. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

[mondar]

how it is that you have determined that Romans 2 is about the Jews when I see no statement at all to this effect. Quite the contrary, in Chapter 1, Paul addresses the letter to all at Rome - this would include both Jews and Gentiles.

Drew, inconsistency always amazes me. you quote the opening of the Epistle to the Romans as proof that Chapter 2 cannot be Jewish in nature, yet you yourself make Chapter 9 Jewish. 1:7 is merely the receiving audience, and not a contextual marker. That would be an elementary observation. Again, that is evidence you do not have skills to identify the rhetorical markers of a context.

The context of Chapter 1 and 2 is marked by both similarities and contrasts. In Chapter 1 Gods revelation to the Gentiles is found in nature (1:19-20) as compared with Chapter 2, where the revelation is the Law (2:12-15). The similarities are that both Gentiles and Jew are guilty under their different revelations. 1:20 marks the Gentile as "without excuse" and 2:15 speaks of the Jew suppressing knowledge or excusing themselves.

To mark Chapter 2 as specifically Jewish, Paul names them in 2:17ff. Yet he first alludes to the Jew in 2:1. It is the Jew who is the "O man, whoso ever thou art that judgest:" The Jew judges the Gentile for not keeping the law, but they themselves did not keep the law, but were hearers only. Drew, this kind of reminds me of you. You call me to repentance, but you yourself have not the works you would need to justify yourself. Your repentance is far short of what would be needed. Verse 7 does not say once in a while continuance, but patient continuance in well doing. Certainly the biblical ethic is for us to be holy as God is holy, not one iota less.

Chapter 2 is not about Jews? In 2:23 who boasts in the Law? Just after Chapter 2, in 3:1 Paul asks the logical question to follow up on Chapter 2. IF the Jew was not justified by works, then what advantage did the Jew have?

Drew, you make up contexts to suit yor theology. Justification is by faith alone, and you are outside the grace of God. You ask if there are 0 people justified by works, the answer is obviously yes, does not 3:10 say exactly that. There is none righteous, no not one. Or do you consider yourself some sort of exception that Paul did not see coming? Maybe it is you and Christ that are righteous ehh? Although there could be a little doubt in your mind about this Christ dude?

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar on Wed Nov 28, 2007:
Unred typo wrote: "The truth is that God gives you the circumcision of the heart when you choose to follow Christ and his laws that he has written upon every heart."

This is one of the most scripturally indefensible statements I have seen in a long time. Unred, nowhere does the scripture say that you have to choose God to have the law of God written upon the heart. Show me one verse that says there is a human requirement for the circumcised heart.

What statement have I made that is scripturally indefensible? ? A scripture that says you have to choose God to have the law of God written upon the heart? Show me where I even said that. I did NOT say you have to choose God to have the law of God written upon the heart. In fact, I have always maintained that God writes his laws on every heart, regardless of race, color, creed, spiritual condition or preferred toothpaste. I can and will show you where the Bible says there is “a human requirement for the circumcised heart,†as you put it. I did say that God gives you the circumcision of the heart when you choose to follow his Son and/or his laws and I stand behind that very scriptural statement.

It's taken from Deuteronomy 30. Let me go over it in context so you don't miss it again. My comments in italicized bold:

Deuteronomy 30
1And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you shall *call them to mind* among all the nations, whither the LORD your God hath driven you,
2And shall *return* unto the LORD your God, and shall *obey his voice* according to all that I command you this day, you and your children, with all your heart, and with all your soul;

When you come to your senses, and realize how stupid you were, and completely return to the Lord, AND OBEY HIM,*NOTICE HUMAN REQUIREMENT*

3That then the LORD your God will turn your captivity, and have compassion upon you, and will return and gather you from all the nations, whither the LORD your God hath scattered you.
4If any of you be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD your God gather you , and from thence will he fetch you:
5And the LORD your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and he will do you good, and multiply you above your fathers.
6And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live.

THEN the Lord will circumcise your heart so that you will not get drawn away after sin again, because he will remove those evil fleshly addictions from your heart so that you won't have those things causing you to depart from God.

quote by mondar:
The Jew could not repent and follow God in the OT because God did not do a work in the heart of the Jewish heart. The OT is clear.
"Deut 29:4 but Jehovah hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day."

I’m really tired of your chicken-egg arguments. Common sense should tell you that God would not require them to do what is impossible for them to do. Common sense should tell you that God is not shedding giant crock tears over Jerusalem who refuses to repent when he would love to gather them under his wing. Common sense should tell you that God cannot say that he is a righteous and just judge and not a respecter of persons while pardoning a few favorites that he is not going to judge by their works.

The reason God did not give them ears to hear, eyes to see and a heart to know the covenant Moses was about to give them, was because of their national unwillingness to obey up until this point in their history. They have by this time buried all their unbelieving parents in the desert and they are now ready to enter the land and God has given them the heart to do what they have chosen to do and believe he is able to do through them.

quote by mondar:
Repentance is the work of God in man. It is not the work of man for God. Without the work of Jehovah in the heart of man, no man has a heart to know, eyes to see, and ears to hear. There will be no knowledge of God or repentance without the work of God in the circumcised heart.

"Deut 30:6 And Jehovah thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live."

We did this. Scroll up. You didn’t read the entire chapter or you wouldn’t have used that verse, unless you just want to prove your view at any cost, including the misuse of clear Bible texts.

 

[Drew]

Drew, inconsistency always amazes me. you quote the opening of the Epistle to the Romans as proof that Chapter 2 cannot be Jewish in nature, yet you yourself make Chapter 9 Jewish. 1:7 is merely the receiving audience, and not a contextual marker. That would be an elementary observation. Again, that is evidence you do not have skills to identify the rhetorical markers of a context.

The context of Chapter 1 and 2 is marked by both similarities and contrasts. In Chapter 1 Gods revelation to the Gentiles is found in nature (1:19-20) as compared with Chapter 2, where the revelation is the Law (2:12-15). The similarities are that both Gentiles and Jew are guilty under their different revelations. 1:20 marks the Gentile as "without excuse" and 2:15 speaks of the Jew suppressing knowledge or excusing themselves.

To mark Chapter 2 as specifically Jewish, Paul names them in 2:17ff. Yet he first alludes to the Jew in 2:1. It is the Jew who is the "O man, whoso ever thou art that judgest:" The Jew judges the Gentile for not keeping the law, but they themselves did not keep the law, but were hearers only. Drew, this kind of reminds me of you. You call me to repentance, but you yourself have not the works you would need to justify yourself. Your repentance is far short of what would be needed. Verse 7 does not say once in a while continuance, but patient continuance in well doing. Certainly the biblical ethic is for us to be holy as God is holy, not one iota less.

Chapter 2 is not about Jews? In 2:23 who boasts in the Law? Just after Chapter 2, in 3:1 Paul asks the logical question to follow up on Chapter 2. IF the Jew was not justified by works, then what advantage did the Jew have?

Drew, you make up contexts to suit yor theology. Justification is by faith alone, and you are outside the grace of God. You ask if there are 0 people justified by works, the answer is obviously yes, does not 3:10 say exactly that. There is none righteous, no not one. Or do you consider yourself some sort of exception that Paul did not see coming? Maybe it is you and Christ that are righteous ehh? Although there could be a little doubt in your mind about this Christ dude?

Your arguments here simply are not correct. And I do not need to bolster my case with insulting jabs, because my arguments actually work.

Romans 2:6-13 are clearly addressed to all people, and not just the Jews. And that is the fatal problem for your position. The fact that in verse 1, he may have been talking about the Jews is of no consequence because in the 6-13 block, it is clear that he has reverted to addressing both Jews and Gentiles

Here is my evidence:

1. In verse 6, Paul says that he will give to each person according to what he has done - we have no reason to believe he is talking only about Jews. But just for the sake of being generous, let's provisionally entertain both possibilities - that he is talking about Jews only or that he is talking about Jews and Gentiles

2. In verses 9 and 10 - how this be any clearer - it becomes obvious that he is talking about both Jews and Gentiles as he explicity declares :

There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile

It is obvious (I will spell it out if I have to) that this "Jew + Gentile" scope reflects back on verse 7 and resolves the ambiguity - verse 7 cannot be interpreted as applicable only to Jews.

3. In verse 12, Paul again explicitly shows that the status of both Jews and Gentiles is in view - those apart from the law (Gentiles) and those under the Law(Jews).

And let the reader not be confused - the relevant verses are 7 and 13. Verse 7, especially shows that eternal life is granted based on the life led, and the above arguments show that both Jew and Gentile are in view

I agree that at around verse 14, Paul differentiates between the two groups. But that does your position no good. The damage has already been done by verses 7 and 13

It is obvious that the problematic verses - 7 and 13 - occur in contexts where both groups are being addressed - Paul repeatedly and explicitly states that this is the case. I do not see how you can sustain your view in light of such unambiguous evidence.

And Romans 9 is obviously about the covenant with Israel. I am happy to make that case.

 

[unred typo]

Just for the sake of the argument, let's suppose that it is indeed true that in Romans 2 all of Paul's statements about future justification by works describe a path to justification that none will successfully take. Let's suppose that Paul was a student in an English class and had submitted the entire book of Romans as an essay. Here is how I suggest that Paul would need to annotate a chunk of Romans 2 to explain to the teacher how it is this text is about the Jews (as I believe mondar has stated) and, more importantly, I would think, how the described path to justification will be successfully followed by precisely zero persons (as I believe mondar has also stated):

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things {***Even though I have not said the following stuff is about the Jews only, and even though in chapter 1 verse 7, I address this to all in Rome, I am really only talking about the Jews}. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. {***I do not really mean what I say here because later in this letter, chapter 3, I am going to write something different - that some will be justified without any reference at all to works, despite what I have just said. So while I have just said that those who persist in doing good will get eternal life, I intend to later say that there are zero persons in that set, but, by contrast, I do mean what I have just said in terms of the "wrath" - that set of person will contain a non-zero number of members. So even though it seems like I am talking about one real judgement with both 'good' and 'bad' verdicts rendered, I intend to communicate that this judgement will actually take place only in respect to the set who will experience wrath} 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile {***Yet I am really only talking about the Jews here, even though I refer to the Gentiles as well}. 11For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous {***I do not really mean what I am saying here about being declared righteous by the law - I am really talking about a path to justification that cannot be attained. For some reason I am telling you about how you won't be justified}. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

:-D LOL :-D Good work, Drew, no pun intended. I just read this after skimming through Mondar’s contemptuous accusation of your lack of repentance, his implications of your deficient reading skills and inability to discern context, not to mention your rather dubious scriptural integrity. How dare you be right when Mondar has given you his private interpretation that he has already judged to be far superior?

 

[Drew]

Unred's post leads me to another argument that indeed there will be a works justification for believers based on the content of the lives we live. Perhaps this really just an amplification to what unred has already posted. This argument involves a parallel between Romans 10 and Deuteronomy 30.

In Romans 10, Paul writes:

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."[a] 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Paul here is quoting the same Deuteronomy text that unred has referred to:

The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. 7 The LORD your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. 8 You will again obey the LORD and follow all his commands I am giving you today. 9 Then the LORD your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The LORD will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your fathers, 10 if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

11 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.

Please note the obviously intentional reference Paul makes to Deuteronomy 30 in respect to the law not being up in heaven or beyond the sea. Paul is no dummy. He wants to draw a connection to this Deuteronomy text.

It is no accident that Paul refers to Deuteronomy 30 in Romans 10 as he tries to explain what "righteousness by faith" is all about.

In Romans 10, Paul states:

The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming

The author of Deuteronomy writes:

No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it

The intent of the parallelism is self-evident: the "word of faith" that Paul is proclaiming is this: believing the gospel mysteriously and wonderfully effects a transformation "such that we may obey". This is a beautiful elaboration of how what otherwise seems impossible for us - that we will indeed pass the justification by works criteria of Romans 2:7.

The big error is to think no one meets Romans 2:7 simply because Romans 3:11 (for example) seems to make it impossible that anyone will pass the 2:7 test. It is precisely because God, through the Spirit "brings the word very near to you; in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it

 

[francisdesales]

Unred's post leads me to another argument that indeed there will be a works justification for believers based on the content of the lives we live. Perhaps this really just an amplification to what unred has already posted. This argument involves a parallel between Romans 10 and Deuteronomy 30.

In Romans 10, Paul writes:

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."[a] 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Paul here is quoting the same Deuteronomy text that unred has referred to:

The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. 7 The LORD your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. 8 You will again obey the LORD and follow all his commands I am giving you today. 9 Then the LORD your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The LORD will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your fathers, 10 if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

11 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.

Please note the obviously intentional reference Paul makes to Deuteronomy 30 in respect to the law not being up in heaven or beyond the sea. Paul is no dummy. He wants to draw a connection to this Deuteronomy text.

It is no accident that Paul refers to Deuteronomy 30 in Romans 10 as he tries to explain what "righteousness by faith" is all about.

In Romans 10, Paul states:

The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming

The author of Deuteronomy writes:

No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it

The intent of the parallelism is self-evident: the "word of faith" that Paul is proclaiming is this: believing the gospel mysteriously and wonderfully effects a transformation "such that we may obey". This is a beautiful elaboration of how what otherwise seems impossible for us - that we will indeed pass the justification by works criteria of Romans 2:7.

The big error is to think no one meets Romans 2:7 simply because Romans 3:11 (for example) seems to make it impossible that anyone will pass the 2:7 test. It is precisely because God, through the Spirit "brings the word very near to you; in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it

Excellent explanation, Drew.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Unred, I notice you fail to look at Deuteronomy 29:4. I dont blame you. The verse does not fit into your theology at all.

Also, your reading of Deuteronomy 30:6 is so poor, it is just simply unrelated to the text. 30:6 tells us that God will circumcise the Jewish heart to love him. The cause of that love for God is the circumcised heart. So without Gods action, we would still hate him.
"And the Lord they God will circumcise thine heart...to love the Lord.

The reason for Israel remembering, and loving the Lord with all their heart in verse 1-2 is explained in verse 30. They love the Lord and return to him, because the Lord circumcised their hearts.

Notice verse 8. Israel will begin to obey the voice of the Lord and do his commandments because of this circumcised heart. Before the circumcised heart, there is only disobedience, and Gods judgment on Israel.

 

[mondar]

Excellent explanation, Drew.

Regards

I have noticed that there is really no significant difference between the theology of francisdesales, unred, and drew.

 

[Drew]

Excellent explanation, Drew.

Regards

I have noticed that there is really no significant difference between the theology of francisdesales, unred, and drew.

The point being........?

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar on Thu Nov 29, 2007:
Unred, I notice you fail to look at Deuteronomy 29:4. I dont blame you. The verse does not fit into your theology at all.

Your interpretation of that verse does not fit into my theology at all. Actually I did deal with this verse previously but you must have missed it. Here is what I wrote in my last post:

The reason God did not give them ears to hear, eyes to see and a heart to know the covenant Moses was about to give them, was because of their national unwillingness to obey up until this point in their history. They have by this time buried all their unbelieving parents in the desert and they are now ready to enter the land and God has given them the heart to do what they have chosen to do and believe he is able to do through them.

The point I was countering was your insistence that the Lord had kept them from seeing, hearing and perceiving therefore we can assume that is why some of us cannot be saved today. I attempted to show you that it was their disobedience that kept them from a knowledge and understanding of the truth. The same is true today. If you refuse to obey, your understanding will be darkened. In some cases, that is a good thing because the more you know and still refuse to accept and obey God, the more your punishment will be. Let’s see what you have to do with this verse with your almighty Calvinism:

John 9:41
Jesus said unto them, If you were blind, you should have no sin: but now you say, We see; therefore your sin remains.

quote by mondar:
Also, your reading of Deuteronomy 30:6 is so poor, it is just simply unrelated to the text. 30:6 tells us that God will circumcise the Jewish heart to love him. The cause of that love for God is the circumcised heart. So without Gods action, we would still hate him.
"And the Lord they God will circumcise thine heart...to love the Lord.

Well, Mondar, without getting too graphic here, what is circumcision but a cutting away of that which is unnecessary? God is going to remove the other loves from their hearts. How does he do that? Does he take a spiritual knife and spiritually slice off the spiritually offending part of their spiritual heart? I think it is much more practical and real than that.

A friend of mine used to love, really love, pound cake. One day, his mother made him a huge pound cake and let him eat his fill. And he did. And to this day some 40 years later, he still hates pound cake. Now because his mother removed pound cake from his heart, do you suppose she will make you hate pound cake too? This is how silly your reasoning is.

What God did with those Israelites is what God did with those Israelites, not what he does with every person who ever lived. Can he make you understand things? Sure. Can you make your child understand things? Does that mean they can’t ever learn without you opening their hearts and minds to the truth? This is how bizarre the Calvinist theology is. It’s almost so far beyond reason that it is hard to even comprehend what you are all puckered up over.

Just look at what you have done here. “30:6 tells us that God will circumcise the Jewish heart to love him.â€Â…. “So without Gods action, we would still hate him.†Admit it, Mondar, that is just bizarre thinking. Who do you have to thank for such convoluted thinking? John Calvin, not the Holy Spirit. The sad thing it has so permeated the church that IT seems normal and the truth seems weird.

That said, is there an example to be learned from God’s dealings with the Israelites? Of course but it is not a blanket to wrap around the entire world of mankind. You do have to read with your mind in gear. The lesson to learn here is not that God must open your eyes, hearts, minds, but that you must obey God or he may shut them and let you wander in the wasteland of some bizarre theology for forty years. But the passage here is not even so personally interpreted. Let’s look at it context and not as a metaphor for Christians.

quote by mondar:
The reason for Israel remembering, and loving the Lord with all their heart in verse 1-2 is explained in verse 30. They love the Lord and return to him, because the Lord circumcised their hearts.

Notice verse 8. Israel will begin to obey the voice of the Lord and do his commandments because of this circumcised heart. Before the circumcised heart, there is only disobedience, and Gods judgment on Israel.

First of all, you have to realize that Israel is not a person, it is a people, of whom the entire populace has been replaced by the next generation, except for a handful of men and their children. These children have witnessed the loss of their new promised land by their unbelieving parents. They are now adults and ready to obey the God their parents spurned. God is finally going to take these obedient ones into the land. What about the ones who don’t obey? Is he going to circumcise their heart to obey and love him? No. He is going to smote that evil man and remove him from the obedient ones. This is the circumcision you read about. God is going to cut off those evil, idolatrous people from among the faithful congregation. But don’t take my word for this. Read it yourself:

Deuteronomy 29

18Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turns away this day from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there should be among you a root that bears gall and wormwood;
19And it come to pass, when he hears the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst:
20The LORD will not spare him, but then the anger of the LORD and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the LORD shall blot out his name from under heaven.
21And the LORD shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law:

I'm not making this up. God will circumcise the heart of those that obey and choose the Lord.



P.S. Mondar wrote: “I have noticed that there is really no significant difference between the theology of francisdesales, unred, and drew.†I don’t know what you’re getting at. I think that is a good thing, but we do have our differences. I have never met either of them, we are not the same person or share a common brain and we do disagree on several minor points. What was yours?

 

[Drew]

Drew, inconsistency always amazes me. you quote the opening of the Epistle to the Romans as proof that Chapter 2 cannot be Jewish in nature, yet you yourself make Chapter 9 Jewish.

Well then, I am afraid that you will need to level this charge to St. Paul, since I am merely following him where he goes.

Let the reader not be confused. The key passages of Romans 2 that have been relevant to my criticism of the "standard" reformed position have been verses 7 and 13. In order to support my argument I only need to show that it is these texts that are not directed only at Israel, but at the entire world. And that case has just been made in a recent post. So if readers think these texts are directed at Jews and not Jews+Gentiles, you'll have to dig up Paul and get him to take out those annoying statements like "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" (verse 9) and again "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile", verse 10. Not to mention verse 12. This makes it clear: verses 7 and 13 apply to all.

Now, of course, Paul has the right to write the epistle any way he wants to (or as the Spirit leads). Either way, to say that 2:6-13 are about all and yet Romans 9 is about Israel is a conclusion that is based on what Paul says, and is not at all an inconsistency as seems to be the accusation. I am not being being inconsistent if I simply follow Paul has he talks about different things.

We know who Paul is talking about in 2:6-13. What about Romans 9?

Romans 9 is about God's covenant with Israel and is essentially an argument by Paul that God has been faithful to it. Actually Paul's train of thought carries over into chapter 10. In summary, Paul is retelling the covenant history of Israel from the establishment of the covenant all the way through to and including covenant renewal. This is clear, if for no other reason, from the fact that a series of events, all having to do with Israel in covenant, are described that evolve in perfect correct time sequence order.

It is because Romans 9 and 10 are a re-telling of the covenant history of Israel that it is entirely unreasonable to think that Paul is making general theological statements about pre-destination of individuals in chapter 9. He is talking about Israel and when he talks of election, he is talking about the election of Israel. Here is the sequence of events in Israel's covenant history as set forth in Romans 9 (and 10):

- We have Abraham (start of the covenant) in verse 7a

- We move to Isaac in 7b

- In verses 10 through 13, we get to Isaac'ss sons - Jacob and Esau

- In verses 14 through 18, we move to Moses squaring off against Pharoah

- We then move to references to Old Testament material that deals with exile and restoration from exile (Isaiah is quoted as well as Hosea)

- In Chapter 10, Paul places Jesus in his proper place in the covenant history and quotes Deuteronomy 30. What is Deuteronomy 30 all about? - it is about covenant renewal. I will not pos the passage, but it is clearly about God's mercy after judgement, after exile.

Romans 9 and 10 are therefore about Israel's covenant history and how God has been faithful to his covenant, including how Jesus is the means by which the covenant is renewed and the narrative is now complete.

And much more can be said in support of the claim that Romans 9 and 10 are about Israel. Perhaps in later posts.