Romans 2

[Drew]

I suspect this may elicit a "here we go again" response from some (many?). But since we haven't fought over justification issues for a while, I thought I would stir the old pot...

Please tell me your opinion of what Paul was thinking and trying to tell us at the exact moment he wrote the following statements (I added bolding, of course):

7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good:

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.

Please give an opinion as to what Paul was intending us to understand when he wrote these three statements. Clearly I am interested in the "how are we justified" question.

While you may wish to talk about other verses, I would ask that, at least, you give a clear statement about what you think Paul meant when he wrote the specific statements listed above (from Romans 2).

 

[Vic C.]

I suspect this may elicit a "here we go again" response from some (many?).

LMBO! I'll stay out of this one this time, thank you very much. I'll be watching though. :

Drew, link them to the last thread for references' sake. ;-)

 

[Devekut]

Drew,

I thank you for your persistence here, holding up the the fact that, as Christians always believed until the last several centuries, that works have their role in salvation, that they do not merely verify the life of faith, but are the active co-operation with the grace of God in which we are saved.

 

[Drew]

Drew, link them to the last thread for references' sake. ;-)

I think that both of these threads address the Romans 2 issue:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30806
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30673

 

[guibox]

Drew, to me the context of Romans 2 is being 'judged rightly according to the light given'. Paul makes this clear based on the Gentiles 'sinning apart from the law'. They are a law unto themselves because they are not aware of the law. God judges them righteous or condemned (i.e, interpret this as or ''held according to their heart or ''held accountable according to the letter of the law').

This to me is the setting and interpretation of Romans 2:13, not that Christians are saved by observing the law or doing good things.

Second, the question must be asked in vs 7, does 'doing good works' directly result in salvation because of it, or is it merely a catalyst to something that does. Notice the wording:

"To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory, and honor and immortality"

It doesn't say that 'well doing' gives us eternal life, but that it all who persist in good works are caused to SEEK glory and honor and immortality. What is this well doing? Is it what we call 'good deeds' or is it in seeking out the one who can save us, trusting in His righteousness'. The Bible says that our righteousness is as filthy rags. 'well doing' doesn't mean anything in and above itself if they are good works for without Christ it is nothing. We are NEVER good enough to be considered 'honorable' or 'glorious' or even have immortality. Only when we are 'under the Lamb' do these things apply to us, and it is these things that are our saving grace.


In the context of these verses, to say that 'well doing' is what 'saves us' and that being 'justified' in vs 13 (to be set right with God and saved) means that we can interpret Paul's words as that we don't need Christ to be justified. By simply analyzing these verses as they are, this MUST be the conclusion that Paul comes to. Paul would be contradicting himself in Romans 3:26-28 by saying that 'nobody is justified by the law'.

So Paul is not supporting a works oriented salvation in Romans 2.

This is why we need to take everything and not just analyze a few verses. Paul clarifies that everything having to do with obedience is found in Christ, His robes of righteousness and His perfect obedience.

This 'justification by sanctification' has been a bane in my own church since it's inception. It is too bad that so many other Christian denominations are giving up the Reformation message for works oriented salvation and 'salvation by sanctification'. The ugly fruits of that is 'sinless perfection' (which can be supported in the Bible if one tries hard enough).

The bible must be taken as a whole and allow it to clarify and explain itself otherwise it can be made to contradict itself (especially Paul)

 

[Drew]

Second, the question must be asked in vs 7, does 'doing good works' directly result in salvation because of it, or is it merely a catalyst to something that does. Notice the wording:

"To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory, and honor and immortality"

It doesn't say that 'well doing' gives us eternal life, but that it all who persist in good works are caused to SEEK glory and honor and immortality. What is this well doing? Is it what we call 'good deeds' or is it in seeking out the one who can save us, trusting in His righteousness'.

I have some empathy for your argument here, but at the end of the day, I suggest that you have to make Paul into a rather confused and somewhat incompetent writer. And I just don't think that is true.

I think you are making a somewhat implausible assertion in respect to verse 7. The verse has the structure:

"To them who, by persistence in doing x, seek y, He will give eternal life"

I use x and y in an attempt to step back from any theological bias we might bring to such a statement. I suggest your take on this verse is far less plausible than the view that Paul is indeed asserting a cause and effect relationship between doing "x" and receiving eternal life.

I assert that "normal" conventions of english usage lead to the conclusion that the seeking of y is constituted by the doing of x. And if this claim is correct, I do not think your position here is plausible. I do not have a degree in English, and we need perhaps to know the original Greek, but if I say something like:

To those who by persistence in doing x seek y, he will give eternal life

one is driven to the conclusion that the seeking of "y" is made up of, composed of, constituted of, the doing of x. That is how I suggest most english persons would read this.

You seem to argue that the cause and effect relation lies between "doing good" and "seeking", and that the giving of eternal life is causally decoupled from "doing good" and that it is the "seeking" that is causally coupled to getting eternal life. If you could make that stick, I think you would have a strong point. But that is not the conventional way to read a sentence of that structure. The sentence structure forces us to see the "doing of x" as not causing the "seeking" but rather as being the content of the seeking - the way the seeking manifests itself. The key word is the "by".

Suppose I write this in a memo to all my underlings at work (I have none in actuality, but that is beside the point):

To those who by persistence in signing up new customers seek the advancement of the company, I will give a raise

...no reader would fail to deduce that the raise is based on the "signing up of new customers". It is not based on the "seeking of the advancement".

Besides, there are still verse 10 and 13 - I suggest one does too much violence to linguistic convention if one tries to the take the "good works cause justification" out of them.

 

[Drew]

This is why we need to take everything and not just analyze a few verses.

While I agree with you on this as a general principle - and you know that we both use this principle in support of our (minority) view on the annihilation question - I think that is has an Achilles heel in its application here.

Paul wrote these statements;

7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good:

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.

He must have intended to tell us something by them. And the plain reading seems pretty clear. Three times he re-asserts the same thing in different words - good works are the basis for getting eternal life.

It is fine to suggest that other texts "amplify, clarify, etc" some text "X". But that only really works where X is ambiguous. And I do not see how one can argue that the Romans 2 texts are ambiguous.

It is one thing to say that statement 2 "clarifies" statement 1 in this example:

1. Drew's favourite hockey team is in the northeast conference
2. Drew's favourite hockey team is the Montreal Canadiens.

But I suggest that the situation with the Romans texts is like the following one:

1. Drew's favourite hockey team is the Montreal Canadiens.
2. Drew's favourite hockey team is the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Statement 1, like the Romans 2, text is unambiguous to competing interpretations. So statement 2 does not "clarify" statement 1, it contradicts it.

What I am about to write may seem a tad unfair, but here goes. When I ask people in another forum, who deny any role of good works in justification, to explain what was in Paul's mind when he wrote these 3 specific verses (Romans 2:7, 2:10, 2:13), they simply do not answer the question - they dance. To me this suggests that to actually take these texts seriously - to believe that Paul meant something when he wrote them, forces us to have to develop a "theology of justification" that includes both "justification by faith" (which we know Paul teaches) and "justification by works" (which I am convinced Paul is teaching in Romans 2).

I assert that this proposal bounces off most people - they see it is an inherent contradiction. I suggest that this is because - like the 21st century western Christian unwilling to take off his Hellenist glasses (gui, you know what I am talking about) - they apply non Biblical assumptions about the structure of justification

In short, I suggest that Paul's model of justification is "time-structured" and a subset of this model is this:

We are justified by faith and faith alone in the present but by works at the day of judgement. This is possible precisely because when we place faith in Jesus in the present, the Spirit is given to us and the Spirit ensures that the future works-based judgement will be favourable.

 

[Drew]

There is another reason why I think that Romans 2 forces us into a final justification by works position. I assert that the plain sense of the text clearly suggests justification at the judgement is by works. The person who rejects this still has to deal with texts like 2:7, 2:10, 2:13 - they cannot simply be tossed aside. Paul had some intended meaning in mind when he wrote them.

Fair enough. I do not have a "blanket" position that every Scriptural text is to be taken at "face meaning".

But let's not forget about the "dark side" of judgement described in Romans 2 - what happens to those who get condemnation and more specifically on what basis they are condemned:

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;

Do you think that "doing evil" here is "rejecting Jesus" or "good old fashioned doing bad things'. It think it is the latter, especially in light of what Paul was said a breath or two back at the end of chapter 1;

32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them

If Paul, in the Romans 2 text above, is talking about condemnation based on "evil deeds" and means literally what he says, how sensible a writer would he be to mix this in with statements about justification by "doing good" and intend us to understand "doing good" as something other than "doing good works".

The counterpoint is lost if he is talking about condemnation based on "doing bad things" and justifcation based on something other than "doing good things", all in the same tightly woven account. Do you really think Paul is that kind of a writer?

Perhaps you will say that "doing evil" means to "not believe" and "doing good" means to have faith and thereby re-establish the consistency. Well where do these kinds of liberties end? We know that Paul has set the stage with a grisly account in Romans 1 about all sorts of evil actions that men do. Has Paul suddenly switched gears in chapter 2 and is now talking about condemnation in a sense that is not based on "what you do"?

 

[handy]

Part of the answer here, and only part, is that those who are saved are indeed saved by His grace, but that those who are not saved are condemned by their actions. I suppose if it were possible that a man be born who is innocent and remains pure, never sinning in any thought, word or deed, he would go to heaven even if Jesus hadn't had died. However, that's not the real world. In the real world, we all sin. It needed an act of grace by God to enable anyone to come to eternal life.

However, for those who do not seek God's forgiveness, what of them? What will God say to them upon judgment day? It is at this time that the books are opened and the deeds are examine so that all who are condemned are condemned by their own actions.

Not that I don't think that our works account for nothing in our salvation. I cannot see how a person who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and bought in love by Jesus on the cross, can just accept His grace, then go on with his own life, la-de-da, totally ignoring all that God has set for us to do (for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works), and expect to ever see heaven. I know that Calvin would say that this person then had never been regenerated, but there have been too many instances where one who has testifed of fully following Christ, of being 'sold-out' to God and have done an about face.

 

[francisdesales]

But I suggest that the situation with the Romans texts is like the following one:

1. Drew's favourite hockey team is the Montreal Canadiens.
2. Drew's favourite hockey team is the Toronto Maple Leafs.

I thought Drew's favorite team was the Ottawa Senators...!

But back on topic, I think some of the problem that some Protestants have with Romans 2 is the definition of justification. Making it ONLY a one time event makes Romans 2 sound like we are saved by works. However, if one sees that justification is ALSO an ongoing process, a process where we are just in God's eyes, and other times, when/if we sin, are not very just in His eyes, then much of the problem evaporates.

No, we are not going to earn heaven by our works. However, our works in Christ are important to God and how He sees us. He has promised a reward to those who cooperate with His graces. As such, works in Christ are pleasing to God - since God desires our obedience to Him. The only thing that matters is faith WORKING in love.

Regards

 

[guibox]

Hey Drew, you know I respect you right? :wink:

But I'm going to have to disagree. I believe that Paul does engage in seemingly, somewhat 'verbal gymnastics' and is not as clear cut as we'd like to have it in English. One really needs to look deeper and sometimes rearrange or further explain what seems obvious on the surface.

If Paul was saying what you are saying, he really would be contradicting himself in these passages:

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Now we know that 'sin is transgression of the law' and 'good deeds' is following the law. Paul makes it pretty clear that the law can only condemn us, not justify us. Thinking that 'being a good boy' gains us salvific merit is to completely ignore the saving grace of Christ that was given to us while we were sinners and could do NO good works. Paul makes it clear that this act was what saved us. If our works after the fact saved us, Paul doesn't make any mention of it. Sanctification is not justification and it is justification (the act of making us right with God thus saving us) that makes us worthy for heaven. The act of Christ's robe of righteousness imputed to us.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

And yet, look at the next part in verse 10..

10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Paul makes a clear distinction between salvation by justification and sanctification. Justification saves us then AFTER, we are called to walk in good works. A changed heart will want to do the will of God.

The bottom line is that if sanctification had any part of our being saved, we could boast. Come on, when you turn away from temptation, when you choose to not commit adultery or kill someone, you can say 'the Spirit led me' all you want but it is YOU who made the choice. God gave you free will to turn away. He gave us conscience and will power.

If these things contribute anything to our salvation, then Christ need not have died for we could eventually choose NOT to sin and thus would not need a savior.

It almost seems that some people believe that God's graceful act of sacrifice merely set our 'original sin' meter back to zero, something we could not do. After that, however, it is up to us walking with the Spirit's power, to not commit sin and 'be good' to make ourselves worthy for heaven all the while saying 'we are doing it through the imparted righteousness of Christ, not our own works'.

However, this is not correct.

I will quote Clifford Goldstein an Adventist author when he said it quite poignantly about the idea of 'sanctification saving us':

I am baffled, because, unless my whole experience over the past 23 years is wrong, I can't imagine how anyone who knows the Lord, who has even seen a glimpse of God's righteousness as revealed in Jesus, could believe that whatever the Holy Spirit is doing in their lives is good enough to give them saving merit before God. If... the closer we get to Christ, the worse we seem in our own eyes, then how could anyone drawing near to Jesus believe that whatever is happening in them justifies them in any way? This idea is so alien, so repugnant and antithetical to all that I have experienced over the years, that I'm amazed that people actually believe it.

 

[handy]

It almost seems that some people believe that God's graceful act of sacrifice merely set our 'original sin' meter back to zero, something we could not do. After that, however, it is up to us walking with the Spirit's power, to not commit sin and 'be good' to make ourselves worthy for heaven all the while saying 'we are doing it through the imparted righteousness of Christ, not our own works'.

I know that many who are on the "grace alone" side of this debate perceive the opposition as believing this, but it's not the way most who view works as an integral part of our salvation see it.

We are saved for a purpose and that purpose is part of our salvation. The purpose being to do the good works that God has prepared for us before we were ever saved. (Ephesians 2:10. A lot of folks seem to stop a 8 and 9.) To ignore that purpose is to deny our salvation, our very creation actually.

Or, as it says in Titus 2:11-14:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldy desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

We should be zealous for good works. To often, we are engaged in explaining why we don't have to do them because we're saved by grace.

 

[BobRyan]

Francisdesales is very close to being correct on this topic. This is one topic in which a certain group's position is actually going to be helped by the content of scripture. I expect to see sudden strong endorsement of Sola-scriptura on this one topic.

In Romans 5 Paul distinctly references Justification PAST "HAVING BEEN Justified by faith we HAVE Peace with God".

But in all fairness to the RC argument here and accuracy in scripture - Romans 2 speaks of the future "When according to my Gospel God WILL judge all" and "it is not the hearers of the Law that are JUST before God but the doers of the law WILL BE JUSTIFIED" ( justification FUTURE).

Francis is correct to point out that there are TWO contexts for the term "Justification" as Paul uses it.

James also references that FUTURE idea in James 2 where works demonstrate the reality of the New Birth.

Recall Christ's words in Matt 7 "by their fruits you SHALL know them".

As much as i differ with the RC posters in areas where they completely leave the realm of Bible support in favor of tradition -- this is one topic where they should do well.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[guibox]

Yes, we are to do good works. If we have no desire to turn from sin and do good works, then it says something about our faith. However, if the sanctification process is part of our salvation and we are judged by the law, then if you committed a sin and died, you would be lost.

The law can only condemn us as a means to salvation. Doing good works is exactly what the Pharisees thought would make them right with God.

What makes us right with God, what makes us spotless and worthy of heaven?

We are ALL sinners...even the person who could live a perfect life. That 'sinness' cannot go to heaven. Only Chris's robe can do that.

don't you think that it is an insult to God to say 'Jesus put me on the right track to heaven, it is up to me to keep myself there? (I'm not preaching election or OSAS here). In other words, the majority of work in getting to and staying in heaven becomes our doing, not Christ's.

This is a slap in the face to the grace of God that took us from our sinful condition to save us and give us a place in heaven.

 

[handy]

don't you think that it is an insult to God to say 'Jesus put me on the right track to heaven, it is up to me to keep myself there? (I'm not preaching election or OSAS here). In other words, the majority of work in getting to and staying in heaven becomes our doing, not Christ's.

Yes, it would be, if anyone was truly saying this. But, I for one, don't believe that anyone is. At least, I'm certainly not. Nor are Christians judged by the Law. You were much closer when you said this: "Yes, we are to do good works. If we have no desire to turn from sin and do good works, then it says something about our faith."

If God's grace was enough to forgive our sin before we were believer's, how much more so is He capable of forgiving the sin of those who believe. As Christians, "if we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 Jn 1:8) Yes, it is very true that as Christians, we rely totally on God's forgiving grace.

But, that doesn't negate the fact that we are saved to do the good works that He has prepared for us to do. If we consistantly deny this part of our life in God, if we continously turn our back on doing good and decide, "Hey, I'm covered by His grace, I have a free ride to Heaven now so I can do whatever I please", then, as you say, it says something about our faith.

What we have here are the classic 'extremes' of looking at this issue:

"Jesus put me on the right track to heaven, it is up to me to keep myself there."
"Hey, I'm covered by His grace, I have a free ride to Heaven now so I can do whatever I please"

What is the truth? The truth is that both extremes are heresy! Neither is at all God's truth or what the Scriptures teach us about salvation.

The reason why this divide remains in the Church though is largely, IMHO, because the 'works' crowd and the 'grace' crowd are too busy pointing out where the 'other side' is wrong and not examining their own side to see if there might be something just as wrong there.

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales is very close to being correct on this topic. This is one topic in which a certain group's position is actually going to be helped by the content of scripture. I expect to see sudden strong endorsement of Sola-scriptura on this one topic.

I can imagine that took a lot to admit that, after our recent discussions. It is appreciated. However, we DO believe that ALL of our doctrines are in compliance with Scriptures and that there is not ANY "Traditions" deemed apostolic and AGAINST the Sacred Writ. But I won't derail this thread with further such comments. From our point of view, we Catholics are glad that many Protestants have not completely left the faith of their Fathers, a faith that was one a thousand years ago... A faith that was Catholic and universal. If you choose to comment on that, feel free to PM me or start another thread.

Justification is quite synonymous with sanctification, both being processes. God's ENTIRE plan of salvation is to MAKE us holy. To call us to HIm. That's the message of Scriptures in one sentence...

And as we cooperate with the graces He gives us, we are seen as just in His eyes. God grants us graces, expecting us to utilize them. When we appear before God upon our deaths, God will indeed judge us based on the good deeds (or evil) that we have done - not that our deeds earn us anything, because each good deed was motivated by the Spirit of Christ.

One must tread carefully when reading Paul - it is necessary that we take ALL of his writings into account, rather than looking at only one point of justification, our initial justification. I think the OSAS group tend to ignore those Scriptures that point to "justification by works", but there they are in Scriptures...

Regards

 

[BobRyan]

Francisdesales is very close to being correct on this topic. This is one topic in which a certain group's position is actually going to be helped by the content of scripture. I expect to see sudden strong endorsement of Sola-scriptura on this one topic.

I can imagine that took a lot to admit that, after our recent discussions. It is appreciated. However, we DO believe that ALL of our doctrines are in compliance with Scriptures

1. Then you should embrace the sola scriptura test that you want to claim for your doctrines -- just as you are going to be embracing all the scripture's evidence in your favor on this one.

2. BTW -- I never stated I was ever arguing "If it is Catholic it must be wrong". you guys have a good case here and I also believe you can make a good case in the OSAS threads.

But when you have to start objecting to the Bible -- you are own your own.

and that there is not ANY "Traditions" deemed apostolic and AGAINST the Sacred Writ. But I won't derail this thread with further such comments.

It would be very helpful if you would keep that in mind on the other RC topics -- why not start your replies in ALL threads with "I believe our traditions are in agreement with Scripture and am willing to have them tested that way"?

Justification is quite synonymous with sanctification, both being processes. God's ENTIRE plan of salvation is to MAKE us holy. To call us to HIm. That's the message of Scriptures in one sentence...

As I mentioned -- in Romans 5 Paul shows justification past and completed.

in Romans 2:10-13 he shows that there is another justification - one that is future and is done at the judgment "Where according to My Gospel" God will judg the secrets of all men.

There Paul says "It is not the hearers of the Law that are JUST but the DOERS of the Law WILL BE justified".

He does not declare this to be "ongoing justification" but rather two distinct justification events.

One that is past - at the conversion of the saint from sinner to saint.

One that is future -- at that future Gospel judgment scene. (Also mentioned in Dan 7:22 where "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints").

As I said -- your two justification concept is headed the right direction. However we have to stick strictly with the words of Paul -- saying nothing more -- nothing less.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[francisdesales]

1. Then you should embrace the sola scriptura test that you want to claim for your doctrines -- just as you are going to be embracing all the scripture's evidence in your favor on this one.

I believe in prima scriptura, not sola scriptura. The Bible itself denies sola scriptura. So in essence, those who follow sola scriptura are refusing to follow God's Word. This, at the end of the day, makes sola scriptura a tradition of men.

But when you have to start objecting to the Bible -- you are own your own.

I don't object to anything in the bible, when properly understood. You see, bible reading ALWAYS includes our own interpretation. That interpretation must be in line with the infallible teachings of the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth, the Temple of the Spirit. I do not think one can refute any Catholic dogmatic teaching from the Bible.

It would be very helpful if you would keep that in mind on the other RC topics -- why not start your replies in ALL threads with "I believe our traditions are in agreement with Scripture and am willing to have them tested that way"?

If they were not, the entire Catholic Church is false and who can tell if the bible is even the Word of God in the first place?

As I mentioned -- in Romans 5 Paul shows justification past and completed.

in Romans 2:10-13 he shows that there is another justification - one that is future and is done at the judgment "Where according to My Gospel" God will judg the secrets of all men.

There Paul says "It is not the hearers of the Law that are JUST but the DOERS of the Law WILL BE justified".

He does not declare this to be "ongoing justification" but rather two distinct justification events.

One that is past - at the conversion of the saint from sinner to saint.

One that is future -- at that future Gospel judgment scene. (Also mentioned in Dan 7:22 where "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints").

It follows that an action that will, in the future, makes us "unjust" will make us "unjust" immediately following the act itself. Thus, justification is ongoing. We are not just while committing spiritually deadly sins, my friend. It would be silly to say we are just after killing someone, and then only after we die, does God refer to that sin and call us unjust YEARS after the act...

As I said -- your two justification concept is headed the right direction. However we have to stick strictly with the words of Paul -- saying nothing more -- nothing less.

Paul didn't just teach what is written in the letters to the Romans and so forth. He spent YEARS with several communities. It seems quite obvious that Paul expounded on these teachings of his. Thus, he told us to hold onto ALL the teachings, whether oral or written. Oral teachings explain the written ones.

Regards

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan wrote:

As I said -- your two justification concept is headed the right direction. However we have to stick strictly with the words of Paul -- saying nothing more -- nothing less.

Francisdesales

Paul didn't just teach what is written in the letters to the Romans and so forth. He spent YEARS with several communities. It seems quite obvious that Paul expounded on these teachings of his. Thus, he told us to hold onto ALL the teachings, whether oral or written. Oral teachings explain the written ones.

As I "tried" to explain on the "Purgatory thread" this is an "open forum" no RC proofs outside the bible will be accepted as "common ground" by the objective unbiased reader. The only thing you can "count on" is that all the readers agree to the authority of scripture.

Bottom line - NO appeal to RC sources, NO appeal to "we just say so" and NO appeal to "I bet Paul also taught x, y and z though we don't actually find it in scripture". KEEP to the most widley ACCEPTED basis for authority and proof (scripture) and you have the greatest chance of "appealing to the unbiased objective reader".

The thing that is so amazing is that so many RC members come here AS IF the goal is "to remain Catholic at all costs no matter how the discussion is going" RATHER than the goal of a cogent, compelling objective argument that appeals to the MOST COMMON grounds of agreement between both sides so as to appeal to a neutral (NON-Catholic) objective unbiased reader!

It just so happens that when it comes to Romans 2 you are in a good position to make your case from scripture. If you can't do it here - then there is no place where you can do it because the entire chapter goes to make portions of your case.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Enough lecturing our Catholic brethren on the best way to form an argument in an OPEN forum.

On with our Romans 2 story.

Let the reader observe the details "in the text" for accuracy -

Rom 2
4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:

7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.


Rom 2
11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Why does Paul say that this is "According to MY gospel"??

Does he really believe that Judgment and Justification as he spells it out here - IS in fact the Gospel?

What are your thoughts?

in Christ,

Bob