Romans 2

[BobRyan]

IT is very difficult to find a single case in all of the NT where Paul "or anyone" claims "The Gentiles have the Hebrew scriptures -- just not the LAW of God".k

In Acts 15:21 James points out "that Moses is read every Sabbath in the Synagogues" but in fact we know that it was "the Law AND the Prophets" with Moses simply being the highest single representative form of reference.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Drew]

I don't see Believers in Christ in this chapter, just Jews and Gentiles who don't know the Gospel.

1. In Romans 2, Paul writes this:

But 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.

You have said that the church will not be judged at this judgement. Given this belief, and assuming that you believe that only Christians will get eternal life with God, do you agree that this requires you to believe that Paul intends us to understand that precisely zero persons will be given eternal life at the Romans 2 judgement ? Please answer "yes" or "no", but of course add any explanatory material that you wish.

2. In Romans 2, Paul writes:

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

You have said that the church will not be judged at this judgement. Given this belief, and assuming that you believe that only Christians will get "glory, honour and peace" at the end, do you agree that this requires you to believe that Paul intends us to understand that precisely zero persons will be given "glory, honour, and peace" at the Romans 2 judgement ? Please answer "yes" or "no", but of course add any explanatory material that you wish.

3. In Romans 2,Paul writes:

For 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.

You have said that the church will not be judged at this judgement. Given this belief, and assuming that you believe that only Christians will be "declared righteous" at the end, do you agree that this requires you to believe that Paul intends us to understand that precisely zero persons will be "declared righteous" at the Romans 2 judgement ? Please answer "yes" or "no", but of course add any explanatory material that you wish.

 

[Drew]

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

Fore!!! - the true hockey fans amongst you may get the allusion given the precarious state of the Senators at this moment.....

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.

I agree with the spirit of this. I think one reason people deny the “plain message†of Romans 2 is that they seem unwilling or unable to reconcile the following 2 propositions:

1. We are justified by grace / faith;
2. We are justified by good works

I suggest that people see a contradiction here because they are applying an overly simplistic model of justification that Paul simply does not buy into – one where justification is a “one-time†event. If one thinks this way, then of course the above two statements conflict.

But we need to think Paul’s thoughts after him, not come to his text with a pre-decision that justification can only be conceived of as a one-time event. And while I won’t argue the point here, I think that Paul describes justification in a specifically time-structured manner – Paul talks about justification in three distinct tenses;

1. We are justified by the past actions of Jesus on the cross;
2. We are justified in the present by faith and faith alone in Jesus;
3. We will be justified in the future based on the good works that our lives manifest.

An example of item 3 is, of course, the material in Romans 2. I suggest that when presented with Romans 2, the correct response is to not deform it to make it fit with the “justification is a one time event†model, but rather take Paul seriously, drop our pre-conceptions, and let Paul tell us about the structure of justification and how it all works. I know you tire of me saying this, but to say that Paul is not asserting justification by good works entails the un-stated suggestion that Paul is “a little confused and muddled†in Romans 2 and we need to “correct†him by politely saying he doesn’t really mean what he seems to be saying.

And I think Paul’s justification model is actually not all that complex. I suggest that Paul’s model is more or less the following (at least in respect to present and future justification): In the present, the true covenant people – those that will be found to be in the right and be given eternal life – are marked out by faith and faith alone. If you point to a person who has truly placed his faith in Jesus in this life, that person is guaranteed to end up in “heaven†(I do not like the term “heaven†since I think our ultimate destination is a transformed Earth, but that’s another debate).

How can we reconcile this with the notion that, at the future judgement, we are given eternal life based on good works? Well, as I suggest Paul argues in Romans 8 and 10, when we place our faith in Jesus in the present, we are given the Spirit and the Spirit ensures that our lives manifest the good works that will be the basis for us getting eternal life as per Romans 2.

Is this model more complex than the “justification is a one-time evet†model. Undeniably. But at least it does not have the side of effect of forcing us to treat Romans 2 like we treat that embarrassing relative we don't our friends to meet.

 

[guibox]

Drew, while your argument sounds good it still pits Paul against himself.

Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9 doesn't say 'The first phase of justification is a gift from God and not of works lest any man should boast"

If justification is a three part process and we are judged by our works which add to that justification, then we can truly say it is of 'works'. It is all fine and dandy to say, 'it is not myself but the spirit that is doing good works in my life for me' but the fact is, is that you are not some automaton or possession of the Spirit that blindly does good works for you. Paul tells us that 'what I don't want to do, I do and what I want to do, I do not'. God has given us free choice. It is your choice to turn from temptation (regardless of whether you are spirit empowered) just as it is your choice to fall into sin.

If this is part of justification (which Paul says saves us) then it is part of ourselves. Paul says that justification and salvation are a gift from God.

The only way that you can say what you are saying is to say 'God's gift, His grace' brought us under grace and therefore, if we didn't have that step, all our good works mean nothing, therefore, everything falls under the umbrella of God's doing'.

However I don't believe that all God's grace did was 'set me in a state of grace so everything I do is now valid under the 'grace umbrella'. The purpose of God's sacrifice wasn't to set my sin clock back to '0' so I could then be saved by sanctification. To do so is to completely miss the point of who we are and why God had to save us instead of merely sending His Spirit down to give us power to obey.

We are only judged by our works to prove whether we had a saving faith or not. If we are truly saved or lost based on our good deeds, then we must believe that it is a 'weigh in the balances' 'pros and cons' list. Whichever side wins out, that is our destiny. Explain to me how 'bad works' are used to judge us if the blood of Christ's grace blots them out?

If there are bad works, then it means we didn't trust in Christ to cover those sins. We never gave them up therefore we never had a saving relationship. It must be thought of as a secondary proof, not a deciding factor in our salvation.

 

[Drew]

Drew, while your argument sounds good it still pits Paul against himself.

Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9 doesn't say 'The first phase of justification is a gift from God and not of works lest any man should boast"

Hello guibox. I have yet to answer some of your earlier posts. I think that there is no contradiction since in Ephesians 2, Paul is not denying justification by "good works", he is denying justification by the ethnic specificity of Torah - that is to say, by doing the "works" of Torah. That this is so can be seen by what Paul goes on to say in verses 11 and following. The fact that he makes the kind of "therefore" argument that he does make shows that it is Torah that is in view here. If Paul actually meant "good works", then the "therefore" argument which begins in verse 11 (reproduced below) makes no sense at all:

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men) 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit

This material is all about the Jew-Gentile divide - and that is demarcated by Torah, not by the "doing of good works".

This is the big problem with the reformed reading of "works". It requires us to scratch our heads and ask the following question: "Why is it that when Paul refers to "works" (taken as "good works"), it always appear in a context where the Jew-Gentile issue is in view?"

The answer is not to effectively assume that Paul is a sloppy wandering writer, it is to step back and realize that when Paul refers to "works" he is indeed referring to something that makes perfect sense in such contexts - namely Torah (the law of Moses).

 

[francisdesales]

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

Fore!!! - the true hockey fans amongst you may get the allusion given the precarious state of the Senators at this moment.....

Well, at least your team didn't go from the President Trophy winner last year to not even making the playoffs. Only the management at Buffalo could allow 3 of their 4 best players get away (I would not be surprised to see Miller go this year...)

I think one reason people deny the “plain message†of Romans 2 is that they seem unwilling or unable to reconcile the following 2 propositions:

1. We are justified by grace / faith;
2. We are justified by good works

I suggest that people see a contradiction here because they are applying an overly simplistic model of justification that Paul simply does not buy into – one where justification is a “one-time†event. If one thinks this way, then of course the above two statements conflict.

Agree. I think it is a devotion to Luther's incorrect notion of "sola fide" and the resulting paradigm that places many into a connundrum...

One-time justification is consistent with the OSAS idea, but not with the totality of Scriptures. Rather then posing Romans vs James (or even Romans 2 v Romans 3-4!), the classic "either/or", it would be better to address these issues as a "both/and" model. I agree that one's paradigm can literally prevent one from understanding the truth as you have made clear on this forum a number of times in very clear terms.

Regards

 

[Vic C.]

You have said that the church will not be judged at this judgment. Given this belief, and assuming that you believe that only Christians will get eternal life with God, do you agree that this requires you to believe that Paul intends us to understand that precisely zero persons will be given eternal life at the Romans 2 judgment ? Please answer "yes" or "no", but of course add any explanatory material that you wish....

Oh My Goodness!!! If you think I'm going through this circular discussion again, then you ARE craizer than I thought. :-D

Besides Drew, you never really gave me an answer to my question:

What, if any, provision does God make for those who have never or will never know of Jesus and the Gospel? Or are they by process of elimination, automatically destined for hell and an eternity apart from God?

 

[Drew]

You have said that the church will not be judged at this judgment. Given this belief, and assuming that you believe that only Christians will get eternal life with God, do you agree that this requires you to believe that Paul intends us to understand that precisely zero persons will be given eternal life at the Romans 2 judgment ? Please answer "yes" or "no", but of course add any explanatory material that you wish....

Oh My Goodness!!! If you think I'm going through this circular discussion again, then you ARE craizer than I thought. :-D

My questions are clear and unambiguous, are they not? If not, please tell me precisely how the questions are invalid.

Why not answer them? Will there be zero persons or not who satisfy the terms of the three statements from Romans 2?

Are you unwilling to make an explicit declaration that there will be zero persons that satisfy each of these statements? I certainly wouldn't want to have to commit to such a position, since it makes Paul into a very odd writer indeed - one who makes statements about what will happen to zero persons.

Besides Drew, you never really gave me an answer to my question:

What, if any, provision does God make for those who have never or will never know of Jesus and the Gospel? Or are they by process of elimination, automatically destined for hell and an eternity apart from God?

I do not have an immediate answer. I will provide an answer and will ask you to do the same for my question.

 

[Imagican]

guys,

There IS a 'difference' in Justification OF 'works' and justification BY 'works'.

We are TOLD that we are ABLE to discern the 'fruit' of the 'righteous'. Now HOW is this POSSIBLE if WORKS play NO PART in Salvation? Words, in this case, mean LITTLE. For ANYONE can 'say' what they WILL. But the truth lies in a 'totality' of scripture and NOT in a 'single line' taken 'out of context', (out of context OFTEN means that one RELIES on 'a' line to offer understanding when in reality it may take tens of lines for the TRUTH to BE revealed).

Faith without WORKS is DEAD. It's a VERY simple statement to UNDERSTAND, (if one SO CHOOSES understanding rather than having it 'their way').

Works are APPARENT in ANY that ARE 'faithful'. So HOW can one offer that justification is NOT reliant upon WORKS when the WORKS BECOME apparent in those that ARE justified THROUGH faith?

IF we are JUDGED by 'that which we DO', then 'works' ARE a 'part' of 'justification'. Otherwise, when we are judged we would ONLY be judged 'through the blood of Christ' and NOTHING that we have DONE would or COULD be 'held against us'. Funny, but there is NOT only ONE place that refutes this thinking, but MANY.

CAN we BE forgiven for our sins? ABSOLUTELY. But ONLY through repentance. Now HOW could one BE repentant and CONTINUE in the SAME sin? Would God SO allow one to BE so weak? Would He DENY the strength of the individual to OVERCOME?

We CANNOT 'change ourselves' to reflect the 'image of God'. But we CAN BE 'changed'. The question is NOT so much 'justification' and what if ANY part 'works' PLAYS in it. But the question IS: are ALL those that insist upon NOTHING OTHER THAN 'faith' TRULY 'faithful'? Are those that THINK they are 'saved' TRULY of an ACCURATE understanding in that they are NOT 'bound by works'?

Paul offers that we are FREE from the bindings of sin to death. But he also offers that THOSE that ARE free are NOT 'free to sin', but freed BY the ability to OVERCOME IT. If NOT by WORKS, then HOW does one suppose that they are ABLE to 'show the fruit' of OVERCOMING? For those that are TRULY 'free' from the punishment of sin HAVE BEEN CHANGED. They are MORE liable for their sins than one that is NOT saved. More responsibility is required for MORE THAT IS GIVEN.

MEC

 

[guibox]

We are TOLD that we are ABLE to discern the 'fruit' of the 'righteous'. Now HOW is this POSSIBLE if WORKS play NO PART in Salvation? Words, in this case, mean LITTLE.

It is not our place to judge. However, works show a saving faith. It doesn't add in importance. If that is the case, then if you commit one sin and then die, you will be lost forever. If works are not evident, neither is the faith, hence neither the salvation. A truly saved person will want to do good works. But if the judgment of these works is what sets you right before God, then all we needed was the Spirit's power to 'be perfect' in thought and action. Christ needn't have come. Our works can be balanced and the weight of them tells us if we get to heaven or not.

For ANYONE can 'say' what they WILL. But the truth lies in a 'totality' of scripture and NOT in a 'single line' taken 'out of context', (out of context OFTEN means that one RELIES on 'a' line to offer understanding when in reality it may take tens of lines for the TRUTH to BE revealed).

Interesting that you say this when the false doctrines of eternal torment and Sunday sacredness are determined by this exact inappropriate method. Two or three verses taken out of context and a whole theology is hung on it while myriads of other texts are ignored and twisted. Just as you say those who preach 'justification by faith alone' are doing.

Practice what you preach!
:wink:

 

[Vic C.]

... Are you unwilling to make an explicit declaration that there will be zero persons that satisfy each of these statements? I certainly wouldn't want to have to commit to such a position, since it makes Paul into a very odd writer indeed - one who makes statements about what will happen to zero persons.

Correct, I am unwilling to make such a statement. It's you who keeps inserting the words "zero persons". I also would not want to commit to the idea that God would base the salvation of someone who has put their trust and faith in Jesus solely on their works. He could fairly judge our works without the need of the atoning sacrifice that occurred at the Cross by Jesus. Unfortunately our sins outweigh any work we can do and as such, we all would perish. Hence the need for a Savior.

We do not achieve salvation by working for it.

What, if any, provision does God make for those who have never or will never know of Jesus and the Gospel? Or are they by process of elimination, automatically destined for hell and an eternity apart from God?

I do not have an immediate answer. I will provide an answer and will ask you to do the same for my question.

Actually, no need to answer. I don't believe anyone can accurately answer that because it isn't explicitly revealed in scripture. Just as I cannot not give a satisfactory answer to Rom 2:7 and who Paul as referring to. There are just too many passages that say a Christian's salvation does not hinge on what they've done. So, who is he talking about?

You are right about one thing; Paul can indeed come across as an odd writer at times. There seems to be something different here in comparison to the Gospel message he write about in other letters and epistles.

When I really stop to think about it, I don't really know how God will deal with those who never heard the Gospel. :-? While studying this, I ran across some interesting statements on the site, http://www.letusreason.org

It just may be best not to know everything. God has not revealed how exactly he is going to deal with people who have never heard of Jesus Christ. Even though we may not know how He is going to deal with these people specifically, we do know that His judgment is going to be absolutely just....

... Again, God has not revealed all but we can trust His judgment completely because it is founded on mercy and motivated by love. Whatever He does will be perfect and just.

http://www.letusreason.org/Apolo17.htm

 

[mutzrein]

Actually, no need to answer. I don't believe anyone can accurately answer that because it isn't explicitly revealed in scripture. Just as I cannot not give a satisfactory answer to Rom 2:7 and who Paul as referring to. There are just too many passages that say a Christian's salvation does not hinge on what they've done. So, who is he talking about?

You are right about one thing; Paul can indeed come across as an odd writer at times. There seems to be something different here in comparison to the Gospel message he write about in other letters and epistles.

When I really stop to think about it, I don't really know how God will deal with those who never heard the Gospel.

Eh? I thought Romans 2 covered it all. I think the trouble is, most of you guys have started with a premise that leads you to wrongly interpret what Paul is saying. He is actually saying something you either cannot see or don't want to hear.

 

[Drew]

... Are you unwilling to make an explicit declaration that there will be zero persons that satisfy each of these statements? I certainly wouldn't want to have to commit to such a position, since it makes Paul into a very odd writer indeed - one who makes statements about what will happen to zero persons.

Correct, I am unwilling to make such a statement.

Well then, lets not talk about you. Let's talk about a hypothetical person, Fred. Fred believes these things:

1. The Romans 2 judgement is a real event that will take place in the future.
2. No people who has genuine and real faith in Jesus (or God, more generally) is subject to the Romans 2 judgement.
3. No person who does not have genuine and real faith in Jesus (or God more generally) will get eternal life with God.
4. Paul believes that 1,2, and 3 are all true.

What options does Fred have that can make such a view work with this statement of Paul's?

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.

He must, repeat must, believe that when Paul wrote these words, he (Paul) believed that, in point of fact zero (0) persons will be contained in the set of those who will be given eternal life at the Romans 2 judgement that Paul is writing about.

Same with the other 2 statements. Fred is free to believe what he wishes. I, for one, do not believe that Paul would make three clear statements about people being given eternal life at the Romans 2 judgement, all the while believing that this is not really the case - that is, that zero persons will be in the set of those given eternal life at that judgement.

I just do not think Paul is that kind of a thinker.

Now, on the other hand, if Fred backs off on item 3 and believes that some people who have not placed their faith in Jesus (and got eternal life that way as per item 2) will still get eternal life, then we have an entirely different problem.

But at least Fred does not have Paul making statements that people will get eternal life at the Romans 2 judgement, when Paul does not believe his own words.

 

[Drew]

I also would not want to commit to the idea that God would base the salvation of someone who has put their trust and faith in Jesus solely on their works. He could fairly judge our works without the need of the atoning sacrifice that occurred at the Cross by Jesus. Unfortunately our sins outweigh any work we can do and as such, we all would perish. Hence the need for a Savior.

Not true. Your conclusion, I suggest, is based on bringing your model of justification to the issue and seeing this problem. But we have to let Paul tell us what justification is all about. And I have provided, in this very thread, a model of justification that I think is based on letting Paul tell us what justification is. And this model is immune to your objection above. Here it is again:

But we need to think Paul’s thoughts after him, not come to his text with a pre-decision that justification can only be conceived of as a one-time event. And while I won’t argue the point here, I think that Paul describes justification in a specifically time-structured manner – Paul talks about justification in three distinct tenses;

1. We are justified by the past actions of Jesus on the cross;
2. We are justified in the present by faith and faith alone in Jesus;
3. We will be justified in the future based on the good works that our lives manifest.

An example of item 3 is, of course, the material in Romans 2. I suggest that when presented with Romans 2, the correct response is to not deform it to make it fit with the “justification is a one time event†model, but rather take Paul seriously, drop our pre-conceptions, and let Paul tell us about the structure of justification and how it all works. I know you tire of me saying this, but to say that Paul is not asserting justification by good works entails the un-stated suggestion that Paul is “a little confused and muddled†in Romans 2 and we need to “correct†him by politely saying he doesn’t really mean what he seems to be saying.

And I think Paul’s justification model is actually not all that complex. I suggest that Paul’s model is more or less the following (at least in respect to present and future justification): In the present, the true covenant people – those that will be found to be in the right and be given eternal life – are marked out by faith and faith alone. If you point to a person who has truly placed his faith in Jesus in this life, that person is guaranteed to end up in “heaven†(I do not like the term “heaven†since I think our ultimate destination is a transformed Earth, but that’s another debate).

How can we reconcile this with the notion that, at the future judgement, we are given eternal life based on good works? Well, as I suggest Paul argues in Romans 8 and 10, when we place our faith in Jesus in the present, we are given the Spirit and the Spirit ensures that our lives manifest the good works that will be the basis for us getting eternal life as per Romans 2.

Is this model more complex than the “justification is a one-time event†model. Undeniably. But at least it does not have the side of effect of forcing us to treat Romans 2 like we treat that embarrassing relative we don't our friends to meet.

While I did not explicitly address the atonement in the above, I trust that you will all see how the necessity of the atonement fits in with the above. If you do not see this, let me know and I will fill it out.

We do not achieve salvation by working for it.

Who said such a thing?! I will join you in hunting that heretic down! You cannot be talking about me, since I have clearly, on multiple occasions, denied this position.

 

[Drew]

You are right about one thing; Paul can indeed come across as an odd writer at times.

I suggest that the reason we Paul as an "odd" writer is that we incorrectly read him. More specifically, we come to Paul with the pre-conceived idea that he is talking about A, when in fact he is talking about B. Naturally, even the best writer will seem "odd" if we approach their material in such a way.

Classic example is this from Romans 3:

27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

I think that most in the Reformed tradition think that Paul is talking about how we are not justified by the "good works" our lives manifest. And that the "boast" in verse 27 is the boast of one who thinks good works will save.

So in verse 28, we take away the message "humans are justified by faith and not by good works". Then comes the odd part. Paul, in verse 29, suddenly changes gears and talks as though what he has just said is somehow relevant to the issue of God being the God of Jews and Gentiles. This seems odd - why would this general theological point - justification by faith and not good works - be capped with a conclusion of how this brings Jews and Gentile together? Well, we think, Paul is just a little odd and changed subjects without explanation.

The truth, I suggest, is that Paul is not even talking about "justification by faith and not by good works" - he is talking about the issue of "justification by faith and not by doing the works of Torah that mark the Jew from the Gentile. Then, what he says in verse 29 is entirely apt and logical.

Paul is not odd - we are mistaken in our understanding of what he is talking about. There are plenty of more examples of our errors in approaching Paul from Romans alone.

 

[Vic C.]

Drew, you are correct and we are wrong. So tell us, what do we need to do in order to be saved. How much work must we do in order to be saved? If we fail to meet this quota, are we condemned?

You've openly admitted to believing like the Free Will theists do; that alone speak volumes. It's not us, but you who most likely will come up with the wrong conclusions because you're trying to add to your salvation or maybe you're trying to work to keep your salvation. Either way, I don't believe that and this is why I don't wish to discuss this with you any longer.

You're idea of justification, sanctification and glorification are different than ours, well, some of us. Oh, that heretic you are looking for is Paul. The concept that the act of salvation is all God's doing is a recurring theme in Paul's writings. Do we need to quote Ephesians 2:5-9 again? Or passages from Galatians? Or verses from the following chapter, Romans 3?
__________________________________________________

Hi Ed:

Eh? I thought Romans 2 covered it all. I think the trouble is, most of you guys have started with a premise that leads you to wrongly interpret what Paul is saying. He is actually saying something you either cannot see or don't want to hear.

I know what you believe concerning grace and salvation. You have agreed with the Calvinists in the past. Don't get me wrong, that's not a bad thing at all. So, for the record, could you explain to me how you understand Romans 2 in light of your belief? I look forward to your response, but as far as further participation in this thread, I'm done sir.

Thanks.

I look for

 

[Drew]

Drew, you are correct and we are wrong. So tell us, what do we need to do in order to be saved. How much work must we do in order to be saved? If we fail to meet this quota, are we condemned?

I am not telling anyone that I am right or wrong - or at least when I do this, I am straying over a line. I generally put forward arguments and the readers are free to judge them.

In respect to the person Fred in my earlier post, the readers are free to decide whether what Paul says in Romans 2 can work with the belief that zero persons will be given eternal life at the Romans 2 judgement.

And I have, on numerous occasions, given my understanding of the model of justification that I believe is presented in the Scriptures. People are free to do with those arguments what they wish.

You've openly admitted to believing like the Free Will theists do; that alone speak volumes.

Please explain what you mean here.

It's not us, but you who most likely will come up with the wrong conclusions because you're trying to add to your salvation or maybe you're trying to work to keep your salvation

I have been crystal clear that I do not believe this.

I don't believe that and this is why I don't wish to discuss this with you any longer.

Fair enough. You are apparently not discsussing this with me anyway since you ascribe positions to me that I do not hold.

The concept that the act of salvation is all God's doing is a recurring theme in Paul's writings.

I have never denied this! I am mystified at how people either do not read what I actually write or are so committed to their pre-conceptions that what I write simply cannot be processed by them. Or, perhaps, I am not a good communicator.

Do we need to quoteEphesians 2:5-9 again

I have argued at length that in Ephesians 2, Paul is speaking against the view that people are justified by the works of Torah and that he is not arguing against "justification by good works". Those arguments are what they are and I am happy to discuss their merits. There are probably some out there who simply cannot entertain the possibility that Paul's argument in Ephesian 2 is something other than what they have believed for decades. That's fine. Such people are beyond reach.

On this same theme: One of the interesting patterns that I have noted in this forum is that it is exceedingly rare to see someone change their position. How do we make sense of this? I suggest that it is clear that people simply refuse to change their positions, no matter what the Scriptural arguments are. At the risk of seeming like I am setting myself above such people, I have changed my mind on a number of central doctrines in the last 5 years or so - the nature of justification, annihilation, the nature of the world to come, to name some.

Am I so much duller than others that I need to work out my position, changing my mind along the way, while so many others seem to not have to go down that same route of reworking their position?

As always, I leave that for you all to decide.

 

[Drew]

Although this is not about Romans 2, I suggest that 2 Corinthians 5 supports the notion of a final judgement according to works, with the granting of eternal life in the balance. Here is 2 Corinthians 5:10:

10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

If I am not mistaken, many will read this as being about "rewards" being given to believers in heaven with the very granting of eternal life not really being at issue.

What does the context suggest? Here is the whole chapter leading up to verse 10.

1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
6Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7We live by faith, not by sight. 8We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Note verse 5:

5Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

Clearly, Paul is looking ahead in time to something. And equally clearly, he is looking ahead to the future event that he mentions in verse 10. Now what has Paul been talking about in verses 1-4 and which is clearly the referent of the thing that is "to come" here in verse 5.

It is the granting of eternal life. Paul is not talking about something else in these introductory verses, such as the issuing of rewards to those whose entry into heaven has otherwise been secured. Clearly the thing that is "to come" is eternal life. So, if the view I am arguing against is correct, by verse 10, poor old Paul has forgotten what he wrote in verse 5 and is now in verse 10 talking about the granting of rewards to those who already have eternal life.

Would you write this way - paint a glorious picture of the granting of eternal life (verse 1-4), then make an allusion that this very life will be granted in future, and yet when you actually start to talk about the future - in verse 10 - suddenly start talking about something entirely different - the works-based granting of rewards?

 

[francisdesales]

It's not us, but you who most likely will come up with the wrong conclusions because you're trying to add to your salvation or maybe you're trying to work to keep your salvation

I have been crystal clear that I do not believe this.

[quote="vic C.":2c606]I don't believe that and this is why I don't wish to discuss this with you any longer.

Fair enough. You are apparently not discsussing this with me anyway since you ascribe positions to me that I do not hold.

The concept that the act of salvation is all God's doing is a recurring theme in Paul's writings.

I have never denied this! I am mystified at how people either do not read what I actually write or are so committed to their pre-conceptions that what I write simply cannot be processed by them. Or, perhaps, I am not a good communicator.[/quote:2c606]


Drew,

Do not feel exasperated by this exchange. From my experience, the Protestant paradigm does not allow "synergy". Thus, either God does EVERYTHING or man does EVERYTHING. When your position implies that work is PART of the formula, the "either/or" people will presume that man does it all. They cannot comprehend, because of Luther's anthropology built into their paradigm, that MAN COOPERATES WITH GOD. Because "man is a beast ridden by God or satan", they unwittingly miss the whole concept of synergy in Scriptures, resorting to "either/or" arguments...

It is GOD who moves our will to love and do good works. Yes, quote Eph 2 - and include verse 10... We are MADE TO DO GOOD WORKS. But nowhere does it say we do them of our own volition, without God moving our desire (cf Phil 2:12-13). We are expected to obey God, to not grieve the Spirit, to love and so forth - but can do nothing without Christ. Synergy is at work in EVERY good work that we do (in Christ).

Once people understand the concept of synergy, they will understand your position better - and Sacred Scriptures.

Regards

 

[Drew]

Hello fds:

In this matter, I consider you as somewhat like my beloved dog - you are the only one who truly understands me.......... :D

And so it is with indeed a heavy heart that I must point to an area where you and I may differ. However, I could imagine being swayed to what I see as your position.

In this respect, I need to fill out and amplify a bit, although I believe I have done so before. I think that Paul's model is one where the synergy is not of form A (below) but is rather of form B (below)

A. Once a person has accepted Christ and been born again (perhaps you are uncomfortable with this phrase), that person becomes enabled to exercise moral self-effort and do the good works that will justify him.

B. Once a person has accepted Christ and been born again that person's "self" gets more or less commandeered by the Holy Spirit and the person pretty much cannot help but do the good works that will justify him.

I suspect that you are closer to A.

What I find so frustrating, whether you and I agree or not, is that people repeatedly mis-represent me as holding to position A and tell me that I believe that "I" am earning my salvation through "my" works.

In any event, I think that the A-B distinction can be refined a lot more. And it is in the A-B distinction that I am least confident that I know Paul's mind.

But I cannot make Romans 2, not to mention texts like 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, work with any view where good works, of whatever origin, are not central to our justification.

By the way: Less than 5 hours to possible Senator's elimination. Hope springs eternal.....