Romans 2

[francisdesales]

Hello fds:

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

Woof!

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.

Well, A is pretty close to Semi-Pelagianism - the idea that once God opens the doors, it is up to us to walk into heaven.

On the other hand, I do believe "cannot help themselves" portrays a reality that is difficult to mesh with experienced life...

In reality, Drew, HOW God and man works together is a mystery. The doctrine of grace "vs" free will, quite frankly, has NOT been defined by the Catholic Church as it has been on other subjects. There is still wiggle room here. I do not know if you are aware of the difference between Molinism and Thomism, but BOTH are acceptable stances for Catholics to take. Although probably a generalization, your "A" would be near Molinism while your "B" would be near Thomism. If my memory serves me, Molinism teaches that God elects us "AFTER" foreseeing our response to His love while in Thomism, God elects "BEFORE" foreseeing us... We can really get into the weeds on this subject, trust me...

While discussing these issues with Calvinists, (which is near and dear to them) I was much more knowledgeable about the many nuances, but I am a bit rusty on them now. I know, however, that the interaction between God and man to do a particular good deed is mysterious. We know Scriptures relates that we can do NO good without God - and we know we will be judged by what WE do upon our deaths - but we cannot earn salvation.

At the end of the day, all we can say is that there exists synergy between God and man, so one cannot say "God does all", nor can one say "man does all".

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.

Yes, as a Catholic, since we hold to faith and works, we are commonly accused of "works salvation", so I hear the accusation all the time - even when we deny that and say that GOD is responsible for every good work we undertake. Nevertheless, Christ will not be judged... At some point, we have to take responsibility for what we allow God to do in our lives.

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

I haven't been following the playoffs - lack of interest now that my team stinks - but Pittsburgh is a really good team in the East. I wouldn't be surprised to see them represent the East this year...

Regards

 

[MarkT]

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).

Jesus said each tree is known by its own fruit, and, 'The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.' Lu 6:45 What did Jesus say about the Samaritan? He said the Samaritan proved neighbour to the man who fell among thieves. Clearly what we do proves us as well. But we can not boast that we are doing the works. It's the Spirit in us that leads us to do the works. All of this is at the heart of Paul's writings.

The devil can appear to be an angel of light. He can do all the 'good' works, and act like a saint. But he will deceive many. No amount of good works is going to get you into heaven. You have to be born again.

The difference is your good works aren't good enough. They are nothing. God's good works are something. So if God is in you, then you will be justified, and you will be doing the work of God. We are servants of the Lord.

 

[BobRyan]

True - justification past can not be based on works. We are fully accepted by God at the moment we accept Christ and are born again "HAVING BEEN justified by faith we HAVE peace with God" Rom 5:1 - and in that justification past our "salvation status changes" from "lost" to "saved"

Justification future IS based on works -- "by their fruits you shall know them" but our salavation status is not changed -- because "Judgment is passed in FAVOR of the saints" Dan 7:22 in that FUTURE corporate - objective judgment.

Paul in Romans 2 points to the future aspect of justification and to the "fruit" of obedience that will be shown -- will be seen among those that are saved and are evaluated to see if "The good tree actually produces good fruit" -- as it turns out -- Christ will be proven right.

But that also means that many many in church today will be shown to be "bad trees" even though they are convinced that they are "good".

Paul argues in Romans 2 that even among those with NO Bible will be shown saints who are CHANGED - born again with the New Covenant promise of the "LAW written on the heart" while among those WITH the Bible there will be seen some who are "lost" yet thinking that their Church status" or "magic sacraments, montras, potions, sayings, rituals of their priests" make them "saved anyway".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Drew]

Justification future IS based on works -- "by their fruits you shall know them" but our salavation status is not changed -- because "Judgment is passed in FAVOR of the saints" Dan 7:22 in that FUTURE corporate - objective judgment.

Hello Bob:

As an aside, you may be interested to know that I am "Andre" over at BaptistBoard (I hope we are allowed to mention the "competition"). And I assume that you are the same "Bob Ryan"....

In any event, I am not sure whether we see things exactly the same way about the justification issue, but I do embrace what you post above, at least as I understand it.

I see no contradiction in Paul and no need to mangle Romans 2. I think the key insight is that Paul talks about justification in various tenses. When people do not (or will not) see this, it is indeed understandable that they see a contradiction between the teaching in Romans 2 - that works justify us at judgement - with other teachings where Paul says we are justified by faith and faith alone.

And this problem is made worse when people mistakenly (in my view) read Paul as denying "justification by good works" in texts like Ephesians 2, when it really is clear - if you open your mind to the possibility - that Paul is denying justification by the works of Torah - the ethnic charter of practices that demarcated the Jew from the Gentile.

And, if one's mind is open to letting Paul, and not tradition, speak to us, we see how this all works. In Romans 5 to 8 we are told exactly how it is that both the following statments can be correct and harmonize:

1. In the present, those will be justified at the end are marked out by faith and faith alone;
2. In the future, the works we manifest will be the basis of our receiving eternal life.

We get a hint here in Romans 6:6

For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin

Despite the widely held view, the Romans 3 stuff about our helpless slavery to sin describes the world before the covenant has been renewed. The above from Romans 6 undermines the argument that "we cannot possibly be justified by good works since we are slaves to sin". In Romans 6, Paul says we are no longer in that trap.

Or this from Romans 8:

1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,

Why is there no condemnation? Please read on:

2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit

Paul has a powerful doctrine of the Spirit. And it is the Spirit - and I know some people will not hear this from me and will insist that I promote good works based on moral self-effort - that molds us into the kind of people that will pass the good works judgement described in Romans 2.

There is a lot more about this in Paul including this from 2 Corinthians 5:

For 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.

It is the Spirit working in us that does the good works that we will lay before God at the Romans 2 judgement. No one - at least not me - is suggesting or even remotely implying that we generate those "good works" from unaided self-effort. They are the work of the Spirit of God.

 

[guibox]

And this problem is made worse when people mistakenly (in my view) read Paul as denying "justification by good works" in texts like Ephesians 2, when it really is clear - if you open your mind to the possibility - that Paul is denying justification by the works of Torah - the ethnic charter of practices that demarcated the Jew from the Gentile.

As nice and pat as this answer is, Drew, I'm not sure how much 'justification' :D you have for it. To the Pharisee, the law was the law and keeping those laws were 'good works'. To the Pharisee, they were all part and parcel of the same package. This is why Christ and Paul were so adamant against them. They were doing good works (if the moral law of the 10 commandments isn't doing 'good works', I don't know what is) but they didn't have the Spirit.
To say that Paul speaks of 'good works' in one place but in the other places where we aren't justified by works, he is speaking of the Torah lacks some merit. If we are not justified by the works of the Torah, why should we be justified by some of the good works that can be applicable to the moral law which was part of the Torah?

Paul has a powerful doctrine of the Spirit. And it is the Spirit - and I know some people will not hear this from me and will insist that I promote good works based on moral self-effort - that molds us into the kind of people that will pass the good works judgement described in Romans 2...It is the Spirit working in us that does the good works that we will lay before God at the Romans 2 judgement. No one - at least not me - is suggesting or even remotely implying that we generate those "good works" from unaided self-effort. They are the work of the Spirit of God.

According to what you are saying, at best the judgment based on works is redundant as it won't be our works but the Spirits. Justification by faith alone, by grace alone, by Christ alone still is the most applicable and important part of salvation...the only thing that really matters.

At the least, there is a problem here. For it is the saints that are judged and condemned based on works, not the Spirit. Either the Spirit leads and takes responsibility or we have the choice to live moral lives and be judged accordingly.

As much as you may like to disagree, the fact is, is that the Spirit empowers us to be moral. It doesn't control us like an automaton. When you see a 'well endowed' female with all the right curves walking down the street, you have the choice to turn your head and look the other way or you have the choice to continue to gawk and begin to lust.

IMO, the judgment is merely to determine a saving faith. If works are present, the salvation experience, the justification and sanctification process was valid. If they are not, the relationship was not there and salvation was not truly accepted.

If the works we do (with the Spirit or without) truly determine our salvation, then the grace of Christ was merely a secondary application, only necessary to allow the second half which is based on works.

I see this a true heresy and not what Paul was saying. Paul didn't place so much attention on our miserable state and our true hope and assurance in Romans 7 and 8, to be wholly and completely found in Christ to lower it all to say that 'however, despite my strong words, the works in our lives are what truly save us'.

My friend, really look at what Romans 8 is saying all the way through. Look at the hopelessness of death that Paul lays out in chapters 7 and 8 and then shows us the way, the truth and life, the ONLY way out of our sinful situation and our hope and assurance of eternal life: it is through Christ alone by His grace alone, not through stopping yourself from lusting after that woman or taking those drugs (though a true Christian will avoid those things)

I just don't see how you cannot get around the Catholic view of 'salvation by works' Drew. Your argument just has too many loop holes...bless your heart. :wink:

 

[Drew]

To the Pharisee, the law was the law and keeping those laws were 'good works'. To the Pharisee, they were all part and parcel of the same package.

I do not think this is really how the situation was back then, but I am basing my opinion on other people's knowledge of the history and the culture, so I can do no more than echo their views. And the view in question is this: The Jew of Paul's time would have seen his Jewish ethnicity as bound up in the Torah, but more specifically in those particular aspects of the Jew that demarcatd the Jew from his pagan neighbour - namely circumcision, purity laws, the Festivals, the Sabbath etc.

According to my historical source (British theologian NT Wright), the writings of the first 2 centuries AD showed no evidence of "Peleganiasm" rearing its head. It is only post 200 AD that the idea of "earning one's salvation" even entered the picture.

But, of course, I see your point. And I would a fool to deny that the Torah has components in it that are "moral" and have a distinctly "good works" flavour. However, I suggest that both history and certain things from Paul suggest that Paul was really addressing a prevailing view about the works of Torah that can be expressed as "how am I, the Jew, marked out from my pagan neighbour". By contrast, I suggest that Paul was not addressing a view of the form "I, the Jew, am morally superior - I do better "good works" - than my pagan neighbour".

Consider this from Romans 4:

If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast aboutâ€â€but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

I am going to acknwoledge that you will wave verses 4 and 5 at me, but I will wait till you do that.

Setting aside verses 4 and 5 for the moment. I suggest that the material in verses 9 to 12 show that indeed Paul had the "take" on the works of Torah that I am claiming he did. He was focusing not on the moral content of Torah - but rather on the ways that Torah marked the Jew from the Gentile in other ways.

Hence the reference to circuncision - a distinctly "non-moral" action. And, yes, I am aware of the argument that "circumcision is not technically part of the Torah since it precedes by several hundred years". But I think I can make the case that Paul effectively considered it to be a "marker of Torah".

I just don't see how you cannot get around the Catholic view of 'salvation by works' Drew

Whatever the "Catholic" view is on this, I know that if you read my posts, you are smart enough to discern that my position does not require me to adopt the view that we, in any reasonable sense at all, "earn" the good works that our lives manifest. I do not hold such a view, despite being frequently misrepresented as holding that view. And I am not "forced into it" to keep my argument coherent - the good works we manifest are the work of the Spirit - and the Spirit is given when we place faith and faith alone in Jesus.

 

[Drew]

Let's suppose that Paul really does believe that the granting of eternal life at the end is in no way contingent on "doing good things". As we all know, Paul wrote this:

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

So we have to believe these things about what Paul has written here;

1. When he writes that he will give to each person according to what he has done, he really means that he will give, for the redeemed anyway, according to what they have believed. Would you express yourself this way? I wouldn't.

2. When he writes that eternal life will be given to those who persist in doing good - let's be fair, this is precisely how the sentence reads in this translation - he really means us to understand that eternal life to those who believed a certain thing. Does that sound like the way an educated Pharisee would express himself?

Paul also wrote this:

there will be glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good:

So we have to believe that by "does good", Paul means "has faith". Would you choose such terminology if you were Paul?

Paul also wrote this:

it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

So we have to believe that "obey the law" means to "have faith". While this is a possibility, I suggest that it makes Paul into a very odd writer.

And if all this were not suspicious enough, consider how Paul introduces the entire narrative:

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. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.

Paul then launches in to his statements about what hill happen at a "judgement". Is it a different judgment than Paul is talking about in the introduction - a judgement that certainly seems to be "works-based"?

If you were Paul, would you introduce an account of justification by something other than what we do with such a prologue that will make the reader think that it is precisely what we do that is really the issue here.

Are we, yet again, to believe that by "do", Paul means "believe" here?

 

[francisdesales]

I just don't see how you cannot get around the Catholic view of 'salvation by works' Drew. Your argument just has too many loop holes...bless your heart. :wink:

Now why did you have to go and say that we believe a false idea like that?

Drew - what did I say? I feel your pain...

Guibox, I don't know where you get your "info", but it is flat out wrong... We have already fought Pelagianism long ago.

Council of Orange - 529 AD...

CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.

CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

CANON 21. Concerning nature and grace. As the Apostle most truly says to those who would be justified by the law and have fallen from grace, "If justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21), so it is most truly declared to those who imagine that grace, which faith in Christ advocates and lays hold of, is nature: "If justification were through nature, then Christ died to no purpose." Now there was indeed the law, but it did not justify, and there was indeed nature, but it did not justify. Not in vain did Christ therefore die, so that the law might be fulfilled by him who said, "I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Matt. 5:17), and that the nature which had been destroyed by Adam might be restored by him who said that he had come "to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10).

We do not believe we can save ourselves, or that we can be saved by our works without God.

Regards

 

[BobRyan]

Justification future IS based on works -- "by their fruits you shall know them" but our salavation status is not changed -- because "Judgment is passed in FAVOR of the saints" Dan 7:22 in that FUTURE corporate - objective judgment.

Hello Bob:

As an aside, you may be interested to know that I am "Andre" over at BaptistBoard (I hope we are allowed to mention the "competition"). And I assume that you are the same "Bob Ryan"....

Good to see you on these boards as well.

What "gave me away"?? :-D

In any event, I am not sure whether we see things exactly the same way about the justification issue, but I do embrace what you post above, at least as I understand it.

No problem. I have a hard time getting some of the people in my own denomination to go for this.

I see no contradiction in Paul and no need to mangle Romans 2. I think the key insight is that Paul talks about justification in various tenses. When people do not (or will not) see this, it is indeed understandable that they see a contradiction between the teaching in Romans 2 - that works justify us at judgement - with other teachings where Paul says we are justified by faith and faith alone.

Imagine the case of someone like the Theif on the cross only with "instant death" at the moment he hears in answer to his request "Remember me When you come into your kingdom" the words "Truly I say to you today you shall be with me in paradise" -- at that instant he dies. (in this fictional example).

He has "no works" no "real fruits". He does not come to Christ saying "See how good I am -- surely you can see that I deserve to be a saint".

But in the "future judgement" the question is "is this person really a born-again Christian or are they merely a pretender -- a lost person hidnig out in the church pews".

In Romans 5 to 8 we are told exactly how it is that both the following statments can be correct and harmonize:

1. In the present, those will be justified at the end are marked out by faith and faith alone;
2. In the future, the works we manifest will be the basis of our receiving eternal life.

We get a hint here in Romans 6:6

For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sinâ€â€
7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin

Your point number 2 is going to scare the willies out of some people unless they get that your point number 1 is what determines if you are going to be successufl in 2 or not.

Despite the widely held view, the Romans 3 stuff about our helpless slavery to sin describes the world before the covenant has been renewed.

It is not possible to sustain the point that Paul is writing at a time when the New Covenant did not apply.

Further -- even if you imagined that this Romans 3 statement is true of all humans living prefore the cross - you have a problem saying that John the baptizer and Elijah (taken to heaven) and Enoch (Taken to heaven) etc were always evil.

So a better way to look at Romans 3 is to say that it applies TO ALL people because it is referring to a person apart from the work of God in supernaturally drawing that person and in fact "changing them in the New Birth" experience mentioned pre-cross and mentioned post-cross.

The above from Romans 6 undermines the argument that "we cannot possibly be justified by good works since we are slaves to sin". In Romans 6, Paul says we are no longer in that trap.

James 2 says "you see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" but I think James is talking about the same FUTURE justification of Romans 2 not the past justification since that which is past is of the lost sinner coming to Christ.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[guibox]

Sorry boys, you are making Paul speak out of both sides of his mouth and creating contradictions.

What I'm hearing is this...

"We are justified by Christ's grace now but justified later by works. However, we are not saved by our works."

I have no clue what your definition of 'justification'' is but you can't have it both ways if 'justification' means 'salvation'. There is no other option but to say that both works and grace make us worthy for heaven. I don't recall seeing anywhere where Paul makes it plain that we are fully and completely saved by what we do and whether we accept Christ. Instead he makes it plain that the only way out of our sinful situation where we are made worthy for heaven is by the blood of Christ...not by Spirit led works in our lives.

When Paul says 'Salvation is not of works, lest any man should boast' then no works can save us.

Good works are a vindication of our faith, not an addition to. Your quote of Abraham is prime example. Abraham was credited with righteousness, this righteousness was what made God accept him. It wasn't his own works or even the works of the Father through him. It was an imputed righteousness.

 

[Drew]

Sorry boys, you are making Paul speak out of both sides of his mouth and creating contradictions.

I suggest that we are only following Paul. I posted something earlier suggesting that that a clear-thinking person would never write Romans 2 the way it was written if, in fact, good works are not, in some sense at least, the grounds for justification.

Please address that post on an item by item basis. I am interested in how you explain each of the statements I quoted from Paul.

What I'm hearing is this...

"We are justified by Christ's grace now but justified later by works. However, we are not saved by our works."

I won't repeat what I have already written about how it is perfectly intelligible that we can be justified by faith in the present - marked out as those assuredly destined for eternal life - and yet subjected to works-based judgement in the future. I suggest that the model I have presented is perfectly clear and coherent and I challenge posters to tell me what is wrong with it in a "conceptual consistency" sense. We may disagree about whether the Scriptures support such a model. But it is a conceptually coherent model.

And I would point out the following crucial item: To the extent that the works we manifest are the works of the Spirit, and not "our own" it is, again, perfectly conceptually coherent to assert that works-based justification is coherent with the concept of grace.

You and I may have some back and forth to do on the precice mechanics of how "our will" and the "Spirit's will" interact - I take your point about the "well-endowed" girl. But I will get back to that, since I think it is essentially a detail (although you might not agree).

I will not respond to the rest of your post right now - gotta go. But I do think that Romans 2 is an Achilles heel for "your" position. So I would like to ask you to respond directly to the content of my post of earlier today beginning with "Let's suppose that Paul really does believe that the granting of eternal life at the end is in no way contingent on "doing good things". Please address it in detail - explain why you think Paul uses terminology that suggests justification by "good works" when he does not mean it. A common response is to say "in Romans 3, he tells us that we cannot achieve what is described in Romans 2". Well, then, what was Paul actually thinking when he wrote Romans 2? Would you describe a path to justification that zero persons will actually take without telling the reader that this is what you are doing?

And while I am not accusing you of this - a very interesting pattern has emerged when I make this kind of post on this and other boards. Posters simply refuse to address such posts on Romans 2 - they will not give an account as to what could have motivated Paul to write such things like "God will give to each person according to what he has done" if Paul really believes that, for the redeemed anyway, "God will give to each person according to what he has believed".

The silence on that is hughly suggestive of a non-workable position.

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry boys, you are making Paul speak out of both sides of his mouth and creating contradictions.

What I'm hearing is this...

"We are justified by Christ's grace now but justified later by works. However, we are not saved by our works."

I have no clue what your definition of 'justification'' is but you can't have it both ways if 'justification' means 'salvation'.

I think that is a reasonable complaint. And I agree that the discussion points can get confusing.

In the case of "Justification past" we are talking about a lost person "becoming saved" - our "salvation status changes" in that "Justification by faith" event. It is not a corporate decision in the courts of heaven - it is a transaction event - it is when the lost becomes "born again" - saved.

But Romans 2 is not making a "Once saved always saved" argument and neither does Romans 3. For that Bible study we need another discussion thread entirely.

What Romans 2 points to is a future point when "we will be justified" in a corporate sense. The Dan 7 "court room of heaven" where "the court sits and the books are opened" a court where "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints". And event where the 'rules' for determining "who already IS a saint" and "who IS not a saint" is given by the rules that we find in Romans 2 and in Matt 7. That decision of the court has nothing to do with a person "becoming saved" or "going from a lost state to a born again state". Rather that future courtroom decision is more like an 'audit' - objective and verifiable. It changes no one's status.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Drew]

What I'm hearing is this...

"We are justified by Christ's grace now but justified later by works. However, we are not saved by our works."

My response to the foregoing:

1. It is entirely coherent to claim that a works-based justfication in the future is consistent with the notion of "grace' if (repeat if) the works are, in essence, the works of God that we simply "manifest", as specifically contrasted with works we do by our "own strength". Therefore, there is no conceptual problem with saying that we are justified by "grace", whether we are talking about past, present, or future, versions of "justification".

2. We are not saved by "our" works in the sense that it is the Spirit acting in us that produces the works that will justify us at the Romans 2 judgement.

I have no clue what your definition of 'justification'' is but you can't have it both ways if 'justification' means 'salvation'. There is no other option but to say that both works and grace make us worthy for heaven. I don't recall seeing anywhere where Paul makes it plain that we are fully and completely saved by what we do and whether we accept Christ. Instead he makes it plain that the only way out of our sinful situation where we are made worthy for heaven is by the blood of Christ...not by Spirit led works in our lives.

I think you deny the plain reading of Romans 2 here and I look forward to your responding to the post I have pointed out to you - please do not "take the 5th". On another forum, when I challenged readers to explain what Paul was thinking, as he dictated Romans 2,.....crickets.

You seem to think it is logically incoherent to assert justification by grace and by works. I have just now argued that the concept of "grace" does not necessitate that works, and specifically the works of the Spirit, cannot contribute to our justification. If my argument to that effect is wrong, then it is wrong in a way that can be articulated. Please do so. And I have repeatedly argued in this thread how it is coherent to have a multi-tense model of justification. I see nobody undermining that argument, instead posters seem to simply ignore it. So, again, please show me how this multi-tense model of justification does not work.

I assume that you will agree with me that we should seek a model of justification that is conceptually coherent and that makes best sense of all the texts (including Romans 2!). And I suspect you will agree that if we find ourselves thinking "Gee, Paul used very funny wording in Romans 2 - it almost sounds like justification by good works", that should be a warning that we misunderstand Paul and that it is our pre-conceptions that are creating the confusion, not Paul. You, yourself, used this very same kind of argument to convince me of the problems we get into when look at the issue of eternal torment with a pre-conceived, Greek-inspired, idea of an immortal soul. Well,.....

Obviously Romans 2, as written, conflicts with "one time justification by faith". Fine. What I do not understand is why the response is to basically sweep Romans 2 under the carpet - as manifested by people's refusal to answer clear and direct questions about it, rather than to re-work the concept of justification.

I will say more about "justification" in the next post.

 

[Drew]

On the matter of "justifcation": I think that a study of the Old Testament will reveal that, for the Jew, justification was something that God was going to do for the nation of Israel at the end of her long history - show her to be the true covenant people of God in front of the pagan nations. Already, this should be a hint to us that justification has a "future" tense to it. And, I think it needs to be remarked that a case can be made that the Old Testament model of justification is not, at least primarily, a forensic one - a courtroom type of justification.

Instead, I will claim, following the arguments of NT Wright on this matter, justification in the OT was primarily a covenant metaphor - having more to do with the issue of identifying who God's covenant people are - who is in God's "family" - than it does with matters of "forensic" justification.

And I suggest that the forensic metaphor has been erroneously taken as primary - in contradiction to what the OT shows - and that, once you have bought into the forensic model and cease to consider that this might be a mistake, it becomes almost impossible for you to make sense of any concept of justification that is not a one-time event, precisely as is the case in the law-court where you are declared "justified" in a one-time discrete event.

Such is power of the non-examined framework through which we look at the world, and from which few people are able, or willing, to extricate themselves. Obviously, multi-tense justification does not make sense in the context of a forensic metaphor for justification. But if the forensic view is secondary to a covenant model, then the situation changes and there is indeed a coherent sense in which one talk about "how we identify the covenant people of God" in the present and, distinctly, in the future.

And, I suggest, Romans 2 tells us how the covenant people will be identified on the future day of judgement - by the good works that their lives manifest.

Do you find yourself objecting "but we are justified by faith and faith alone..." I politely suggest you have not extricated yourself from your (unexamined commitment) to a strictly forensic construal of what justification really is. You therefore cannot see how I can, legitimately I would claim, assert that you are indeed correct in your statement, but that Romans 2 can still be read "as is".

 

[BobRyan]

In Romans 3 "Justified by faith APART from the works of the Law" and in Romans 5 "having BEEN justified by faith we have peace with God" are cases of "past-tense" forensic justification that is complete and "sufficient" so that the one that dies within the scope/bounds of that justification is in fact saved and as they see the end of this life come to them - will immediately wake up to be welcomed in resurrected form into Heaven at the 2nd coming.

But that "future justification" that REVEALS that the good trees are in fact "good trees" will still make the pronouncement such that "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints" Dan 7:22 on the day when "God WILL judge the secrets of all men through the man Christ Jesus" Romans 2.

That future judgment -- produces a legal justification that is based on works -- the things revealed in our lives SHOWING that we either ARE born-again or we are not.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Vic C.]

It sounds to me like you are combining justification with sanctification. I believe the Bible teaches us that justification is a single act and sanctification is ongoing, ending in glorification. This is what the early church believed and what the Reformers taught.

 

[guibox]

In Romans 3 "Justified by faith APART from the works of the Law" and in Romans 5 "having BEEN justified by faith we have peace with God" are cases of "past-tense" forensic justification that is complete and "sufficient" so that the one that dies within the scope/bounds of that justification is in fact saved and as they see the end of this life come to them - will immediately wake up to be welcomed in resurrected form into Heaven at the 2nd coming.

But that "future justification" that REVEALS that the good trees are in fact "good trees" will still make the pronouncement such that "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints" Dan 7:22 on the day when "God WILL judge the secrets of all men through the man Christ Jesus" Romans 2.

That future judgment -- produces a legal justification that is based on works -- the things revealed in our lives SHOWING that we either ARE born-again or we are not.

in Christ,

Bob

Well said, Bob.

 

[Drew]

It sounds to me like you are combining justification with sanctification. I believe the Bible teaches us that justification is a single act and sanctification is ongoing, ending in glorification. This is what the early church believed and what the Reformers taught.

I assume that this for me and not Bob Ryan.

As I suspect you know by now, I think the Reformers were mistaken and that Paul does not teach that justification is a single act.

Justification for the Jews was always an "eschatological term" - a term about the future. It was what God was going to do for the nation of Israel at the end of her long history - vindicate her in front of the pagan nations. It would be rather strange for Paul to use this term in a manner that drained all of its future-ness out of it.

I claim that Paul's position is this:

1. Justification is primarily a covenantal term, not a forensic term (although it is used forensically in service of the higher covenantal meaning);

2. What God had promised to do for Israel at the end of her long history - justify her in front of the nations by showing that "she is the true covenant people", He has done for the individual Jesus in the middle of history. And, Paul also realizes, Jesus is the true Israel - the true David - the man "after God's own heart". And, look what has happened to Jesus "as Israel" - he has been raised from the dead. Paul's key "eureka" moment here - I suggest - is to see that resurrection, (in the present for Jesus, but in the future for us) is what justification consists in.

3. Paul realizes that justification does not, as the Jews expected, take the form of being simply "declared publically", as if with a bullhorn, in front of the nations to be the people of God". Instead, wonderfully and unexpectedly - to be "justified" turns out to be raised from the dead (echoes of Ezekial 37);

4. Paul means what he says about people being "justified" in Romans 2 where, we now (following Jesus as the first-fruits) are justified at the end- shown to be member of God's covenant people by being raised from the dead and given eternal life. And how are we justified? By what we do. And I am sorry, I think your argument that no Christians will be subject the Romans 2 judgement is unworkable, since it requires us to believe that zero persons will be justified in the manner that Paul describes in Romans 2. What kind of educated person would describe a works-based judgement resulting in eternal life for some, while secretly believing that "some" equals "zero"?

 

[Drew]

To any and all who do not believe that we are justified at the day of judgement by the good works we exhibit, please respond to the following (a re-post). And by "respond", I request that you provide a directed response to my analysis of each of four specific texts from Romans 2. Please do not avoid dealing with this material by invoking Romans 3 or Ephesians 2, or whatever. This request is directed to those who believe that a non-zero number of persons will be justified at the Romans 2 judgement.

Please engage each of the four texts and tell us what you think was going on in Paul's mind when he wrote those very words from Romans 2.

Here is the original post:

Let's suppose that Paul really does believe that the granting of eternal life at the end is in no way contingent on "doing good things". As we all know, Paul wrote this:

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

So we have to believe these things about what Paul has written here;

1. When he writes that he will give to each person according to what he has done, he really means that he will give, for the redeemed anyway, according to what they have believed. Would you express yourself this way? I wouldn't.

2. When he writes that eternal life will be given to those who persist in doing good - let's be fair, this is precisely how the sentence reads in this translation - he really means us to understand that eternal life to those who believed a certain thing. Does that sound like the way an educated Pharisee would express himself?

Paul also wrote this:

there will be glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good:

So we have to believe that by "does good", Paul means "has faith". Would you choose such terminology if you were Paul?

Paul also wrote this:

it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

So we have to believe that "obey the law" means to "have faith". While this is a possibility, I suggest that it makes Paul into a very odd writer.

And if all this were not suspicious enough, consider how Paul introduces the entire narrative:

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. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.

Paul then launches in to his statements about what hill happen at a "judgement". Is it a different judgment than Paul is talking about in the introduction - a judgement that certainly seems to be "works-based"?

If you were Paul, would you introduce an account of justification by something other than what we do with such a prologue that will make the reader think that it is precisely what we do that is really the issue here.

Are we, yet again, to believe that by "do", Paul means "believe" here?

 

[stranger]

It sounds to me like you are combining justification with sanctification. I believe the Bible teaches us that justification is a single act and sanctification is ongoing, ending in glorification. This is what the early church believed and what the Reformers taught.

I assume that this for me and not Bob Ryan.

As I suspect you know by now, I think the Reformers were mistaken and that Paul does not teach that justification is a single act.

Justification for the Jews was always an "eschatological term" - a term about the future. It was what God was going to do for the nation of Israel at the end of her long history - vindicate her in front of the pagan nations. It would be rather strange for Paul to use this term in a manner that drained all of its future-ness out of it.

I claim that Paul's position is this:

1. Justification is primarily a covenantal term, not a forensic term (although it is used forensically in service of the higher covenantal meaning);

2. What God had promised to do for Israel at the end of her long history - justify her in front of the nations by showing that "she is the true covenant people", He has done for the individual Jesus in the middle of history. And, Paul also realizes, Jesus is the true Israel - the true David - the man "after God's own heart". And, look what has happened to Jesus "as Israel" - he has been raised from the dead. Paul's key "eureka" moment here - I suggest - is to see that resurrection, (in the present for Jesus, but in the future for us) is what justification consists in.

3. Paul realizes that justification does not, as the Jews expected, take the form of being simply "declared publically", as if with a bullhorn, in front of the nations to be the people of God". Instead, wonderfully and unexpectedly - to be "justified" turns out to be raised from the dead (echoes of Ezekial 37);

4. Paul means what he says about people being "justified" in Romans 2 where, we now (following Jesus as the first-fruits) are justified at the end- shown to be member of God's covenant people by being raised from the dead and given eternal life. And how are we justified? By what we do. And I am sorry, I think your argument that no Christians will be subject the Romans 2 judgement is unworkable, since it requires us to believe that zero persons will be justified in the manner that Paul describes in Romans 2. What kind of educated person would describe a works-based judgement resulting in eternal life for some, while secretly believing that "some" equals "zero"?

Hi Drew,

I agree that Israel will be 'justified' in the end and not only justified but also sanctified: for they shall all know Me from the greatest to the least. . . and that has never happened to date in Israel's long history so it must be yet future.

Justification translates to righteousness is how I would put it:

Romans 3:21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

That which 'comes through faith' has already started. At the end of the age what individuals, including myself, have tasted in varying dgrees, will be manifested universally. This is called the revealing of the sons (and daughters) of God by Paul. Individuals throughout histroy have been given a foretaste of glory divine for varying lengths of time. You can read their testimony in the hymns and in the scriptures.

So let me say in closing a more complete sentence: that justification translates into the righteousness of God as our new nature. That it can be observing in varying degrees, or not observed at all when it is there in an absolutely astonishing degree, is not surprising. Yet there remains the future hope for Israel and the church to manifest the righteousness of God at the end of the age in full glory.