Salvation by faith alone/only?

[mondar]

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.â€[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.


I agree - in Romans 2, Paul is indeed talking about who the true people of God are. But, he says this within that treatment:

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.

Sinthesis, what is the basis for being declared righteous, according to this specific statement, notwithstanding that we appear to agree on the general theme of the chapter as a whole?

We are perhaps not that far apart - I have repeatedly said that "good works that save" can only arise in the life of the person who has placed faith in Jesus.

But Paul says what he says - this statement, and the ones in 2:6-7 clearly declare that the criteria for awarding eternal life is "good works".

I am still here, and I still disagree with the concept that Romans 2 is a definition of the people of God. The theme is about "the impartiality of God's judgment." Verses 6-7 are only an illustration of God's impartiality. It is Paul emphasizing that if a man is righteous, God is impartially judging him as righteous, and if a man is evil, he is so judged. The Jews, in this context, felt because they were the hearers of the Law (see verse 13) that they had God's favor. So the Jews used the law to judge others (see verse 1) but they did not keep the law themselves (vs 13). That the Law here is the Mosaic Law can easily be seen in the later verses....
21 thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples?
23 thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest thou God?
It is noticeable the references to the 10 commandments here.

But lets look at the context concerning the impartiality of God's judgment.

Romans 2... (ASV)
---------2 And we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against them that practise such things.
---------6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
8 but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
---------11 for there is no respect of persons with God.

Verses 6-7 are Pauls illustration of God's impartial judgment which is mentioned in verse 11. Drew, as you said, the whole context must tie in. Verse 2 and verse 11 are part of the context. The context nowhere mentions the lawkeepers being the people of God. Please show me where Romans 2 says that. Of course no one can do that. A reference to the "this is how you become the people of God" is assumed by some and is not a part of the context. Romans 2 is not to be seen as a means of justification or as a way of becoming Gods people. On the other hand, I can quote verse 11, which talks about "no respect of persons." I can also point to verse 2 which speaks of the judgment of God is according to truth.

I want to mention that verses 14 to 15 are a parenthetical thought. While the punctuation is not inspired, some bibles even have interpretive parenthesis around those verses. Paul is speaking of the Jews in Chapter 2 and how they judge Gentiles not worthy of God. Verses 14 and 15 are a parenthetical thought inserted about Gentiles. Gentiles do not have the Law of Moses, but they do have an inner conscience mentioned as "the law of God written on their hearts." While this is new covenant language, it is not actually the new covenant being referenced here. It is not until verse 29 that the new covenant comes into the conversation. The New Covenant is the concept of "heart circumcision." Back in verse 14-15, the law written on the hearts of the Gentiles in creation will only "accuse or else excuse" them. The rest of the chapter is to the Jew. The Jew is named in verse 17.... "17 But if thou bearest the name of a Jew,"

 

[Drew]

Verses 6-7 are only an illustration of God's impartiality."

Really.

Let's analyze these verses as English sentences:

Let's start with verse 6:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done

While I agree that the theme of impartiality is present in Romans 2, this is simply not what this particular sentence asserts.

This is what is so strange about this thread - people simply do not honour the plain meaning of an english statement.

This is a statement that God will reward people, yes, according to what they have done.

How can we have this discussion if this clear truth is not acknowledged. Yes, this "rewarding" may also be impartial, in the sense that everyone gets a fair hearing.

But the sentence is what it is!!! A clear declaration that some "reward" is connected to how people behave.

So even if the judgement is done impartially, it does not change the plain sense of this englist statement - people are rewarded according to what they have done.

I will deal with verse 7 later.

 

[reba]

Luk 21:1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
Luk 21:2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
Luk 21:3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:
Luk 21:4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

 

[glorydaz]

Fran----- You PRESUME that IF someone could keep the law 100% of the time, they could be justified by the Law. Does Paul ever make that argument??? Does Paul ever suggest that "if someone could keep the law 100%, they would be self-justified

Grubal-----Someone was able to keep the "whole" law, and that was Christ our Saviour...His righteousness is imputed to us when we become "a child of God."

Amen, a lamb without blemish.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I still see nothing about following the Law 100% will earn salvation.

The Law has no power to grant anything. How could perfect law following grant salvation, since salvation is something given only by God in His mercy??? The law can grant NOTHING. NO ONE can obligate God. Even 100% law following. That very fact defuses your entire argument. Perfect law following does not obligate God, so the point is inconsequential (and not Paul's point - which I will succinctly state soon)



But not for the reasons you detail. God justifies. We don't justify ourselves. This says NOTHING about whether one COULD obey the Law 100%. Recall that Paul says he obeyed it "perfectly"...

Even if we DID obey the law 100%, that would not justify ourselves. This states nothing about whether someone CAN fulfill the law.

The point is WHO is justifying? Is it one's own efforts or is it God?

Regards

Fran-----I still see nothing about following the Law 100% will earn salvation.

Grubal-----Romans 8:3 says---"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" The law was "weak" because of the flesh, therefore, the law was "impossible" to follow or be obeyed 100%. The law could "never" save anyone because Jesus was the "only" one that had the ability to fulfill the law...I don't understand why you keep
reiterating that law does not save.Nobody here has said it does... Please explain why your arguing an obvious (already more than answered question)

Fran-----But not for the reasons you detail. God justifies. We don't justify ourselves. This says NOTHING about whether one COULD obey the Law 100%. Recall that Paul says he obeyed it "perfectly"...

Grubal---Paul did obey the law, within the confines of the flesh, but on a Spiritual level, God excepting, "only"100% perfection, even Paul fell short...

Fran-----Even if we DID obey the law 100%, that would not justify ourselves. This states nothing about whether someone CAN fulfill the law.

Grubal----God only excepts 100% sinless "perfection" which only Christ has the ability. All men fall short of this expectation, without exception...

 

[glorydaz]

Really.

Let's analyze these verses as English sentences:

So even if the judgement is done impartially, it does not change the plain sense of this englist statement - people are rewarded according to what they have done.

Exactly....ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.

Why won't you answer me about the verse in Ezekiel? It does relate to this if you'd take the time to look.

The watchman is to give a warning when God brings a sword upon the land (approaching judgment)

1Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: 3If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; 4Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.

Paul is the watchman blowing the trumpet.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Paul then explains that those who judge others do the same things themselves. The Jews think they are so wonderful for keeping the law, but they are only "treasuring up" wrath because they do the same things (sin).

Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.

When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; Rom. 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.Rom. 2:16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

ALL DEEDS A PERSON DOES - GOOD AND BAD

 

[glorydaz]

Fran-----WHO believes that Gentiles were following the Law perfectly? YET, they were entering eternal life, according to Paul. They WERE obeying the Law, according to Paul. Nowhere does he state anything about perfection, so I wonder why you even mention this. Unless you are reading into Scriptures your theology.

Grubal-----The Gentiles were entering eternal life because they were putting their faith in Christ, and becoming "born-again Spiritually." Not because they were following the law. For if they fell short in one area of the law, they were guilty of breaking the whole law...Therefore, it was a fruitless attempt and bound to fail...

Well stated, Grubal.

7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

 

[glorydaz]

I am still here, and I still disagree with the concept that Romans 2 is a definition of the people of God. The theme is about "the impartiality of God's judgment." Verses 6-7 are only an illustration of God's impartiality. It is Paul emphasizing that if a man is righteous, God is impartially judging him as righteous, and if a man is evil, he is so judged.

I agree. Except for the salutation to the believers in Rome, the children of God have not even been mentioned.

This is Paul's introduction, as he begins to share the Gospel message about salvation by faith.
[quote="Romans 1:15-17]So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. [/quote]

He then goes on to talk about the condition of man, and how God's judgment will be carried out.

Romans 2:6,7 has to be referring back to those he had just described. Those with only their conscience as a law, and the Jews who had the law of Moses. Not those who persist in well doing with the Spirit's help.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Eternal life is granted conditionally by God. It is AVAILABLE to all, but it is not "won" by all. God desires all to be saved, but He also desires that man maintain their free will, using our actions as a basis to provide mercy. And some choose to remain in sin.



First, the act of coming to God is a good deed... No one just "sits there and does nothing" - the very act of becoming baptized and proclaiming Jesus as Lord is a "work", a "deed".

But I am speaking about entering eternal life, not about redemption of sin. The two are not necessarily synonymous. A person can be redeemed from sin many years ago and fall away, making a shipwreck of their faith. Scriptures very clearly note that God judges our good deeds, does it not? Good deeds moved by God's Spirit and our faith?



How do the Gentiles "put their faith in a risen Savior" that they know nothing about??? That is not what Paul says. No mention of "faith in Jesus" is mentioned in Romans 2. Clearly, Paul is speaking of Gentiles who have not "officially" converted to Christianity, because Romans 2 states that they don't have the written Law, only the law in their hearts. Gentile Christians DID know of the written Law!!! So Paul cannot be talking about Gentile converts.



He is confused on the point of Paul in Romans 2, interjecting his theology onto the text. I am afraid you are guity of the same thing.

I am arguing the opposite of what you accuse me of! Over and over, I have stated that even perfect law following does not win salvation. I have asked you over and over for proof of the necessity for perfect law following to win salvation. Are you having a difficult time reading that in my posts? I would suggest you read them more carefully. The entire argument about "100% law following" made by you and glorydaz misses the point Paul is making! It is inconsequential, an invention of what falls under "man's justice".

NO ONE CAN justify themselves. That is my point That is Paul's point.

Now, if someone obeyed the Law, (happens over and over again in Scriptures) salvation could be mercifully granted BY GOD. Not by successfully following the Law, but by God's desire to grant mercy. God grants the gift of eternal life to those who obey Him - not because He owes them, but because God is righteous and merciful...

How difficult is this to understand???

Either God justifies or we (try) justify ourselves...


Regards

Fran-----Eternal life is granted conditionally by God. It is AVAILABLE to all, but it is not "won" by all. God desires all to be saved, but He also desires that man maintain their free will, using our actions as a basis to provide mercy. And some choose to remain in sin.

Grubal-----You started out well, but when you used the word "won" that's where you went off the track. We don't "win" Salvation, God offers us His provision for mercy and forgiveness through His Son with a stipulation that we must place our faith in what God has provided...The rest of your statement sounds reasonable...

Fran-----First, the act of coming to God is a good deed... No one just "sits there and does nothing" - the very act of becoming baptized and proclaiming Jesus as Lord is a "work", a "deed".

Grubal-----It's "not" a good deed. We first "hear" the Gospel of our Salvation then, The Spirit convicts us of our sins, once we realize we're a lost sinner and that we're in need of a Savior, we will either, except or reject the message.

Fran-----But I am speaking about entering eternal life, not about redemption of sin. The two are not necessarily synonymous. A person can be redeemed from sin many years ago and fall away, making a shipwreck of their faith. Scriptures very clearly note that God judges our good deeds, does it not? Good deeds moved by God's Spirit and our faith?

Grubal-----You know what? I think I'm going to "agree" with you here. It's possible for someone to "mess up" due to the fact we're still in the flesh...

Fran-----How do the Gentiles "put their faith in a risen Savior" that they know nothing about??? That is not what Paul says. No mention of "faith in Jesus" is mentioned in Romans 2. Clearly, Paul is speaking of Gentiles who have not "officially" converted to Christianity, because Romans 2 states that they don't have the written Law, only the law in their hearts. Gentile Christians DID know of the written Law!!! So Paul cannot be talking about Gentile converts.

Grubal-----I'll need more clarification in order to give an opinion??

Fran-----I am arguing the opposite of what you accuse me of! Over and over, I have stated that even perfect law following does not win salvation. I have asked you over and over for proof of the necessity for perfect law following to win salvation. Are you having a difficult time reading that in my posts? I would suggest you read them more carefully. The entire argument about "100% law following" made by you and glorydaz misses the point Paul is making! It is inconsequential, an invention of what falls under "man's justice".

Grubal----Not meaning any disrespect but, perhaps you could be a little more "articulate" in your statement presentation. You seem to be "arguing" about, the idea of works toward salvation but, I'm not certain which side you fall on...You seem to bounce back and forth on the subject...I think it best if you just, state what you truly believe about God's Grace, our (man's) faith, and how it all comes together. Otherwise I'm at a loss about what your opinion is...

Fran----NO ONE CAN justify themselves. That is my point That is Paul's point.

Grubal-----I don't remember "anyone on this thread doubting that??"

Fran----Now, if someone obeyed the Law, (happens over and over again in Scriptures) salvation could be mercifully granted BY GOD. Not by successfully following the Law, but by God's desire to grant mercy. God grants the gift of eternal life to those who obey Him - not because He owes them, but because God is righteous and merciful...

Grubal----Salvation can only be acquired through the Grace of God and placing our faith in Christ and Him crucified...

 

[mondar]

Really.

Let's analyze these verses as English sentences:

Let's start with verse 6:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done

While I agree that the theme of impartiality is present in Romans 2, this is simply not what this particular sentence asserts.

Drew, maybe we should begin (wierd word for an old discussion) with a discussion of the context. We can fit individual verses into the context after we agree on the context. Verse 6 is words originally penned as a part of Psalms 62:12. Paul is merely quoting Psalm 62 to demonstrate his thesis that Gods judgment is impartial. I will admit that where I am going is to suggest that verse 6 is Pauls scriptural proof text that God's judgment is impartial. Now to the outline....

God's judgment is impartial because:
1--- Even though the Jew judges the Gentile, the Jew practices the things done by the Gentile. Vs 1-5

2--- Paul's principle of partiality is declared. Vs 6-11
A-------Vs 6----- OT support
B---Vs 7----- Principle that God's impartiality would bring him to reward righteousness.
C---Vs 8-9-- Principle that God judges unrighteousness
B---Vs 10-- Principle that God impartial rewards are to the Jew 1st, but includes Gentiles.
A-------Vs 11---- Topic Sentence and Conclusion to this section.

3--- Paul Statement of the impartiality of God's judgment according to the Mosaic Law.
Statement of judgment----12
---Those not under the Mosaic Law will perish without the Mosaic Law
---Those under the Mosaic Law will be judged by the Law.

Statement of impartiality principle----13
---Jewish people hearing the Mosaic Law is not what justifies, but the doing of the Mosaic Law.

Parenthetical explanation of Gentile judgment that is not under the Mosaic Law----14-15
---Result is that men are accused by the Mosaic Law, or they excuse themselves for not doing the law

Statement of impartiality finished--- vs 16
---Verse 16 should be read like it comes after verse 13. "The doers of the Law will be justified... on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

4--- Narrative on the the nature of the Jews that Paul is accusing. (skipping details)
5--- Statement on the value of circumcision.


A few more thoughts....
2:13 says the "doers of the law will be justified"
3:20 says by the "works of the Law no flesh shall be justifed in his sight."
-----Is Paul saying in 2:12 that the Law is a means of justification, and then saying just the opposite in 3:20? Of course not, in 2:12 the subject is the impartiality of Gods judgment.

This is what is so strange about this thread - people simply do not honour the plain meaning of an english statement.

I hear other people talk like this... "unless you agree with me, you dishonor the scriptures" Oh well, what chance do I have.... lol

This is a statement that God will reward people, yes, according to what they have done.

Sure, but it is with reference to the impartial judgment of God and not a means of salvation.

How can we have this discussion if this clear truth is not acknowledged. Yes, this "rewarding" may also be impartial, in the sense that everyone gets a fair hearing.

But the sentence is what it is!!! A clear declaration that some "reward" is connected to how people behave.

So even if the judgement is done impartially, it does not change the plain sense of this englist statement - people are rewarded according to what they have done.

I will deal with verse 7 later.

 

[francisdesales]

A question for all, except fds (unless he wants to answer it as well).

Consider this couplet of statements:

The employer “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in working hard seek the company's best interest, he will give a raise.

What is the criteria for getting a raise?

This is a very simple question. Please answer it.

The good will of the boss...

You are not owed a raise, even if you are the best employee the company ever had...

The giver of the gift is the one who decides when to give it. Not anyone who is perfect or obeys a set of standards.


Regards

 

[Mike]

Mike: Please answer this simple question: What do these sentences mean?:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.â€[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

And more specifically, what does "according to" mean in the English language.

Drew, I'm not going to debate you on this. I've already told you what this verse means to me, and you disagreed with me. That's going to have to be that. In my post you quote here, I simply stated my understanding that Galatians was written to people who had gotten caught up in good works. I'm not moved to take you up on your challenge on Romans 2 (again). Thanks for responding, though!

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Drew, I'm not going to debate you on this. I've already told you what this verse means to me, and you disagreed with me. That's going to have to be that. In my post you quote here, I simply stated my understanding that Galatians was written to people who had gotten caught up in good works. I'm not moved to take you up on your challenge on Romans 2 (again). Thanks for responding, though!

Drew---Just a friendly suggestion but, you seem to be getting on peoples nerves staying on only one verse of Scripture and asking the same question over and over. People aren't going to answer you any differently just because you ask them "several" times in a row...They have one opinion for you, but you don't like their answer, so you ask them again, maybe your hoping to get a different answer by wearing them down, I don't know.

 

[Sinthesis]

A question for all, except fds (unless he wants to answer it as well).

Consider this couplet of statements:

The employer “will repay each person according to what they have done.â€[a] 7 To those who by persistence in working hard seek the company's best interest, he will give a raise.

What is the criteria for getting a raise?

This is a very simple question. Please answer it.

Do the good workers all get the same raise?

 

[francisdesales]

I'm not "pretending" anything. Paul said, those who are of the "works" of the law are under a curse, because they would have to be a "doer" of ALL THINGS which are written in the law. He's says it's "evident" no man can. Can you read these verses some other way?

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in [/b]all things[/b] which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Yes.

What is written is "all are cursed" who do not obey ALL THINGS written in the Law...

Nowhere do I find ANYTHING about what you claim - that one who perfectly OBEYS the Law EARNS salvation - theoretically even! The only thing a person can "earn" is eternal damnation. You cannot, even with perfect obedience, earn salvation. You are saying something that is not in the text!

Salvation is entirely a gift. Even for the perfect follower of the Law. Does the Bible state that God OWES any perfect follower of the Law anything? If so, then salvation is no longer a gift, but wages (Romans 4:4).

What you have done is twisted a Scripture passage to state that no one can obey the Law!

Paul's statement is about the curse of TRYING to uphold the Law perfectly and justiying OURSELVES through that obedience. The curse is that the Law itself does not help us to justify ourselves. No one can justify themselves. Perfect obedience does not justify ourselves - if so, it is no longer a gift, but something to earn.

Regards

 

[ivdavid]

But I see no reason whatsoever to not take Paul literally in chapter 2.

I'd just like to share how I see certain concepts that are involved in this.

Consider a man guilty of murder being brought before a king, where the laws of that land condemn such a transgressor to be hanged. Now, the law of this land is framed and pretty clear - "Thou shalt not murder. If you are guilty of transgressing this commandment, you will be hanged." So, this transgressor is to be rendered death according to what he has done. Now let's say this transgressor who stands before the king is shown mercy by the king - and finds himself set free to live. Has this been rendered according to what he has done - no. Mercy is always beyond the law.

So given such a scenario, I could state that the principles of judgement in this land are - "Those who commit murder, will be hanged ; those who refrain from doing so, will live." But this does not conclusively imply that everyone live only because they have refrained from transgressing the law of this land - as we have seen above, those who are under mercy too live even though they are guilty of transgression unto death.

Now, to be granted mercy, one must first be found guilty of transgression - for where there is no transgression, there is no concept of mercy.
And where there is no law, there is no transgression. Unless there is a law that conveys that "you must not commit murder" - nobody can be held guilty of transgression and hence there is no mercy possible again. So we see that the law always precedes mercy. One cannot then talk about the king's mercy over transgressions without setting it against the law of the land that condemns such transgressions.

Given all this, if the above murderer says that he does not hail from this land at all and hence he should be exempted from the laws of this land - in essence, if he pleads ignorance from the law of the land - then there seems to be an excuse for such a person to get away with murder - literally. If on the other hand, the laws of this land were somehow known to him even though he wasn't of this land - then there is no such escape route.

Would you disagree with anything I've stated here? I'd like to resolve them before moving on further.

 

[francisdesales]

Fran----- You PRESUME that IF someone could keep the law 100% of the time, they could be justified by the Law. Does Paul ever make that argument??? Does Paul ever suggest that "if someone could keep the law 100%, they would be self-justified

Grubal-----Someone was able to keep the "whole" law, and that was Christ our Saviour...His righteousness is imputed to us when we become "a child of God."

You did not answer my question. Was Jesus self-justifying Himself because of "perfect Law following"? Re-read Philipians 2:1-10 again...

NO ONE self-justifies themselves... Is this really such a difficult concept??? :eeeekkk

By the way, God's righteousness is not imputed to us. Righteousness is imputed to us.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Fran-----WHO believes that Gentiles were following the Law perfectly? YET, they were entering eternal life, according to Paul. They WERE obeying the Law, according to Paul. Nowhere does he state anything about perfection, so I wonder why you even mention this. Unless you are reading into Scriptures your theology.

Grubal-----The Gentiles were entering eternal life because they were putting their faith in Christ, and becoming "born-again Spiritually." Not because they were following the law. For if they fell short in one area of the law, they were guilty of breaking the whole law...Therefore, it was a fruitless attempt and bound to fail...

Where does Romans 2 mention that Gentiles put their faith in Jesus Christ? Any suggestion of that anywhere? Please stop inventing things to put in Scriptures. It is getting tiring correcting all of these assumptions.

Paul is talking about Gentiles who never heard of Jesus of Nazareth, since they were not aware of the written Law. EVERY Christian, Jew or Gentile, will have heard of the Mosaic Law!!! Plainly, Paul is talking about Gentiles who hear of the law written on their hearts, not with their ears.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Fran-----I still see nothing about following the Law 100% will earn salvation.

Grubal-----Romans 8:3 says---"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh"

You are really desperate to force the Scriptures through the "seive" of your theology, aren't you. Please. Just read what is there...

The Law cannot save. PERFECT LAW FOLLOWING DOES NOTHING TO EARN SALVATION. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT!!!!

IF the Law had the power to save, to obligate God, THEN, one could obey it and consider salvation as "wages paid". However, salvation is NOT wages. Not because no one can DO the Law, but because DOING the Law does not EARN WAGES.

Paul is not making a statement about inability to do the Law. HE HIMSELF stated that he, at one time, followed the Law perfectly. Then realized it did not earn him anything. Let's look at Paul's thought on this:

For we are the circumcision, who in spirit serve God; and glory in Christ Jesus, not having confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other thinketh he may have confidence in the flesh, I more, Being circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; according to the law, a Pharisee: According to zeal, persecuting the church of God; according to the justice that is in the law, conversing without blame. But the things that were gain to me, the same I have counted loss for Christ. Furthermore I count all things to be but loss for the excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but as dung, that I may gain Christ: And may be found in him, not having my justice, which is of the law, but that which is of the faith of Christ Jesus, which is of God, justice in faith: Phillipians 3:3-9 (DRA)

Several things to point out...

1. Paul perfectly followed the law. He was able to "converse without blame".He certainly was ABLE to, and was proud of it
2. Now, after Christ came to Paul, he no longer had confidence in the "flesh", his own abilities.
3. Paul had previously thought that perfect Law following would 'earn' him salvation. He had "MY justice, which is of the Law". NOW, he had faith in Jesus Christ, which is justice by faith.
4. Paul placed his faith in God, rather than in himself and his own abilities to follow the Law.

Do we justify ourselves, or do we turn to God and plead with him, in trusting faith, to declare us righteous? Paul gets it after his encounter with Jesus. In Romans 2-3, he is telling Judaizers that they are in the same boat. Salvation/justification is not something that is "paid back - wages". It is a gift.

That's it. Salvation is a gift. NOT something anyone can earn. Even a righteous Pharisee of the Law, like Paul.

The law was "weak" because of the flesh, therefore, the law was "impossible" to follow or be obeyed 100%.

WRONG!!!

Following the law 500% doesn't earn anything! it is so simple. There is NOTHING HERE or anywhere about the "inability to obey the law". The issue is a non-sequitar, because even THAT level of obedience does not earn anything.

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. Romans 4:2-4

Note, this passage does not say that Abraham COULD NOT obey the law by his works - but that those works could not justify him in God's eyes. Only God can justify us in His eyes. "For to him that work, the reward is not a grace, but debt." In other words, obedience to the Law as a means to gain salvation is one of debt. Not grace.

Nothing about whether one COULD obey the law. THe issue is whether salvation is a gift or something earned.

The law could "never" save anyone because Jesus was the "only" one that had the ability to fulfill the law...

Scriptures, please...

I don't understand why you keep
reiterating that law does not save.Nobody here has said it does...

You are missing my point!

In your mind, one is saved by either:

1.Faith in Jesus
2.PERFECT obedience to the Law.

Since "no one but Jesus" can do #2 (according to you, not Paul), then the only way to salvation is #1.

However, this misses what Scriptures are ACTUALLY saying.

#2 is not "impossible to do". Rather, if one considers doing #2 as a way to obligate God, they are sadly mistaken, since salvation is NOT wages, but a gift.

The attitude of #2 is like a job. I do "x" and my employer owes me a wage. If I perfectly follow the law, God owes me salvation. Paul is stating that doing #2 does NOT pay a wage, since salvation CAN ONLY BE A GIFT. Thus, the point is not about inability to follow the Law, but inability of that Law following to earn salvation. At the end of the day, salvation is based upon grace.

I hope this is clear enough. The issue is over whether salvation CAN be earned or if it is ALWAYS a gift.

Regards

 

[Drew]

Drew, I'm not going to debate you on this. I've already told you what this verse means to me, and you disagreed with me. That's going to have to be that. In my post you quote here, I simply stated my understanding that Galatians was written to people who had gotten caught up in good works. I'm not moved to take you up on your challenge on Romans 2 (again). Thanks for responding, though!

I suggest that you are evading the question. It is a clear, simple question. Why not answer it?