The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

[Drew]

Again I ask, where does it say that the works that accompany salvation are the actual agent of justification?

The point is this: Despite protestation to the contrary, Romans 2:6-7 clearly asserts that the basis, the grounds, the "according to" associated with getting eternal life is, yes, what we have done.

That is simply what the text says. How can I argue with you when you effectively deny what the text says?

Your question is like someone reading this statement:

Admission to Harvard is based on grades

...and then asking this:

Where does the above statement say the grounds / basis / criterion for getting into Harvard is grades?

It says it directly! - that's what the sentence means!

We are seemingly at impasse. You either do not understand what "according to" means, or you are in simple denial.

I am sorry for the bluntness, and I am willing accept moderator rebuke, but I cannot think of any other possibilities.

 

[Drew]

Let me try this angle. If, repeat if, Paul had written this:

6God “will repay each person according to what they have believed.â€[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

....then you could at least argue that the "persistence in doing good" is not the fundamental basis on which eternal life is granted. You could say that this "persistence in doing good" is a property manifested by those who are justified on other grounds, namely belief. That would be an odd and misleading way to make the point, but it is at least plausible.

But, of course, Paul did not say this. He said what he said!!! You are given eternal life according to what they have done.

But let's forget about Romans 2:6-7 for the moment. This text, from Romans 8 is, also, a clear, unambiguous statement that eternal life is determined by how you actually live:

For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

Now I will sit back with my popcorn and wait for the contrivances that turn this sentence into something other than its obvious meaning.

This statement from Paul is of the form:

If you do X, Y will result.

This is as clear a means as possible of asserting that the basis, the grounds, the means by which Y occurs is X. But, no doubt, people will deny this. They have to.

 

[Drew]

Why can it only be that God using the works of the faith that persists to the end means that the works themselves do the justifying and not the persistent faith that produced them?

1. Because Paul wrote this:

6God “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 not this:

6God “will repay each person according to what they have believed.â€[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

2. Because Paul wrote this:

For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

....and not this:

For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if have faith, you will live.

Now let me be clear: As should be clear, I do believe that those with faith will indeed live. But that's not the point!! What Paul actually wrote, and not what we wished he wrote, establishes that the condition that needs to be met for life is, yes, "putting to death the misdeeds of the body".

 

[heymikey80]

Your problem here is you have provided nothing, zilch, nada, nil to back this up.

Oh, I've provided plenty.

You're saying a judge is obeying a defendant just to listen to his case.

You're saying answering the door is obeying.

You're saying a word with a base meaning of "hear" is actually a base meaning of "do".

It's not true.

What it means is credulously hearing the speaker.

So what would that make your problem? Neglect of the argument?

 

[heymikey80]

Let me try this angle. If, repeat if, Paul had written this:

6God “will repay each person according to what they have believed.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

....then you could at least argue that the "persistence in doing good" is not the fundamental basis on which eternal life is granted. You could say that this "persistence in doing good" is a property manifested by those who are justified on other grounds, namely belief. That would be an odd and misleading way to make the point, but it is at least plausible.

But, of course, Paul did not say this. He said what he said!!! You are given eternal life according to what they have done.

Of course Paul said that. Unfortunately though, he said more than that.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. Rom 2:12

Now, I wouldn't advise anyone neglect verse 12. It's merely six verses after verse 6! So outside the law everyone perishes.

How about those following the law? We've been talking ad infinitum about people claiming Paul is simply rejecting the law. That's the partial position we all agree on: that nobody is justified by the law.

So Romans 2:12 quickly concludes: nobody lives. everybody dies.

If someone were trying to fulfill Romans 2:6, Paul has barred the door with Romans 2:12. Completely. It's gone. Curtains. Nobody lives. Everybody dies.

Paul centers his argument on this. It's simply a fact. Take a look across all of Romans 1-3:8 and find where Paul "previously charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin" Romans 3:9.

So go ahead, show how you don't die under Romans 2:6, when Paul directly states otherwise in Romans 2:12.

Then I'll show how.

(Where's the ?)

 

[Drew]

Of course Paul said that. Unfortunately though, he said more than that.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. Rom 2:12

Now, I wouldn't advise anyone neglect verse 12. It's merely six verses after verse 6! So outside the law everyone perishes.

I do not have the time right now to deal with your post as fully as I would like. But I can point out one flaw: no matter what else your argument shows, it forces us to conclude that Paul wrote this:

6God “will repay each person according to what they have believed.â€[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

....a clear assertion of final justification by good works, and intends us to believe that there are zero people in this category.

This is simply not something a competent writer would do, and it is another variant on the many we see whereby people do not take 2:6-7 seriously.

No competent person would say "all those who x will get y" if that person knows that there are no people who will get y - that is simply not something a competent person would say.

Imagine if someone knows already that no applicant to Harvard got an SAT score higher than 1500. Such a person would be incompetent / misleading to say this:

All people with an SAT score > 1500 will be admitted to Harvard.

You have a "clever" angle here. Strictly speaking, this person would not be lying - he would say "all people with a score > 1500 were admitted, it just happened that there were zero such people."

And, while this is technically true, it is deceptive and misleading.

I simply cannot accept that Paul is engaged in such a practice, but I suggest your position forces you into such a conclusion.

Again, I plan to address the rest of your argument later.

 

[heymikey80]

I do not have the time right now to deal with your post as fully as I would like. But I can point out one flaw: no matter what else your argument shows, it forces us to conclude that Paul wrote this:

6God “will repay each person according to what they have believed.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

....a clear assertion of final justification by good works, and intends us to believe that there are zero people in this category.

Yet, Paul has already stated this -- before Romans 2:6.

"But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed." This is simply Romans 2:5 .

It's not hard, once Paul has sprung the trap, for Paul explain how the trap was sprung. He's not being deceptive. He's being truthful.

This is simply not something a competent writer would do, and it is another variant on the many we see whereby people do not take 2:6-7 seriously.

No competent person would say "all those who x will get y" if that person knows that there are no people who will get y - that is simply not something a competent person would say.

You're saying God is not competent? Because God talks about the Law in this way:

You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord. Lv 18:5

BTW, according to Augustine this is very much what Pelagius argued: that God would not create a righteousness no one could attain. I'm simply responding with Augustine's cogent argument.

And Paul even has an explanation as to why this stuff is impossible -- to recognize its necessity -- and thus our need: "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." Rom 3:20

So Paul hasn't deceived; he's prefaced the arch over his argument. Then he walks us through his argument. And he constantly reinforces his argument at Rom 2:12 and Rom 3:20, but also Rom 2:5, Rom 3:9-19. Nobody lives. Everybody dies.

 

[Drew]

Yet, Paul has already stated this -- before Romans 2:6.

"But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed." This is simply Romans 2:5 .

It's not hard, once Paul has sprung the trap, for Paul explain how the trap was sprung. He's not being deceptive. He's being truthful.

I doubt it. In the material up to 2:5, I suggest he is clearly addressing the hypocrite. You are, I suggest, morphing this into a treatment of all humanity.

Either way, this is still not an explanation for decidedly odd / misleading statement that Paul makes in 2:6-7, if your position is correct.

Again, no competent person says "people will get eternal life based on their deeds" if they believe zero people will meet that criterion.

Is the following is also true of zero people?:

For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

Will zero people get life through putting to death the misdeeds of the body?

This is the trouble with your position: you have Paul saying things that are deeply misleading / odd / borderline incompetent.

There is, I suggest, a better way out of this.

And I have not forgotten about the whole 2:12 argument - I plan to get back to you.

 

[Drew]

You're saying God is not competent? Because God talks about the Law in this way:

You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord. Lv 18:5

I am glad you brought this up. And I will point out that it is you, I think, who is put in a troublesome position by this text. Because, again, your position requires you to believe that God says "you will live if you follow my law", knowing that zero persons will meet that criterion. I suggest that this is clearly not something a competent person, let alone a writer of inspired scripture, would do.

My basic argument is this (and I realize that it seems contrived, but I believe I can robustly defend it): Even though this text appears to suggest something that clashes with Paul's suggestion that doing the works of the Law of Moses cannot save, it is actually not saying what it appears to be saying. In fact, there is a motif in the Bible of "a law within a law" - two Torahs, if you will. And distinguishing between these two Torahs allows us to not have to do anything like what I suggest you are doing to Romans 2:6-7 (basically you are saying that what Paul says in 2:6-7 is true of zero people - competent people do not write like that, I suggest)

Again, just in case you think this is a wild contrivance, the whole view I am advocating is the view of respected theologian NT Wright. That does not "prove my case", but I suggest it does show that this view is self-evidently absurd.

Unfortunately, the arguments are lengthy, and I cannot guarantee that I will be able to provide them, but I will try.

 

[smaller]

There is, I suggest, a better way out of this.

That's a classic. Been a few of them thrown out there this week.

A better way out. lol

Romans 8:10
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

The wages of sin?

DEATH.

There is the door out. And none will avoid it or find a way around it.

s

 

[rrowell]

Oh, I've provided plenty.

You're saying a judge is obeying a defendant just to listen to his case.

You're saying answering the door is obeying.

You're saying a word with a base meaning of "hear" is actually a base meaning of "do".

It's not true.

What it means is credulously hearing the speaker.

So what would that make your problem? Neglect of the argument?

This is laughable,

The defendant "μιλώ" (talk/speak) the Judge "ακου" (hear) who has authority here?

The Judge "μιλώ" (talk/speak) the defendant "υπακου" (submissive hearing aka: Obey)

Who was talking? God "authoritative", who was Listening "υπακου"? "subjection" Abraham (Obey)

Why can't you understand this?

 

[heymikey80]

I doubt it. In the material up to 2:5, I suggest he is clearly addressing the hypocrite. You are, I suggest, morphing this into a treatment of all humanity.

Paul is simply asserting that "in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things." Rom 2:2.

Did Paul lie?

Either way, this is still not an explanation for decidedly odd / misleading statement that Paul makes in 2:6-7, if your position is correct.

It's a great explanation of Rom 2:5. It's not misleading. It's the general rule, followed by the application: curtains all.

 

[heymikey80]

I am glad you brought this up. And I will point out that it is you, I think, who is put in a troublesome position by this text. Because, again, your position requires you to believe that God says "you will live if you follow my law", knowing that zero persons will meet that criterion. I suggest that this is clearly not something a competent person, let alone a writer of inspired scripture, would do.

My basic argument is this (and I realize that it seems contrived, but I believe I can robustly defend it): Even though this text appears to suggest something that clashes with Paul's suggestion that doing the works of the Law of Moses cannot save, it is actually not saying what it appears to be saying.

Well, I appreciate you bringing up this argument.

Gal 3:11-12 -- 'Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”'

It's exactly what Paul means by it. Paul is clearly saying the law doesn't justify people before God, and that the law is an attempt at righteousness of works, while the only righteousness before God is of faith.

If you were to apply your bias of "competence" against what you've said, you would realize that the same problem applies to your explanation.

In fact if we were to go on, the "two laws" theory is eisegesis -- again. It simply recurs. But in fact God's law is very consistent in its declaration to everyone -- Jew and Gentile -- the condemnation of Law:

For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth should be stopped, and the whole world held accountable to God. Rm 3:9-19

Not the quote marks. What preceded, to emphasize the point, was quotes -- from Paul -- citing the condemnation of the law against "those under the law". Paul says from this, "every mouth should be stopped, and the whole world held accountable to God"

 

[heymikey80]

This is laughable,

The defendant "μιλώ" (talk/speak) the Judge "ακου" (hear) who has authority here?

The judge "hupakouei" the defendant.

Funny, this mercuric slip. This is entirely the point.

The Judge "μιλώ" (talk/speak) the defendant "υπακου" (submissive hearing aka: Obey)

Who was talking? God "authoritative", who was Listening "υπακου"? "subjection" Abraham (Obey)

Why can't you understand this?

Because it's apparent your example of "obeying an authority" puts the judge in the humiliating point of obeying his defendant.

 

[rrowell]

The judge "hupakouei" the defendant.

Funny, this mercuric slip. This is entirely the point.

Because it's apparent your example of "obeying an authority" puts the judge in the humiliating point of obeying his defendant.

That is so absurd, first you twist English scripture, then you twist Greek to try to make your Twisted English, now you twist my text into something I completely didn't say...

I am done playing your courtroom game... it doesn't even apply...

God gave Abraham a command, Abraham obeyed, the word means "Obeyed" no matter the cartoon you put it in...

You have proven nothing except you are willing to (try to) twist English by trying to twist Greek...

 

[heymikey80]

That is so absurd, first you twist English scripture, then you twist Greek to try to make your Twisted English, now you twist my text into something I completely didn't say...

I am done playing your courtroom game... it doesn't even apply...

God gave Abraham a command, Abraham obeyed, the word means "Obeyed" no matter the cartoon you put it in...

You have proven nothing except you are willing to (try to) twist English by trying to twist Greek...

Septuagint, Job 5:1 . I believe I've already mentioned this verse.

Septuagint, Isaiah 65:24. God obeys people?

It's not a twist. It's Greek usage. The word means what the Greek speakers used it for. Not what we shoehorn into a theology.

 

[rrowell]

Septuagint, Job 5:1 . I believe I've already mentioned this verse.

Septuagint, Isaiah 65:24. God obeys people?

It's not a twist. It's Greek usage. The word means what the Greek speakers used it for. Not what we shoehorn into a theology.

You have proven nothing...

 

[Drew]

Paul is simply asserting that "in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things." Rom 2:2.

Did Paul lie?

Of course he did not lie. But you have not really addressed the problem - you have concluded (somehow) that this rebuke is directed to all humanity, and then leveraged that to argue that there are zero people in the category of those who get eternal life in accordance with good works.

And yet I suggest it is clear that the 2:2 and 2:5 remarks are not addressed to all, but rather to an hypothetical hypocrite.

On precisely what basis you conclude that all human beings fall into this category?

If you could make your case re :2:2 and 2:5, then you would have an argument.

 

[Drew]

It's a great explanation of Rom 2:5. It's not misleading. It's the general rule, followed by the application: curtains all.

That was not my point. Even if you can make the case that 2:5 is direceted at all humans, and I very much doubt you can, you still have the challenging task of explaining why Paul would say that people will get eternal life according to what they have done, while believing that zero people will pass this criterion.

As argued already, competent people do not make such statements - they are either misleading, deceptive, or simply odd and inappropriate. If I knew for a fact that nobody was going to run the 100 meter final in less than 9 seconds, it would be odd / deceptive for me to say:

To all those who run the 100 meter final in less than 9 seconds, I will give 100 dollars.

It would be sensible for me to say this if I did not know whether anybody would run the race in less than 9 seconds.

But Paul presumably knows that zero people will get eternal life based on good works, if your position is correct.

So why is saying something he knows to be true of zero people? Competent people do not make such statements.

 

[Drew]

Here is another argument as to why the material at front of Romans 2 in no way supports the otherwise dodgy argument that when Paul writes that people will get eternal life according to what they have done. This argument is dodgy because it has Paul writing about something he knows to be true of zero people - competent people do not say such things.

Sorry for the fonts - I simply cannot figure out how to change them....

Iam, of course, aware that Paul couldindeed have mounted an argument where he sets forth an unattainable standardfor the awarding of eternal life and then goes on to show that eternal life isactually achieved in some other way.

But what Paul actually writes shows that this is not what he is thinking. Romans2 begins with Paul's critique of the self-righteous man. Then comes the warning about the futurejudgement based on deeds.

That warning does not function as awarning if Paul is writing about an unattainable standard.

Imagine this scenario. A parent scolds a misbehaving child. The parent then warns the child that those children who behave will get a lollipop and those who do notwill have to go to bed early (with no lollipop).

Howis this possibly a warning if is impossible for the child to achieve astate where one gets a lollipop based on good behaviour? A warning in advanceof a "deeds" judgement is only a warning if there is a possibility ofchanging one's path and achieving the "good side" of the comingjudgement. If the child thinks itsimpossible to get the lollipop, then the warning has no meaning for him - it cannot affect his behaviour.

And yet this is precisely why the child is warned - tochange his behaviour