Romans 3:19-20

So Dr Walters is that a yes or no. Can a drunkard continue in his drunkardness and still reach the kingdom

 

If you die with unrepented sin in your life will you go to heaven?
What about a heart attack?

 

Not sure i get your point DHK

 

I do have another question for you guys who say we need not keep Gods law.

Why would God bother to chasten you if the law was not to be followed?

HEBREWS 12 [6] For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.[7] If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?[8] But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.[9] Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

This new testament scripture tells us that God will chasten all his children whom he loves.

PSALM 94 [12] Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law;[13] That thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked.[14] For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance.[15] But judgment shall return unto righteousness: and all the upright in heart shall follow it.[16] Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?

Psalm 94 says the Lord chastens and teaches his people out of the law. And this law is still in force until the pit is dug for the wicked. The bottomless pit?

REV.3 [18] I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.[19] As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.[20] Behold, I stand at the door, and knock:if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.[21] To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Many claim theres nothing to repent of. They say we are not under the 10 commandments. Well, if there is no law, there can be no sin. Sin is the transgression of the law. If there is no transgression, theres nothing to repent of.

DEUT.8 [5] Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, AS A MAN CHASTENETH HIS SON, SO THE LORD THY GOD CHASTENETH THEE.[6] THEREFORE THOU SHALT KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD THY GOD, to walk in his ways, and to fear him.

So if the 10 commandments were nailed to the cross as the many claim, how does God chasten His children? Or for that matter, why? No one other than Jesus has kept the ten commandments perfectly. But we must try to keep them, as the scriptures tell us to. But when we fall, we will be chastened. We must become as a little child and obey our Father.

 

Some will argue as follows:

1. In Romans 3:1-18, Paul has included the Gentile in his treatment of the universality of human sinfulness.

2. Therefore, when Paul writes “Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God”, he is intending the reader to understand that “law” here is something that the Gentile is under;

3. Therefore, when Paul goes on to say this: “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified” in verse 20, he is not making a statement specifically about the Law of Moses and how the Jew cannot be justified by it. Instead, he (Paul) is denying the possibility of salvation by good works.

This argument really does not work. Whether intentionally or not, the person who deploys such an argument trips up the unwary reader by tempting him to reader to reason thus:

1. Sin is breaking of “law”;

2. The Gentile is obviously portrayed as sinning;

3. Therefore “the law” in verse 19 must be a law that is not limited to Jews.

This is simply not a valid argument for the obvious reason that it is otherwise Biblically clear that the Gentile can be declared to be a sinner without having violated a particular law that he was never under in the first place – the Law of Moses. The fact that the Gentile is included in Paul's critique in 3:1-18 does not magically place him under the authority of the Law of Moses. Who is under the Law of Moses? Jews.

Does the fact that the Jew and only the Jew is under the Law of Moses mean that the Gentile is not otherwise under sin? Of course not. Romans 1 speaks of the sinfulness of all humanity - not only those under the Law of Moses.

Even apart from such arguments, the person who thinks that the Gentile is “under the Law” in 3:19 has an even bigger problem. Note how 2:12 uses the same expression “under the Law” to rather obviously denote Jew to the exclusion of Gentiles:

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

Why, then, would Paul, just a few breaths later in 3:19, refer to those "under the Law" and expect the reader to think that the Gentile is has now actually under the Law whereas he is “without the Law” in 2:12? Paul is being consistent. Those who are "without the law" (as in 2:12) are Gentiles; those "under the Law" (as in 3:19) are Jews.

 

As you know, I believe that, indeed, that "law" here is exclusively a reference to Jewish law.

You appear to reason thus:

1. All the world is condemned before God;
2. Therefore this "law" here must be universal in its application.

This argument does not really work. We know rather clearly from all sorts of places in the Bible that the Gentile is "condemned" even apart from being under the Law of Moses.

So there is no necessity to see the Law here as universal in its application.

Besides, as already argued, Paul has just used the phrase "those under the Law" to refer to Jews in chapter 2. There is every reason to believe he is using it in the same way here.

 

You have made no actual case that my argument is incorrect. But you are free to say this if you like.

The fact that the Gentile has "natural law" does not mean that he is under the written code of the Law of Moses. The Gentile can sin without breaking the Law of Moses - he is not under the Law of Moses in the first place.

Your entire argument seems to be based on the idea that since the Gentile is under the indictment of being sinner, then he is also under the "law" in verse 19. But it is clear that the Gentile can be declared to be a sinner without being under the Law of Moses:

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

So there is no logical necessity to conclude that the "law" of 3:19 includes the Gentile in its embrace.

I agree that the law in 3:19 is the Law of Moses.

No. Both on scriptural and logical grounds. Scripturally, the Law of Moses was given to Jews and Jews only. Do you deny this?

Logically, the fact that the Gentile is under the "law of conscience", as is the Jew, does not lead to the (otherwise non-Biblical) conclusion that the Gentile is under the Law of Moses.

It is manifestly clear from other places in Romans that Paul does not consider the Gentile to be under the Law of Moses. He effectively says so right in the same chapter:

For (AT)we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or (AU)is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also

The Gentile only has "natural revelation" - the Jew has natural revelation and the Law of Moses. This is does not mean that the Gentile is under the Law of Moses.

He does not use "universal" language. When he refers to those "under the law" in 3:19, it would be exceedingly odd for him to expect the reader to think that Gentiles are included. Why not? A verse sentences back in Romans 2, he has used the phrase "under the law" to refer to Jews to the exclusion of Gentiles.

 

This is not a valid argument. The fact that two things have the same origin does not mean they are the same thing. God does give a universal moral code to all humanity. But he also gives the Law of Moses to the Jews and the Jews only. Who was at Mt. Sinai when the Law was given? Gentiles?

No. The Law of Moses is for Jews and Jews only:

For (AT)we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or (AU)is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

The fact that "natural law" - available to the Gentile - is not "in opposition" to the Law of Moses does not make the same thing as the Law of Moses.

 

First, you have not addressed my challenge - you have not explained why God would use the concept of "those under the law" in Romans 2 to denote Jews only - which he obviously does - and yet a few sentences later in Romans 3 use the exact same concept "those under the law" to now refer to all humanity.

Please explain why you think Paul would do such a thing.

Now about this "universal language" thing. I am not, repeat not denying anything Paul says. He does indeed say that all the world is in trouble - I have never denied this.

In verses 1-8, he indicts the Jew. In verse 9, he broadens his treatment to speak of all humanity.

At verse 18, he concludes his argument about the universality of sin, i.e. that sin is a Gentile problem as well as a Jewish one. He is now in a position to summarize his argument.

What has he said in verse 2? That the Jews were given the "oracles" of God. Surely this a way to refer to the Law of Moses. So in verse 19, he recapitulates that the Law speaks to those under it - Jews.

And having also just argued that the Gentile too is under sin, he can basically say "Having just shown that the Gentile is also under sin, let me remind you of what I said at the beginning of the chapter - the Law of Moses indicts the Jew. So, Paul argues, because the Law of Moses indicts the Jew, and because the Gentile is likewise under sin (even though not under the Law of Moses of course), the entire world is accountable to God."

And verse 20 cannot be universal, despite your claim that it is. Look at what Paul says in verse 21:

because (AB)by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for (AC)through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. 21But now apart from the Law (AD)the righteousness of God has been manifested, being (AE)witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,

Clearly "the Law and the Prophets" is the Jewish Law of Moses (and associated stuff). So unless Paul is not consistent in what he means by "law" here, we must conclude that the "law" in verse 20 is an allusion to the Law of Moses.

 

Your logic here is simply not correct. The fact that the Jewish Law is based on the same universal principles that are otherwise available to the Gentile does not make the Gentile subject to the Law of Moses.

The speeding laws in California are presumaby based on a "universal" principle of wanting to keep driver's safe. Does that mean that the California law applies in New Jersey? Of course not.

 

This verse alone - Romans 3:21 - is enough to show that the "law" that Paul is talking about in 3:19-20 must be the Law of Moses as only applicable to Jews:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets

I suspect that no one here is going to say the phrase "law and the prophets" is anything other than the Jewish law and the equally Jewish prophetic literature.

So, if we are to believe Dr. W, Paul has been talking about a "law" that is not specific to Jews in 19 and 20 and then, in the very next sentence, talks about what is obviously a "law" that is specific to the Jew - the Gentiles do not have "the law and the prophets" - the Jews do.

Furthermore, when Paul says this in the next few breaths:

For (AT)we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or (AU)is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

...he is clearly referring to the Law of Moses, otherwise verse 29 makes no sense as a qualifier. Clearly Paul is saying "justification is achieved apart from doing the works of the Law of Moses, because if that were how justification is achieved, the Gentile would be out of luck."

Now: what has Paul said in verse 20?

because (AB)by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified

Clearly this must be the same Law of Moses. And to whom does the Law of Moses apply? To Jews, and Jews only.

Gentiles were not at Mount Sinai getting the written code of the Law of Moses. Jews were.

 

We have these compelling reasons to think that the those who are "under the Law" in 3:19 are Jews and Jews only:

1. The very same phrase "under the law" has been used in 2:12 to denote Jews to the exclusion of Gentiles;

2. Verse 20 talks about how no one can be justified by "works of the law". But in verse 28, Paul uses the very same phrase to refer to something that only the Jew can do.

Now to this issue of "universa" language:

Yes, Paul does write this: Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under 1 the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

If this statement had appeared in isolation then, yes, one well conclude that Paul is talking about a "universal" law. But it does not appear in isolation - Paul has just made an argument that Gentiles are under sin (not under "Law" but under sin). So if he is going to conclude an argument that the whole world is under sin, it makes perfect sense for him to "bring the Jewish component of humanity" back into the picture, through the reference to those "under the law" and then conclude his entire argument by saying that the whole world is accountable to God.

There is also another reason to understand why Paul might make a specific reference to Jew before his overall conclusion. There is every reason to think that Paul is dealing with some Jews who think they "are better than" Gentiles. To put such Jews in their place, he reminds them that they too, are guiltly before God, in terms of the Law of Moses.

So the universal language is not a problem for the argument that those "under the law" in verse 19 are Jews.

 

Really?

Because it seems to me that the "tutor" took us to Christ.

Here is another aspect of fulfilling the law...or, doing that which the law was designed to do:

Let us:

Show the lost that they are sinful (as the law did and continues to do).

Show the lost that they are in need of God the Savior (as the law did and continues to do).

Lead the lost to Christ (as the law did and continues to do).


Not the other way around.

God bless.

 

Acts 11

1And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.

2And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,

3Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

4But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,

5I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:

6Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

7And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.

8But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.

9But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.


A question.

Was Peter guilty of breaking God's law by eating with the Gentiles?

Also, is Paul in the wrong for "withstanding Peter to the face" for his hypocrisy, when he withdrew from eating with the gentiles when "that certain" came?

Galatians 2

11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Your thoughts?

God bless.