The Apostate Gospel of works

We have now provided six contextually based proofs that "the law" in Romans 2:10-29 is the Jewish Mosaic Law.

 

It is easy to show that this general claim is incorrect.

Paul knows, as would any other Biblically knowledgeable person, that the Law of Moses as the written code, was only ever given to Jews.

And yet in this block of text, Paul clearly refers to the Gentile as performing "the law".

Therefore, when Paul refers to the Gentile doing "the law", he cannot be referring to the Law of Moses. He must be referring to something else.

 

Every quote was yours and given with post # and even time and date made. So how can you even question the veracity of it or say that I am bearing false witness? They are your words.
Did you not say concerning my post that it had no credibility at all?
That is both condescending and just writing off the evidence presented to you as frivolous instead of examining it. I have pointed out how you have done the same thing with Dr. Walter's posts. You are blind to your own words and actions. Now Dr. Walter is trying to wake you up and show you how you continue in the same way. You can't just post on here calling people liars. Read the rules.

 

Rom. 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Therefore, Romans 2:6-15 cannot be the judgement of saved people by their "good" works as Romans 2:6-15 is the judgement of the LOST Jews under the law of Moses and the judgement of the LOST Gentiles under the law of conscience - neither of which can justify them by "good" works.

Rom. 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Rom. 3:19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

 

They are indeed my words.

But they are clearly neither condescension, name-calling, nor name-calling.

When, in any of my posts have I called anyone a name? Please provide a specific quote of mine where I have called anyone a name.

When, in any of my posts have I condescended? Please provide a specific quote of mine where I have engaged in condescension.
.
When, in any of my posts have I slung mud? Please provide a specific quote of mine where I have engaged in mud-slinging.

Good luck - some very creative bending of the concepts of "name-calling", "condescension", and "mud-slinging" will be required to make your case.

Fact is, I am clean as a whistle in respect to your demonstrably baseless statements.

Both you and Dr. Walter are clearly making false, personally insulting statements - that is beyond dispute. Is this allowed under the rules?

 

Didn't you read verse 12?????????? You can sin "without the law" and you can sin "in the law"? You can sin "without the Law of Moses" and you can sin "in the law of Moses." Guess which way the Gentiles sinned???????

Verse 14 says that "the law" was not given to the Gentiles and therefore they sinned "without the law." Thus the Gentiles were not given "the law of Moses" and therefore they "sinned without the Law of Moses."

Verse 15 describes how they sinned without the law of Moses. They sinned or violated the law of conscience. The law of conscience has the same author as the Law of Moses. God wrote both. Both are God's laws.

 

Post 237

That is against the rules.
Post 232

Another personal attack--calling another poster a liar.
Post 228

Since I provided your words in your own quotes there was no false witness. Thus another personal attack.
Post 201

And you tell me that you are not condescending???
Another personal attack. I would leave that complaint button alone if I were you.

 

You are not telling the truth DHK.

Where, and please be specific, do I exhibit any of the behaviours listed above in post 237, re-produced below:

It is a demonstrable fact that you have engaged in making statements any reasonable person would know are false.

If I am not allowed to challenge you on that, how are these discussions to be fruitful.

Citing a fact - that you have made statements that you most assuredly know are false, may be offensive to you.

But it is not name-calling.

It is not condescension.

It is not mud-slinging

It is calling you to account for spreading untruths.

Let me clear about this: when you make statements that I call people names -and cannot provide evidence to support your statement, you are engaging in falsehood. when you make statements that I mud-sling - and cannot provide evidence to support your statement, you are engaging in falsehood.

 

I will say nothing more on this matter. To me it is closed. Please post to the OP and do not waste and more band-width. I believe the readers themselves can judge the truth of the matter.

 

Please DHK, do not insult the intelligence of the reader. When I say this:

....I am merely expressing my position. This is not condescension!

Here is an example of condescension:

Duh.....me not know how to read.........{***Yes, I confess to being sarcastic}

 

What "general claim"? I have made very specific and contextually based arguments and anyone reading them can clearly see this.

Yes, but Paul explains exactly how they are doing so. They are doing so "without the law" of Moses (v. 12) because they have not been given "the law" of Moses (v. 14). However, the very "things contained in the law" of Moses are written on their own conscience by God, so that their conscience becomes equivilent to "the law" of Moses within them whereby they are judged to "have sinned" or violated the law of conscience (v. 15).

You have pinned yourself! How? Because verse 12 declares that those "without the law" have sinned and yet there can be no sin where there is no law at all. Verse 14 declares that what Paul as been describing as "the law" was not given to Gentiles:

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law:....14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law...."

If the Gentiles "have not THE LAW" then who does???? What is the only other class of people considered in this context? Paul explicitly states that it is THE JEW who "restest in the law" (v. 17).

Therefore what law has the Gentiles sinned against? Can't be the law of Moses. What law in the context have they SINNED against? Verse 15 gives the ONLY law they could have possibly sinned against - the law written in the conscience by God. Paul says that the conscience "beareth witness" against them.

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

The pronoun "their" in verse 15 has its nearest antecedent as the word "Gentile" in verse 14. Hence, you cannot deny verse 15 is a continuation of verse 15 concerning the Gentiles. Verse 14-15 is the contextual explanation of those who have sinned "without the law" and what standard their sins will be judged by.

Paul clearly teaches that the Gentiles sinned without the law of Moses but not without law. The law they sinned against was their own conscience and that is the law they will "perish" by or be judged by. The law written in their conscience has for its Author the same Author of the Law of Moses. The "things" written in the Law of Moses by God are some of the same things written upon the conscience by God - moral law.

 

Dr. W:

I will address all your arguments over the next few days - nothing more for the present.

 

I will look forward to that

 

Romans 2 deals with one class of sinners - the hypocrit - in contrast to the obvious sinner in Romans 1:19-29:

Rom. 2:1 ¶ Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Rom. 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Rom. 2:21 Thou therefore which 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 commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Paul is dealing with the kind of person who believes they are better than those in Romans 1:20-29 but are hypocrits but believe because they are better they can come before judgement based upon their "good" works and escape judgement. Paul provides the criteria for judging works to demonstrate that no human being will be justified by their works.

The only certainty of application in this judgement is wrath not eternal life:

1. The conclusive statement to Romans 2:1-5 is:

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; - v. 5


2. the conclusive statement to Romans 2:17-24 is:


23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

 

In Romans 2:6 Paul says every man will be judged "according to his deeds".

In Romans 2:12 Paul responds to the anticipated excuses of both the Gentile and the Jew in the day of judgment.

The Gentile might say, I was never given the law of Moses and so I should be excused from judgment to which Paul replies "those who sinned without the law shall perish without the law."

The Jew might say, we have been given the law of Moses and we are the pomised children of Abraham and therefore we should be excused from judgement to which Paul replies "to them who sinned in the law shall be judged by the law."

By the words "the law" Paul means the totality of the Jewish deacolgue summed upon in its two commandments "to love God with all your heart, mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself" which is also the essence of the law written on the conscience of the Gentile.

 

This is just one of what I suspect will be many posts which will collectively make the case that the "law" in Romans 2:13:

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified

....is not the Law of Moses.

I have already made part of the case as per this (in relation to some stuff Paul writes at the end of chapter 2:

Dr. W thinks there is a problem with this, but I will show in a later post that his objection does not work.

In any event, I am claiming that Paul has two "laws" in his mind. One is the Law of Moses, one is something else that I will try to explain later.

The point of the present is to establish that it is entirely in keeping with other stuff from Paul to assert that Paul variously uses the term "law" to refer to two different things.

The other example is the term "Israel". It is manifestly clear that Paul sometimes uses this term to refer to the nation of Israel, while at other time he uses it to refer to the church.

So it is clear: there is no justification for ruling out the possibility that, in Romans 2, Paul uses "law" to refer to the Law of Moses in some places, and the very same term "law" to refer to "another law".

And it is this other "law" that Paul is referring to in 2:13. I will defend this assertion in later posts.

 

None of this in any way undermines my argument: Paul uses "law" at various points in chapter 2 to refer to either the Law of Moses, and at other points to refer to a "law" that simply cannot be the Law of Moses.

 

You cannot sustain your interpretation by appealing to the use of "the law" outside of this context as you admit outside of this context it is used a variety of ways and so just noting that does not prove anything about its use in this context one way or the other. In contrast, my position is built upon six specific contextual evidences, none of which, you have addressed or have been able to overthrow.

What you have to do is prove by this context it is not the law of Moses. You cannot appeal to texts outside this context and prove anything one way or the other UNLESS the internal context demands one and not the other. This you have not shown at all. Your previous statement that you appeal to as the beginning of your defense is based completely upon ignoring what the context says. I point this out in my response to your first post and that response you have not been able to overthrow nor have attempted to do so.

 

As I point out in a previous post, this is the day of judgement and in regard to works. Hence, the law in question must be the law of Moses regarded in the same sense as Jesus summarized its fulfillment with the lawyer in Luke 18 and in his summary of it in Matthew 7:12. Namely reduced to two commandments as the sum of the whole law - to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart.....and thy neighbor as thyself." Furthermore, this same principle would be true of the law written upon the conscience of the gentile as Paul distinctly says that the law written upon the conscience of the Gentile pertains to those things written in the law which the Gentile did not receive.

This is exactly why Romans 3:20 can refer to both in the singular "the law" as the basic summation of both is the Great Commandment and thus Paul can use universal language that is inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 3:9) in verses 19-20 "no flesh" "every mouth" "all the world" in keeping with the general purpose of divine law whether written on stone or in the conscience and that is to reveal the knowledge of sin.

 

No. I have not just raised the possibilty of two uses. In post , 242 I made an actual case that Paul has used the term "law" to refer to two distinct things inside Romans 2.

Have you actaully shown the error in that argument?

Your statement that I have not been able to "overthrow" your "proofs" is premature - I have yet to provide the relevant arguments that show that these proofs are incorrect.