Paul and James Reconciled

Fervent · Jan 25, 2021

Kenneth Roberson said:
Hi Butterball1. Thank you for taking the time to reply.

1. I definitely agree with you that “James and Paul are speaking of two different types of works” at (KJV) Jas. 2:24 and Rom. 4:2. As my essay (“Paul and James Reconciled: The Right Hands of Fellowship”; https: christianitywithoutcompromise.com) notes, when James refers to “justified by works” at Jas. 2:24, “works” consist of “outward conduct that shows faith” (Jas. 2:18) (as James defines “faith”). On the other hand, when Paul refers to “justified by works” at Rom. 4:2, “works” consist of “outward conduct done with the expectation of receiving righteousness from God in return as payment of a debt owed by Him.” And of course Paul teaches that no one is justified this way, i.e., by works.

2. However, as a separate matter, it is your position that Rom. 2:6-7 teach that God will render to Christians according to their deeds, and that He will render eternal life to Christians who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality. Similarly, it is your position that Rom. 2:6 and 10 teach that God will render glory, honour, and peace to Christians that “worketh good.” At this point I would like to limit my reply to these two positions, as it is not clear that they are correct.

I would respectfully submit that Rom. 2:6, 7, and 10 are part of Rom. 1:18 through 3:20, in which Paul proves that unbelievers, Jewish and Gentile, are guilty before God. Paul says at Rom. 2:6, for example, that God “will render to every man according to his deeds” (italics added), but the verse does not refer to “faith.” Rom. 2:7 states, “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life” (italics added), but the verse says nothing about “faith.” Likewise, Paul declares at Rom. 2:10, “But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile,” but there is no reference to “faith” in that verse.

I would also propose that when Paul teaches at Rom. 2:7 that God will render eternal life “[t]o them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality” (italics added), and at Rom. 2:10 that God will render glory, honour, and peace “to every man that worketh good” (italics added), God’s rendering of “eternal life” and “glory, honour, and peace” in those verses is only hypothetical. They are only hypothetical because Paul declares at Rom. 3:9-11 concerning unbelievers:

“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;

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.”

(Italics added.) He also says at Rom. 3:12: “there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Italics added.) He further states: “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.” (Emphasis added.)

If there is “none that doeth good, no, not one” (Rom. 3:12, italics added) and “none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3:11, italics added), then there are none “who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality” (Rom. 2:7, italics added). There are therefore none to whom, on the basis of such well-doing, God will render “eternal life” (Rom. 2:7).

Likewise, if there is none that doeth good, no, not one” (Rom. 3:12, italics added), then “glory and honour and immortality, to every man that worketh good” (Rom. 2:10, italics added), will never be a reality and is hypothetical only.

When Rom. 3:10 says, “[t]here is none righteous” and Rom. 3:12 says that “there is none that doeth good, no, not one,” Paul is referring to unbelievers. Christians are righteous. They are righteous by “faith.” (Rom. 1:17; 3:22; 4:5.) And Christians are to do good works. (Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 2:5-8, 3:8.)

Rom. 2:7 says, “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life” (italics added), and Rom. 2:10 declares, “But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile” (italics added). But the context is a discussion pertaining to unbelievers that demonstrates that (1) their efforts to receive “eternal life” by patient continuance in well doing, seeking glory and honour and immortality, and their efforts to receive “glory, honour, and peace” by working good, will be unsuccessful and (2) God’s rendering of these rewards is therefore hypothetical only. Paul does not in Rom. 1:18 through 3:20 refer to “faith.” (However, the good news begins at Rom. 3:21!)

Thus, it is difficult to see how (1) Rom. 2:6-7 teach that God will render to Christians according to their deeds, and that He will render eternal life to Christians who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality or (2) Rom. 2:6 and 10 teach that God will render glory, honour, and peace to Christians that “worketh good.”

3. There is another reason why it is hard to understand that Rom. 2:6-7, and Rom. 2:6 and 10, support your two positions. According to Paul, God “will render to every man according to his deeds” (Rom. 2:6) and will thus render the “eternal life” referred to at Rom. 2:7, and the “glory, honour, and peace” referred to at Rom. 2:10. But it is important to note (1) when this will occur and (2) what else will be rendered.

Paul writes at Rom. 2:5-11:

5 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;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.”

(Emphasis added.)

It is your position that Rom. 2:6-7 teach that God will render to Christians according to their deeds, and that He will render eternal life to Christians who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality. It is also your position that Rom. 2:6 and 10 teach that God will render glory, honour, and peace to Christians that “worketh good.”

The problem with these positions is that they do not focus on (1) the time when God will render or (2) what else will be rendered at that time. For Paul says at Rom. 2:5 that “after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath[.]” (Italics added.) He says at Rom. 2:6 that God “will”—in the future—render to every man according to his deeds.

Zephaniah 1:14-15 record:

14 The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. 15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness[.]”

(Italics added.) Isaiah similarly prophesied, “the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger[.]” (Italics added.)

But at Rom. 5:9, Paul taught Christians, “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” (Italics added.) At 1 Thess. 1:10, Paul emphasized concerning Christians that Jesus “delivered us from the wrath to come.” (Italics added.) At 1 Thess. 5:9, Paul, referring to Christians, stated, “For God hath not appointed us [NASB: “destined us”] to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ[.]” (Italics added.) And at 2 Thess. 2:2, Paul taught Christians not to believe that “the day of the Lord” (NASB and NIV) had come. In other words, as long as Christians are here, the “day of the Lord,” i.e., the “day of wrath” is not here.

Thus, the verses in the above paragraph are teaching not only that God’s wrath is not for Christians but that Christians will not be in the time period of the “day of wrath.” But according to Rom. 2:5-11, it is in the “day of wrath” that God will render “eternal life” for “well doing”; it is in that day that God will render “glory, honour, and peace” to every man who “worketh good.”

Your two positions thus present two problems. First, according to your positions, God is rendering “eternal life” and “glory, honour, and peace” to Christians during the “day of wrath,” but Scriptures teach that Christians will not be in the “day of wrath.”

Second, since it is during this future “day of wrath” that God will “render to every man according to his deeds” (Rom. 2:6, italics added) and “there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom. 2:11), your positions suggest that during that “day of wrath,” God will render to Christians “indignation and wrath” if they have been contentious, do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness (Rom. 2:8) and that God will render “[t]ribulation and anguish” upon Christians who do evil (Rom. 9), even though the Scriptures are clear that God’s wrath is not for Christians and even though “there is now no condemnation at all for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 8:1, NASB.)

In light of the above, is it clear that (1) Rom. 2:6-7 teach that God will render to Christians according to their deeds, and that He will render eternal life to Christians who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, and (2) Rom. 2:6 and 10 teach that God will render glory, honour, and peace to Christians that “worketh good”?

You do well trying to understand Romans 2:5-6 in context, but it seems to me you misunderstand what Paul is doing in Romans 1-4. First he presents the early unrighteousness of all people, then he presents reasons that Jews and Gentiles boast either for receiving the law or in a more general sense of doing good, and then he presents that because all have sinned none have a right to boast. This is furthered in Romans 4 where the focus is on boasting in circumcision and the point is made that Abraham was made righteous apart from circumcision. Central to it all is the right to boast in our goodness, something that no man has a right to. So the question of works is not that works are valueless or that they will or won't be rewarded, but that we cannot boast of goodness since our good works are nothing but a returning of God's goodness to us and not something coming from within us. Your objections, then, largely rest on things external to the text rather than what the verses mean in their proper context and the question of how the last day will play out require a deeper study especially of the use in the prophets of "day of wrath," "day of the Lord," as well as other eschatological phrases like the "day of salvation."

James, on the other hand, is not dealing with boasting but with idleness. James is addressing people who say they have no need to live as Christians because they have faith and that is all that matters. To which James' answer is to demonstrate that their works deny their claim of faith. If they had faith, they would have works as a manifestation of that faith. What we believe becomes what we do and how we act, and so if we believe that Jesus is the Christ we will act in accordance with that belief. So James is not denying that we are justified by faith, as when he says we are justified by works the manner in which the words function is different. The only one that arguably is the same across contexts is justified, since both what is meant by "by" and "works" aren't the same as Paul is speaking of things we do with expectation of reward and James is speaking of things we do naturally, and one is speaking to efficient causes and the other to manifestation.

Kenneth Roberson · Jan 25, 2021

Fervent said:
You do well trying to understand Romans 2:5-6 in context, but it seems to me you misunderstand what Paul is doing in Romans 1-4. First he presents the early unrighteousness of all people, then he presents reasons that Jews and Gentiles boast either for receiving the law or in a more general sense of doing good, and then he presents that because all have sinned none have a right to boast. This is furthered in Romans 4 where the focus is on boasting in circumcision and the point is made that Abraham was made righteous apart from circumcision. Central to it all is the right to boast in our goodness, something that no man has a right to. So the question of works is not that works are valueless or that they will or won't be rewarded, but that we cannot boast of goodness since our good works are nothing but a returning of God's goodness to us and not something coming from within us. Your objections, then, largely rest on things external to the text rather than what the verses mean in their proper context and the question of how the last day will play out require a deeper study especially of the use in the prophets of "day of wrath," "day of the Lord," as well as other eschatological phrases like the "day of salvation."

James, on the other hand, is not dealing with boasting but with idleness. James is addressing people who say they have no need to live as Christians because they have faith and that is all that matters. To which James' answer is to demonstrate that their works deny their claim of faith. If they had faith, they would have works as a manifestation of that faith. What we believe becomes what we do and how we act, and so if we believe that Jesus is the Christ we will act in accordance with that belief. So James is not denying that we are justified by faith, as when he says we are justified by works the manner in which the words function is different. The only one that arguably is the same across contexts is justified, since both what is meant by "by" and "works" aren't the same as Paul is speaking of things we do with expectation of reward and James is speaking of things we do naturally, and one is speaking to efficient causes and the other to manifestation.

Hi Fervent. Thank you for your reply. I agree with some points you have made but I believe you have missed the mark on others. I would note the following. First, you have not clearly and explicitly addressed whether Butterball1 is correct in his positions that (1) Rom. 2:6-7 teach that God will render to Christians according to their deeds, and that He will render eternal life to Christians who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, and (2) Rom. 2:6 and 10 teach that God will render glory, honour, and peace to Christians that “worketh good.” Nor have you clearly and expressly made clear whether you believe the context of those verses involves unbelievers as I have proposed.

Second, I agree with some of the things you have written concerning Rom. 1-4, but even if your characterization of those chapters were completely correct, the significance of your conclusion—“So the question of works is not that works are valueless or that they will or won't be rewarded”—is unclear. I have not proposed that in Rom. 2:6, 7, and 10, persons are actually doing works that are valueless. I have proposed that any “well doing” or “work[ing] good” (as well any “eternal life” and “glory, honour, and peace” that God renders) in those verses is hypothetical.

Moreover, it is not at all clear that, at least at Rom. 2:5, 6, 7, and 10, “the question of works is not . . . that they will . . . be rewarded.” Rom. 2:5, 6, 7 and 10 clearly involve God rendering according to deeds and, in particular, rendering “eternal life” “[t]o them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,” and rendering “glory, honour, and peace” “to every man that worketh good[.]” (Italics added.) The connection here between what God renders and what one does, i.e., works, is self-evident. You suggest without a clear explanation that you take umbrage at the reference to “reward” in this context, but you have not specifically addressed the fact that God is clearly “rendering” in the context of “deeds” (Rom. 2:5).

Third, you comment, “Your objections, then, largely rest on things external to the text rather than what the verses mean in their proper context[.]” However, while discussing Rom. 1-4, you have not explicitly denied that comments Paul makes in Rom. 3:9-11 provide evidence that at Rom. 2:5, 6, 7 and 10, Paul is referring to unbelievers. Surely Rom. 3:9-11 are part of the context of Rom. 1-4 (assuming Rom. 1-4 is the sole relevant context).

Nor have you specifically addressed the fact that at Rom. 5:9, Paul taught Christians, “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” (Italics added.) It must be remembered that Paul’s “render[ings]” according to “deeds” at Rom. 2:5, 6, 7, and 10 follow his comments that “after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath[.]” (Italics added.) Evidence that Christians shall be saved from wrath is thus evidence that these verses do not apply to Christians. Even if we leave aside the OT verses cited concerning the “day of wrath” and the “day of the Lord,” on what principled basis can we exclude Rom. 5:9 from the relevant “context” or treat that verse as “external” or irrelevant?

Fourth, it is simply erroneous to suggest that when interpreting one Biblical passage, one cannot consider a passage(s) in another book of the Bible, especially if the interpretation would contradict that passage(s). There is truth in the most basic of exegetical sayings, “Let the Bible interpret itself,” a truth that opposes a conclusory rejection of passages in another Biblical book on the ground that they are “external.” In this regard I would simply note that you have not explicitly addressed the evidence from the OT passages and NT passages (leaving aside Rom. 5:9) that I cited for the proposition that Christians will not be present during the “day of wrath”; instead you have apparently elected to suggest that a “deeper study”—the analysis of which you have not even briefly summarized here—would support your view. Absent more, it is not clear that Butterball1's two positions are correct.

Fervent · Jan 25, 2021

Kenneth Roberson said:
Hi Fervent. Thank you for your reply. I agree with some points you have made but I believe you have missed the mark on others. I would note the following. First, you have not clearly and explicitly addressed whether Butterball1 is correct in his positions that (1) Rom. 2:6-7 teach that God will render to Christians according to their deeds, and that He will render eternal life to Christians who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, and (2) Rom. 2:6 and 10 teach that God will render glory, honour, and peace to Christians that “worketh good.” Nor have you clearly and expressly made clear whether you believe the context of those verses involves unbelievers as I have proposed.

Second, I agree with some of the things you have written concerning Rom. 1-4, but even if your characterization of those chapters were completely correct, the significance of your conclusion—“So the question of works is not that works are valueless or that they will or won't be rewarded”—is unclear. I have not proposed that in Rom. 2:6, 7, and 10, persons are actually doing works that are valueless. I have proposed that any “well doing” or “work[ing] good” (as well any “eternal life” and “glory, honour, and peace” that God renders) in those verses is hypothetical.

Moreover, it is not at all clear that, at least at Rom. 2:5, 6, 7, and 10, “the question of works is not . . . that they will . . . be rewarded.” Rom. 2:5, 6, 7 and 10 clearly involve God rendering according to deeds and, in particular, rendering “eternal life” “[t]o them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,” and rendering “glory, honour, and peace” “to every man that worketh good[.]” (Italics added.) The connection here between what God renders and what one does, i.e., works, is self-evident. You suggest without a clear explanation that you take umbrage at the reference to “reward” in this context, but you have not specifically addressed the fact that God is clearly “rendering” in the context of “deeds” (Rom. 2:5).

Third, you comment, “Your objections, then, largely rest on things external to the text rather than what the verses mean in their proper context[.]” However, while discussing Rom. 1-4, you have not explicitly denied that comments Paul makes in Rom. 3:9-11 provide evidence that at Rom. 2:5, 6, 7 and 10, Paul is referring to unbelievers. Surely Rom. 3:9-11 are part of the context of Rom. 1-4 (assuming Rom. 1-4 is the sole relevant context).

Nor have you specifically addressed the fact that at Rom. 5:9, Paul taught Christians, “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” (Italics added.) It must be remembered that Paul’s “render[ings]” according to “deeds” at Rom. 2:5, 6, 7, and 10 follow his comments that “after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath[.]” (Italics added.) Evidence that Christians shall be saved from wrath is thus evidence that these verses do not apply to Christians. Even if we leave aside the OT verses cited concerning the “day of wrath” and the “day of the Lord,” on what principled basis can we exclude Rom. 5:9 from the relevant “context” or treat that verse as “external” or irrelevant?

Fourth, it is simply erroneous to suggest that when interpreting one Biblical passage, one cannot consider a passage(s) in another book of the Bible, especially if the interpretation would contradict that passage(s). There is truth in the most basic of exegetical sayings, “Let the Bible interpret itself,” a truth that opposes a conclusory rejection of passages in another Biblical book on the ground that they are “external.” In this regard I would simply note that you have not explicitly addressed the evidence from the OT passages and NT passages (leaving aside Rom. 5:9) that I cited for the proposition that Christians will not be present during the “day of wrath”; instead you have apparently elected to suggest that a “deeper study”—the analysis of which you have not even briefly summarized here—would support your view. Absent more, it is not clear that Butterball1's two positions are correct.

I don't believe you understood my initial criticism, and while I can't speak for Butterball I was pointing out that your analysis of Romans 2 by applying Romans 3 to it is decidedly backwards. Romans 3 must be understood in terms of Romans 1:18-2 not the other way around. Concluding that because Paul spoke of a general unrighteousness in Romans 3 must mean that he was presenting a mere hypothetical in Romans 2 is unfounded, rather the build up to Romans 3 makes it clear that Paul's comments are about the relationship between the Jews and gentiles not a blanket universal statement, with the point being that even though the Jews had been given the law they were in no better position to receive Christ than the gentiles who had been prepared via their consciences. Your application of Romans 3 to Romans 2 to argue for your point doesn't bring out what the text says but instead is driven by your desire to prove your point and is a misuse of the text.

To point 4, I wasn't saying other Biblical texts cannot be considered but that the immediate context must be understood first, and then the broader context can be examined. Bringing in verses without appropriate contextual consideration at the first step isn't Scripture interpreting Scripture it is using Scripture as argument fodder. Just as easy as bringing in the day of wrath we could bring in something like 1 Corinthians 3 to try to argue that Butterball's position of being rewarded for what we do in the day of wrath(as the fire that reveals the buildings worth may be taken to be). Yet neither does anything except turn the Bible into a tool to try to win an argument since we haven't done the work of exploring the immediate context of what we're considering or the passage we're trying to bring into the question.

Kenneth Roberson · Jan 25, 2021

Kenneth Roberson said:
Hi Fervent. Thank you for your reply. I agree with some points you have made but I believe you have missed the mark on others. I would note the following. First, you have not clearly and explicitly addressed whether Butterball1 is correct in his positions that (1) Rom. 2:6-7 teach that God will render to Christians according to their deeds, and that He will render eternal life to Christians who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, and (2) Rom. 2:6 and 10 teach that God will render glory, honour, and peace to Christians that “worketh good.” Nor have you clearly and expressly made clear whether you believe the context of those verses involves unbelievers as I have proposed.

Second, I agree with some of the things you have written concerning Rom. 1-4, but even if your characterization of those chapters were completely correct, the significance of your conclusion—“So the question of works is not that works are valueless or that they will or won't be rewarded”—is unclear. I have not proposed that in Rom. 2:6, 7, and 10, persons are actually doing works that are valueless. I have proposed that any “well doing” or “work[ing] good” (as well any “eternal life” and “glory, honour, and peace” that God renders) in those verses is hypothetical.

Moreover, it is not at all clear that, at least at Rom. 2:5, 6, 7, and 10, “the question of works is not . . . that they will . . . be rewarded.” Rom. 2:5, 6, 7 and 10 clearly involve God rendering according to deeds and, in particular, rendering “eternal life” “[t]o them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,” and rendering “glory, honour, and peace” “to every man that worketh good[.]” (Italics added.) The connection here between what God renders and what one does, i.e., works, is self-evident. You suggest without a clear explanation that you take umbrage at the reference to “reward” in this context, but you have not specifically addressed the fact that God is clearly “rendering” in the context of “deeds” (Rom. 2:5).

Third, you comment, “Your objections, then, largely rest on things external to the text rather than what the verses mean in their proper context[.]” However, while discussing Rom. 1-4, you have not explicitly denied that comments Paul makes in Rom. 3:9-11 provide evidence that at Rom. 2:5, 6, 7 and 10, Paul is referring to unbelievers. Surely Rom. 3:9-11 are part of the context of Rom. 1-4 (assuming Rom. 1-4 is the sole relevant context).

Nor have you specifically addressed the fact that at Rom. 5:9, Paul taught Christians, “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” (Italics added.) It must be remembered that Paul’s “render[ings]” according to “deeds” at Rom. 2:5, 6, 7, and 10 follow his comments that “after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath[.]” (Italics added.) Evidence that Christians shall be saved from wrath is thus evidence that these verses do not apply to Christians. Even if we leave aside the OT verses cited concerning the “day of wrath” and the “day of the Lord,” on what principled basis can we exclude Rom. 5:9 from the relevant “context” or treat that verse as “external” or irrelevant?

Fourth, it is simply erroneous to suggest that when interpreting one Biblical passage, one cannot consider a passage(s) in another book of the Bible, especially if the interpretation would contradict that passage(s). There is truth in the most basic of exegetical sayings, “Let the Bible interpret itself,” a truth that opposes a conclusory rejection of passages in another Biblical book on the ground that they are “external.” In this regard I would simply note that you have not explicitly addressed the evidence from the OT passages and NT passages (leaving aside Rom. 5:9) that I cited for the proposition that Christians will not be present during the “day of wrath”; instead you have apparently elected to suggest that a “deeper study”—the analysis of which you have not even briefly summarized here—would support your view. Absent more, it is not clear that Butterball1's two positions are correct.

Kenneth Roberson · Jan 25, 2021

Fervent said:
I don't believe you understood my initial criticism, and while I can't speak for Butterball I was pointing out that your analysis of Romans 2 by applying Romans 3 to it is decidedly backwards. Romans 3 must be understood in terms of Romans 1:18-2 not the other way around. Concluding that because Paul spoke of a general unrighteousness in Romans 3 must mean that he was presenting a mere hypothetical in Romans 2 is unfounded, rather the build up to Romans 3 makes it clear that Paul's comments are about the relationship between the Jews and gentiles not a blanket universal statement, with the point being that even though the Jews had been given the law they were in no better position to receive Christ than the gentiles who had been prepared via their consciences. Your application of Romans 3 to Romans 2 to argue for your point doesn't bring out what the text says but instead is driven by your desire to prove your point and is a misuse of the text.

To point 4, I wasn't saying other Biblical texts cannot be considered but that the immediate context must be understood first, and then the broader context can be examined. Bringing in verses without appropriate contextual consideration at the first step isn't Scripture interpreting Scripture it is using Scripture as argument fodder. Just as easy as bringing in the day of wrath we could bring in something like 1 Corinthians 3 to try to argue that Butterball's position of being rewarded for what we do in the day of wrath(as the fire that reveals the buildings worth may be taken to be). Yet neither does anything except turn the Bible into a tool to try to win an argument since we haven't done the work of exploring the immediate context of what we're considering or the passage we're trying to bring into the question.

Thanks Fervent. I understood what was understandable. Even your above comments suggest you do not feel that what you previously wrote was independently adequate. Your comments immediately above are, again, rather conclusory, unsubstantiated, and opinionated. Some but not all of your views immediately above again miss the mark and do not reflect careful Scriptural analysis; but I risk being repetitive. Simply opining is not Biblical scholarship but ipse dixit. And the careful reader will recognize your exploration of what I "desire" as ad hominem; a discussion of doctrine need not be personal or taken personally. I remain unconvinced but respect your sincere opinions. I'll wait to see what if anything Butterball1 has to say. Thanks for your thoughts.

Fervent · Jan 25, 2021

Kenneth Roberson said:
Thanks Fervent. I understood what was understandable. Even your above comments suggest you do not feel that what you previously wrote was independently adequate. Your comments immediately above are, again, rather conclusory, unsubstantiated, and opinionated. Some but not all of your views immediately above again miss the mark and do not reflect careful Scriptural analysis; but I risk being repetitive. Simply opining is not Biblical scholarship but ipse dixit. And the careful reader will recognize your exploration of what I "desire" as ad hominem; a discussion of doctrine need not be personal or taken personally. I remain unconvinced but respect your sincere opinions. I'll wait to see what if anything Butterball1 has to say. Thanks for your thoughts.

What I am discussing isn't a matter of exegesis, but method. It's not about the conclusions you or I have reached but how those conclusions are arrived at. What I have presented for my position are conclusions, but my critique is aimed not at you personally but at how the manner of approach creates a situation in which it begins with a conclusion and then argues in favor of that conclusion rather than engaging in appropriate contextual analysis. Analysis begins not by trying to dismiss or prop up a proposition, but by allowing the text itself to speak by carefully removing as many of our prejudices as possible. My comments are not meant as personal attacks, but to cause you to question whether or not you are looking to what the Bible says to correct your doctrine or using the Bible to support things you've been taught by men and already believe.

Butterball1 · Jan 26, 2021

Kenneth Roberson said:
Hi Butterball1. Thank you for taking the time to reply.

1. I definitely agree with you that “James and Paul are speaking of two different types of works” at (KJV) Jas. 2:24 and Rom. 4:2. As my essay (“Paul and James Reconciled: The Right Hands of Fellowship”; https: christianitywithoutcompromise.com) notes, when James refers to “justified by works” at Jas. 2:24, “works” consist of “outward conduct that shows faith” (Jas. 2:18) (as James defines “faith”). On the other hand, when Paul refers to “justified by works” at Rom. 4:2, “works” consist of “outward conduct done with the expectation of receiving righteousness from God in return as payment of a debt owed by Him.” And of course Paul teaches that no one is justified this way, i.e., by works.

Hi,

(The capital letters and bold I used is not meant to be "yelling" but to make points of emphasis)

As long as one remembers when Paul says none are justified by works that the SPECIFIC works Paul is talking about refers to the flawless, perfect work of law-keeping the OT law of Moses required for justification and NOT referring to a simple faithful obedience to God's will. There are many examples in both the OT and NT of men being obedient to God's will in order to receive God's free gift but NOT THE FIRST TIME EVER is their obedience said to have earned God's free gift.

Some try and say Paul is eliminating any and all types of works from being saved/justified but in the Roman epistle context he is only eliminating flawless, perfect work required by the law of Moses, NOTHING MORE. To have Paul eliminate all works is where the contradicts come in for Paul eliminating all works would obviously contradict James. And Paul would contradict himself in Romans 6:16-18 where Paul clearly shows obedient works are necessary to becomg freed from sin/justified. So the "seeming" contradcitons between Paul and James occurs because the error of some trying to have Paul eliminate ALL works of ALL types when he never did such.

Kenneth Roberson said:
2. However, as a separate matter, it is your position that Rom. 2:6-7 teach that God will render to Christians according to their deeds, and that He will render eternal life to Christians who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality. Similarly, it is your position that Rom. 2:6 and 10 teach that God will render glory, honour, and peace to Christians that “worketh good.” At this point I would like to limit my reply to these two positions, as it is not clear that they are correct.

I would respectfully submit that Rom. 2:6, 7, and 10 are part of Rom. 1:18 through 3:20, in which Paul proves that unbelievers, Jewish and Gentile, are guilty before God. Paul says at Rom. 2:6, for example, that God “will render to every man according to his deeds” (italics added), but the verse does not refer to “faith.” Rom. 2:7 states, “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life” (italics added), but the verse says nothing about “faith.” Likewise, Paul declares at Rom. 2:10, “But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile,” but there is no reference to “faith” in that verse.

I would also propose that when Paul teaches at Rom. 2:7 that God will render eternal life “[t]o them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality” (italics added), and at Rom. 2:10 that God will render glory, honour, and peace “to every man that worketh good” (italics added), God’s rendering of “eternal life” and “glory, honour, and peace” in those verses is only hypothetical. They are only hypothetical because Paul declares at Rom. 3:9-11 concerning unbelievers:

“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;

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.”

(Italics added.) He also says at Rom. 3:12: “there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Italics added.) He further states: “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.” (Emphasis added.)

If there is “none that doeth good, no, not one” (Rom. 3:12, italics added) and “none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3:11, italics added), then there are none “who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality” (Rom. 2:7, italics added). There are therefore none to whom, on the basis of such well-doing, God will render “eternal life” (Rom. 2:7).

Likewise, if there is none that doeth good, no, not one” (Rom. 3:12, italics added), then “glory and honour and immortality, to every man that worketh good” (Rom. 2:10, italics added), will never be a reality and is hypothetical only.

When Rom. 3:10 says, “[t]here is none righteous” and Rom. 3:12 says that “there is none that doeth good, no, not one,” Paul is referring to unbelievers. Christians are righteous. They are righteous by “faith.” (Rom. 1:17; 3:22; 4:5.) And Christians are to do good works. (Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 2:5-8, 3:8.)

Rom. 2:7 says, “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life” (italics added), and Rom. 2:10 declares, “But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile” (italics added). But the context is a discussion pertaining to unbelievers that demonstrates that (1) their efforts to receive “eternal life” by patient continuance in well doing, seeking glory and honour and immortality, and their efforts to receive “glory, honour, and peace” by working good, will be unsuccessful and (2) God’s rendering of these rewards is therefore hypothetical only. Paul does not in Rom. 1:18 through 3:20 refer to “faith.” (However, the good news begins at Rom. 3:21!)

Thus, it is difficult to see how (1) Rom. 2:6-7 teach that God will render to Christians according to their deeds, and that He will render eternal life to Christians who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality or (2) Rom. 2:6 and 10 teach that God will render glory, honour, and peace to Christians that “worketh good.”

In Romans chapters 1 - 3 Paul shows us all, Jew and Gentile, have sinned therefore are 'under sin', Romans 3:9. And those under sin are in need of......justification. Paul begins Romans 3 by talking about that OT law of Moses given to the Jews. Why? He just told us Jew and Gentile are under sin and in need of justification so he begins Romans 3 showing that OT law of Moses, given to the Jews, that required the work of perfect, flawless, sinless law-keeping could not justify for the Jew would sin, hence no better than the Gentile. Again, the ONLY work Paul is eliminating from justifying man is that perfect, flawless, sinless work of law-keeping required by Moses' law. By the end of Romans 3 we now find that it is an obedient faith that will justify Jew and Gentile and that the flawless, perfect deeds the law of Moses required, Romans 3:28.

In Romans 4 Paul illustrates this point by picking two men, a Gentile (Abraham) and a Jew (David). Both men were 'ungodly', ie, both men sinned therefore in need of justification. Since both sinned then neither could be justified by the law of Moses that required the strict, flawless, perfect work of law-keeping. (Abraham did not even live under Moses' law so he could not be justified by that law Romans 4:9-10). So how was this Jew and Gentile justified? By a faithful obedience and NOT by the falwless, perfect works required by the law of Moses.

It should start to focus in people's mind that all works are NOT THE SAME. There are works that will not justifiy (perfect flawless law-keeping) and works that WILL save (obedient faith in doing God's will). So some trying to get verses as Romans 4:5 ("worketh not") or Ephesians 2:9 ("not of works") create MASS contradiction and confusion, creating a 'contradiction' between Paul and James that does NOT even exist.

Paul and James AGREE totally that the work of a faithful obedience to God's will DOES justify:
James 2:24-----------works (obedience)----------------------justifies
Romans 6:17-18-----obey from the heart---------------------justifies (frees from sin)

Getting to Romans 2:6-11, we should be able to clearly see now that all works are NOT the same, one kind of work (obedience to God Jmes 2:24; Romans 16:17-18) DOES save while other works (works of merit - Eph 2:9 and flawless works required by the OT law of Moses Romans 4:5) do NOT save.

The judgement God renders to every man (not just Christians) depends on which type of work each man did in this life. God's rendering is not based on some capricious or unknown reason. (Revelation 20:12-13 - "according to their works")

-------------

You cite Romans 3.."none are righteous"
From Hebrews 11:4 that Abel was righteous so how does that jibe with Paul saying 'none are righteous'? Even the context of Psalms 14:3 from which Paul quotes speaks of the righteous, Psalms 14:5. It could be that Paul is using the term righteous in an absolute sense, that is, he is saying none are absolutely perfectly righteous in and of themselves apart from Christ. But it takes OBEDIENCE to God to be in Christ and therefore seen as righteous by God.

-------------

Romans 2:10 "But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:" Says NOTHING about the 'working good" being unsuccessful. It says NOTHING about this work has to be perfectly, flawlessly sinless. All the "working good" requires in a simple faithful obedience to God's will which is possible as seen by Paul, Peter, David, Abraham and many, many others found in the Bible. NONE were perefectly sinless in their works but they did have faithful obedience.

Kenneth Roberson · Jan 26, 2021

Kenneth Roberson said:
Hi Hazelelponi. Please see my November 8, 2020 reply (#9) to mkgal1. Thanks!

For convenience sake I have posted that reply below.
________________________
"Hi mkgal1. Yes, James did teach that Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses (the law). No apology necessary as I cited no Scripture for this. I will do so now. My essay includes a portion entitled, “James And The Roles Of Law And Works Of The Law”; that portion is set forth below. Some of the points made below are: (1) Jews, whether Christians or not, are under obligation to the law of Moses and must comply with it, (2) the sins of Jews, Christians or not, break the law, i.e., the sins are transgressions, (3) all Jews will be found guilty under the law, (4) Jews who have shown no mercy are not Christians and God will judge these Jews without mercy, and (5) Jews who are Christians show mercy, and God will show them mercy despite their guilt.

VIII. JAMES AND THE ROLES OF LAW AND WORKS OF THE LAW

Below we discuss the roles of the law of Moses and works of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian according to James. In order to do so, it is necessary to consider James’s various references to the law in his epistle.

A. THE “WORD” INCLUDES THE “PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY,” I.E., THE LAW OF MOSES

At James 1:22-25, James states,

“22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. 23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: 24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.”

(Italics added.)

Here, James says that his readers are to be doers of the “word,” and “not hearers only.” He later insists that his reader is to continue in the “perfect law of liberty,” “being not a forgetful hearer.” The parallel of “word/not hearers only” and “perfect law of liberty/not a forgetful hearer” is evidence that the “word” at least includes the “perfect law of liberty.”

Moreover, to the Jews to whom James was writing, the “word” would consist at least of the Old Testament, including the law of Moses. This too is evidence that the “perfect law of liberty” is the law of Moses. Further, Jews reading about a “law” of liberty would naturally think of the “law” of Moses. Further still, if the phrase “perfect law of liberty” is not the law of Moses, then James has introduced a phrase found nowhere else in the Bible to refer to an important concept without clearly explaining what it is or how it differs from the law of Moses.

The above facts indicate that the “perfect law of liberty” is the law of Moses and, if so, imply that James wants Jewish Christians to “continu[e]” in the “perfect law of liberty” and be a “doer of the work.” (Italics added.) That is, James wants Jewish Christians to do works of the law of Moses.

B. THE “ROYAL LAW,” THE “LAW,” AND THE “LAW OF LIBERTY” ARE THE LAW OF MOSES

At Jas. 2:1-7, James denounces having faith with “respect of persons,” i.e., preferring the rich over the poor. He then states at Jas. 2:8-13:

“8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced [NASB and NIV: “convicted”] of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, do not commit adultery, said also, do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.”

(Italics added.)

These verses are divisible as follows. Verses 8 and 9 contrast (1) fulfilling the “royal law” according to “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” and (2) having respect of persons and being convicted of the “the law as transgressors.” Verses 10 and 11 explain why those having respect of persons are convicted of the law as transgressors. Verse 12 is an admonition of future judgment. Verse 13 explains, discussing the relationship between, on the one hand, that future judgment and, on the other, the presence or absence of mercy. As discussed below, these verses demonstrate that James is telling the Jews to whom he is writing that they are under obligation to the law of Moses and must comply with it.

First, at James 2:8-9, James contrasts fulfilling the “royal law” according to “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” and (2) having respect of persons and being convicted of the “the law as transgressors.” “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” is unmistakably a commandment of the law of Moses found at Lev. 19:18. That shows that the “royal law” to be fulfilled according to Lev. 19:18 is the law of Moses. Moreover, the Jewish reader would understand being convicted of the “law” as transgressors as being convicted of the law of Moses as transgressors or breakers of the law of Moses. That in turn, again, shows that the “royal law” is the law of Moses. Further, James says that if you fulfill the “royal law,” “ye do well.” (Italics added.) He clearly wants his Jewish reader to comply with the “royal law,” i.e., law of Moses.

Indeed, if “the royal law” is not the law of Moses, then James has introduced a phrase—“the royal law”—found nowhere else in the Bible, to refer to an important concept without clearly explaining what it is or how it differs from the law of Moses referred to multiple times in Jas. 2:9-13, as discussed below.

Second, James 2:10-11 explain verse 9. Verse 10 teaches that whoever will keep “the whole law” (italics added)—an undeniable reference to the law of Moses—and offend “in one point”—an obvious reference to a single point in the law of Moses—is guilty of all—a clear reference to being “guilty” of all points in the law of Moses. Verse 11 further explains, referring to two of the Ten Commandments of the law of Moses, “Thou shall not kill [murder]” (Ex. 20:13) and “Thou shall not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14). One who breaks one commandment of the law of Moses but not another is nonetheless a transgressor of the law of Moses. Thus, having respect of persons makes one a transgressor of the law. James implicitly teaches his Jewish readers that their sin of having respect of persons makes the readers transgressors of the law, which presupposes they are under obligation to it.

Third, Jas. 2:12 implicitly admonishes the Jewish readers to not have respect of persons and to “do” as people who will be judged by the law of liberty. In the context of Jas. 2:8-11 and its multiple references to the law of Moses discussed above, James at Jas. 2:12 is warning his readers that what they “do” will be judged by “the law of liberty,” which is the law of Moses.

If the “law of liberty” is not the law of Moses, then James has introduced a phrase—the “law of liberty”—found nowhere else in the Bible (except at Jas. 1:25, which we have discussed) to refer to an important concept without clearly explaining what it is or how it differs from the law of Moses referred to multiple times in Jas. 2:9-13, of which Jas. 2:12 is a part. And James, telling them to “do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty” (italics added) is telling them to do works of the law of Moses.

Finally, James is teaching at Jas. 2:13 as follows. All Jews—Christian or not—will be judged by the law of liberty, i.e., the law of Moses. All Jews (certainly having offended at least in one point) will be guilty under the law. The Jewish unbeliever, having shown no mercy (e.g., having respect of persons), will be judged guilty and shown no mercy by God. Indeed, such a judgment is consistent with the harsh provisions of punishment under the law of Moses. Thus, Hebrews 10:28, referring to Jewish unbelievers, says, “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses[.]” (See also Heb. 2:2-3.) However, the Jewish Christian, having shown mercy, will be judged guilty but will be shown mercy by God. The teaching of James that his Jewish readers will be judged guilty under the law of Moses presupposes that they are subject to it.

C. A “DOER OF THE LAW” IS A DOER OF THE LAW OF MOSES

At Jas. 4:11, James admonishes,

“Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.”

Again, the Jewish reader would understand James’s references to “law” in this verse to be references to the law of Moses. The reader would also understand James to be enjoining him or her to be a “doer of the law” (italics added)—a doer of the law of Moses—and not a judge of the law. This reflects that James wanted his Jewish reader to do works of the law.

Thank you for your question mkgal1.

"

Butterball1 · Jan 26, 2021

Kenneth Roberson said:
3. There is another reason why it is hard to understand that Rom. 2:6-7, and Rom. 2:6 and 10, support your two positions. According to Paul, God “will render to every man according to his deeds” (Rom. 2:6) and will thus render the “eternal life” referred to at Rom. 2:7, and the “glory, honour, and peace” referred to at Rom. 2:10. But it is important to note (1) when this will occur and (2) what else will be rendered.

Paul writes at Rom. 2:5-11:

5 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;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.”

(Emphasis added.)

It is your position that Rom. 2:6-7 teach that God will render to Christians according to their deeds, and that He will render eternal life to Christians who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality. It is also your position that Rom. 2:6 and 10 teach that God will render glory, honour, and peace to Christians that “worketh good.”

You keep saying God will "render to Christians". The text says God will "will render to every man according to his deeds". Out of all mankind, those men that were disobedient obeying not the truth but did unrghteousness will be rendered the sentence of condemnation. Those men on the other hand that did obey God, that "worketh righteousness" - Acts 10:35) will be rendered salvation.

If the type of work, (obedience-righteous or disobedience/unrighteous) is NOT the bases God uses to render to every man, then what exactly is that bases?

Kenneth Roberson) The problem with these positions is that they do not focus on (1) the [I said:
time [/I]when God will render or (2) what else will be rendered at that time. For Paul says at Rom. 2:5 that “after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath[.]” (Italics added.) He says at Rom. 2:6 that God “will”—in the future—render to every man according to his deeds.

Zephaniah 1:14-15 record:

14 The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. 15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness[.]”

(Italics added.) Isaiah similarly prophesied, “the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger[.]” (Italics added.)

But at Rom. 5:9, Paul taught Christians, “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” (Italics added.) At 1 Thess. 1:10, Paul emphasized concerning Christians that Jesus “delivered us from the wrath to come.” (Italics added.) At 1 Thess. 5:9, Paul, referring to Christians, stated, “For God hath not appointed us [NASB: “destined us”] to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ[.]” (Italics added.) And at 2 Thess. 2:2, Paul taught Christians not to believe that “the day of the Lord” (NASB and NIV) had come. In other words, as long as Christians are here, the “day of the Lord,” i.e., the “day of wrath” is not here.

Thus, the verses in the above paragraph are teaching not only that God’s wrath is not for Christians but that Christians will not be in the time period of the “day of wrath.” But according to Rom. 2:5-11, it is in the “day of wrath” that God will render “eternal life” for “well doing”; it is in that day that God will render “glory, honour, and peace” to every man who “worketh good.”

Your two positions thus present two problems. First, according to your positions, God is rendering “eternal life” and “glory, honour, and peace” to Christians during the “day of wrath,” but Scriptures teach that Christians will not be in the “day of wrath.”

Second, since it is during this future “day of wrath” that God will “render to every man according to his deeds” (Rom. 2:6, italics added) and “there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom. 2:11), your positions suggest that during that “day of wrath,” God will render to Christians “indignation and wrath” if they have been contentious, do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness (Rom. 2:8) and that God will render “[t]ribulation and anguish” upon Christians who do evil (Rom. 9), even though the Scriptures are clear that God’s wrath is not for Christians and even though “there is now no condemnation at all for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 8:1, NASB.)

In light of the above, is it clear that (1) Rom. 2:6-7 teach that God will render to Christians according to their deeds, and that He will render eternal life to Christians who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, and (2) Rom. 2:6 and 10 teach that God will render glory, honour, and peace to Christians that “worketh good”?

The day of rendering will be the day of judgment (Romans 2:5 "...the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God" ..Matthew 25:32-33; John 5:28-29 there will be a resurrection of all the dead, both good and evil, and every man stand before God where God then renders unto every man according to the deeds he did in life. So the day of judgment certainly will contain God's wrath but only against those that did the work of disobedience/unrighteousness and not towards those that obeyed. To those that obeyed, the judgment day will be a day of redemption to every man that worketh good.

You posted "...your positions suggest that during that “day of wrath,” God will render to Christians “indignation and wrath".
The context nor myself says such a thing.

The passage specifically says wrath and indignation "unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness". Them that are contentious and obey not refers to NON-Christians, it certainly does not describe Christians.
Christians were those who "by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality" are rendered eternal life Romans 2:7.

It's obvious the type of work ones does in this life will dicate the rendering one receives at judgment and what kind of day judgement will be for them..."day of wrath" for the disobedient but a "day of redemption" for the obedient (Ephesians 4:30)

Again, if the type of work one does in this life (righteous or unrighteous) is NOT the bases of God's rendering then what is that bases?

EDIT:
Romans 10:1-3 Paul laments over the fact his brethren in the flesh, the Jews, are lost. In Romans 10:3 Paul mentions TWO DIFFERENT types of works:
1) establishing their OWN righteousness
2) obeying GOD'S righteousness

Those Jews were lost for they did work #1 following their OWN traditons rather than doing #2 the work of obeying God's righteousness in believing confessing, obeying the gospel of Christ....which they did NOT do.

Paul made the type of work one does the distinguishing bases as to why those Jews were lost rather than saved. Again, if the type of works one does is NOT the bases then what in the world is Romans 10:3 saying? Why were those Jews lost and not saved?

Kenneth Roberson · Jan 27, 2021

Butterball1 said:
Hi,

(The capital letters and bold I used is not meant to be "yelling" but to make points of emphasis)

As long as one remembers when Paul says none are justified by works that the SPECIFIC works Paul is talking about refers to the flawless, perfect work of law-keeping the OT law of Moses required for justification and NOT referring to a simple faithful obedience to God's will. There are many examples in both the OT and NT of men being obedient to God's will in order to receive God's free gift but NOT THE FIRST TIME EVER is their obedience said to have earned God's free gift.

Some try and say Paul is eliminating any and all types of works from being saved/justified but in the Roman epistle context he is only eliminating flawless, perfect work required by the law of Moses, NOTHING MORE. To have Paul eliminate all works is where the contradicts come in for Paul eliminating all works would obviously contradict James. And Paul would contradict himself in Romans 6:16-18 where Paul clearly shows obedient works are necessary to becomg freed from sin/justified. So the "seeming" contradcitons between Paul and James occurs because the error of some trying to have Paul eliminate ALL works of ALL types when he never did such.

In Romans chapters 1 - 3 Paul shows us all, Jew and Gentile, have sinned therefore are 'under sin', Romans 3:9. And those under sin are in need of......justification. Paul begins Romans 3 by talking about that OT law of Moses given to the Jews. Why? He just told us Jew and Gentile are under sin and in need of justification so he begins Romans 3 showing that OT law of Moses, given to the Jews, that required the work of perfect, flawless, sinless law-keeping could not justify for the Jew would sin, hence no better than the Gentile. Again, the ONLY work Paul is eliminating from justifying man is that perfect, flawless, sinless work of law-keeping required by Moses' law. By the end of Romans 3 we now find that it is an obedient faith that will justify Jew and Gentile and that the flawless, perfect deeds the law of Moses required, Romans 3:28.

In Romans 4 Paul illustrates this point by picking two men, a Gentile (Abraham) and a Jew (David). Both men were 'ungodly', ie, both men sinned therefore in need of justification. Since both sinned then neither could be justified by the law of Moses that required the strict, flawless, perfect work of law-keeping. (Abraham did not even live under Moses' law so he could not be justified by that law Romans 4:9-10). So how was this Jew and Gentile justified? By a faithful obedience and NOT by the falwless, perfect works required by the law of Moses.

It should start to focus in people's mind that all works are NOT THE SAME. There are works that will not justifiy (perfect flawless law-keeping) and works that WILL save (obedient faith in doing God's will). So some trying to get verses as Romans 4:5 ("worketh not") or Ephesians 2:9 ("not of works") create MASS contradiction and confusion, creating a 'contradiction' between Paul and James that does NOT even exist.

Paul and James AGREE totally that the work of a faithful obedience to God's will DOES justify:
James 2:24-----------works (obedience)----------------------justifies
Romans 6:17-18-----obey from the heart---------------------justifies (frees from sin)

Getting to Romans 2:6-11, we should be able to clearly see now that all works are NOT the same, one kind of work (obedience to God Jmes 2:24; Romans 16:17-18) DOES save while other works (works of merit - Eph 2:9 and flawless works required by the OT law of Moses Romans 4:5) do NOT save.

The judgement God renders to every man (not just Christians) depends on which type of work each man did in this life. God's rendering is not based on some capricious or unknown reason. (Revelation 20:12-13 - "according to their works")

-------------

You cite Romans 3.."none are righteous"
From Hebrews 11:4 that Abel was righteous so how does that jibe with Paul saying 'none are righteous'? Even the context of Psalms 14:3 from which Paul quotes speaks of the righteous, Psalms 14:5. It could be that Paul is using the term righteous in an absolute sense, that is, he is saying none are absolutely perfectly righteous in and of themselves apart from Christ. But it takes OBEDIENCE to God to be in Christ and therefore seen as righteous by God.

-------------

Romans 2:10 "But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:" Says NOTHING about the 'working good" being unsuccessful. It says NOTHING about this work has to be perfectly, flawlessly sinless. All the "working good" requires in a simple faithful obedience to God's will which is possible as seen by Paul, Peter, David, Abraham and many, many others found in the Bible. NONE were perefectly sinless in their works but they did have faithful obedience.

Kenneth Roberson · Jan 27, 2021

Hi Butterball1! Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate the love that you and Fervent1 have for God and His Word. You have made a number of points and I want to reply thoroughly but with brevity. Do you happen to know what the word- or character- limit is for replies on this server? If not, no problem. Thanks!

Butterball1 · Jan 28, 2021

Kenneth Roberson said:
Hi Butterball1! Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate the love that you and Fervent1 have for God and His Word. You have made a number of points and I want to reply thoroughly but with brevity. Do you happen to know what the word- or character- limit is for replies on this server? If not, no problem. Thanks!

I think 10,000 characters is the max per post. That includes all characters, characters that I post and you post combined.

Kenneth Roberson · Jan 28, 2021

Butterball1 said:
I think 10,000 characters is the max per post. That includes all characters, characters that I post and you post combined.

Great. In the meantime, so that I can fully address your reply, may I respectfully ask you to address specifically the point I previously made, i.e., that there is Scriptural evidence that: (1) it is during the ”day of wrath” (Rom. 2:5) that God “render” (2:6) according to deeds, and thus during that day that He would render “eternal life” (2:7) and “glory, honour, and peace” (2:10), but (2) Christians will not be present during that “day of wrath” and Christians are not the object of God’s “wrath”? Thank you.

Kenneth Roberson · Jan 28, 2021

Kenneth Roberson said:
Great. In the meantime, so that I can fully address your reply, may I respectfully ask you to address specifically the point I previously made, i.e., that there is Scriptural evidence that: (1) it is during the ”day of wrath” (Rom. 2:5) that God “render” (2:6) according to deeds, and thus during that day that He would render “eternal life” (2:7) and “glory, honour, and peace” (2:10), but (2) Christians will not be present during that “day of wrath” and Christians are not the object of God’s “wrath”? Thank you.

I’m not clear why part of my question has a line through it but I intend that part to be part of my question as well.

Butterball1 · Jan 29, 2021

Kenneth Roberson said:
I’m not clear why part of my question has a line through it but I intend that part to be part of my question as well.

The day of wrath refers to judgment day. It will be a day of wrath to "them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness" they will face God's "indignation and wrath". But for those who "worketh righteousness" (Acts 10:35) "by patient continuance in well doing" and "every man that worketh good" it will be a day of redemption.

So the type of works a man does in this life is the basis God uses to determine how He renders unto every man. Each person in this life determines for themselves where they will be in eternity, all God does on judgment day is hand out the sentence that fits the type of work a man did. To those that did righteousness/obeyed GOd's will will get the sentence " Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." For those that were "contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness" will get the sentence "...depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity, There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.."

It's about what man has "done" what man has 'worked' that determines one's eternal fate.

1213 · Jan 31, 2021

Kenneth Roberson said:
...James teaches in his Epistle of James that (1) Christians are “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21, 25) and not “justified . . . by faith only” (Jas. 2:24) (as James uses those terms), and (2) Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses (the law).

On the other hand, Paul teaches four things. First, Christians are not “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2) but are “justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28; 5:1) (as Paul uses those terms). ...

I think they are all the same, because faith means loyalty to God, if person is loyal to God, it comes visible in works also. Works are like fruits of a tree. Person is justified if he is loyal and if he is loyal, it can be seen from his works. From works it can be seen who is really loyal/faithful. And so, if person is loyal, he can be called righteous and if person has the works that tell person is loyal, he can be called loyal.

Kenneth Roberson · Feb 4, 2021

Hi Butterball1. I thought it would perhaps be best to address some portions of your reply now and some later, so below are some of my thoughts.

1. It is clear that God wants Christians to do “good works.” Paul said at Eph. 2:10 (KJV):

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

(Italics added.) At Titus 2:4, Paul taught that Christ

“gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”

(Italics added.) At Titus 3:8, Paul wrote:

“This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.”

(Italics added.)

2. However, I want to focus on what Paul taught concerning justification and/or the related term “justified.” You have said,

“As long as one remembers when Paul says none are justified by works that the SPECIFIC works Paul is talking about refers to the flawless, perfect work of law-keeping the OT law of Moses required for justification . . . .”

(Italics added.) You also say:

"Some try and say Paul is eliminating any and all types of works from being saved/justified but in the Roman epistle context he is only eliminating flawless, perfect work required by the law of Moses, NOTHING MORE.”

(Italics added.)

3. Paul wrote at Rom. 4:2, “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.” (Italics added.) However, at Gal. 2:16, Paul said:

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

(Italics added.)

Thus, at Rom. 4:2, Paul used the phrase “justified by works,” while at Gal. 2:16, he used the phrase “justified by the works of the law.” (Italics added.) I would respectfully submit that the two phrases are different not just in language but in meaning.

a. Before Acts 10, Peter was a Jewish Christian who observed the law of Moses. Thus, Peter told the Lord at Acts 10:14, “I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” Peter told Cornelius at Acts 10:28, “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation[.]” (Italics added.)

But later, as Paul recorded at Gal. 2:11-12, Peter came to Antioch and ate with Gentiles. And at Gal. 2:16, Paul employed the phrase “justified by the works of the law” (italics added) after he discussed in Gal. 2:11-15 certain matters relating to the law of Moses. In particular, Paul discusses in those verses that Peter, a “Jew,” was living in Antioch like a Gentile until certain came from James, at which time Peter feared them of the “circumcision” (Jews, apparently Christians, who observed the law of Moses). Peter not only withdrew from “eating” with Gentiles, an issue implicating dietary restrictions of the law of Moses, but withdrew from Gentiles altogether (see again Acts 10:28). By doing this, he in effect “compelle[d] . . . the Gentiles to live as do the Jews,” i.e., observing the law of Moses. Accordingly, Gal. 2:15-16 record that Paul confronted Peter for the latter’s hypocrisy and Paul protested:

“15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

(Italics added.)

Thus, Paul’s use of the phrase “justified by the works of the law” (italics added) is intimately connected with an incident involving the law of Moses.

b. However, Paul’s use of the phrase “justified by works” at Rom. 4:2 does not pertain to an incident involving the law of Moses. Rom. 4:1-3 say,

“1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”

(Italics added.) Abraham lived centuries before the law of Moses. Thus, Gal. 3:16-17 teach that God made promises to Abraham and his seed, but “the law . . . was four hundred and thirty years after[.]” Indeed, you correctly observe in your reply that “Abraham did not even live under Moses' law[.]”

Thus, when Paul teaches at Rom. 4:1-2 that Abraham was not “justified by works,” these “works” are not works required by the law of Moses, because the law of Moses came only centuries after Moses.

By referring to Abraham at Rom. 4:1-2, Paul is teaching a principle that is not limited to the law of Moses. As I mentioned in my earlier reply, “works” at Rom. 4:2 refers to “outward conduct done with the expectation of receiving righteousness from God in return as payment of a debt owed by Him.” (See Rom. 4:4: “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”) Paul is teaching at Rom. 4:1-2 that Abraham was not “justified by works,” if by “works” one means “outward conduct done with the expectation of receiving righteousness from God in return as payment of a debt owed by Him.”

Indeed, in the very next verse, Rom. 4:3, Paul writes:

“3 For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”

(Italics added.) This is a reference to Gen. 15:6. Paul’s citation to Gen. 15:6 is revealing. Gen. 15:5-6 record:

5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”

These verses are remarkable. They do not record that Abraham did “works” in the sense of “outward conduct done with the expectation of receiving righteousness from God in return as payment of a debt owed by Him.” But beyond that, these verses do not record that Abraham did “works” even if by “works” one means simply “outward conduct.” That is, these verses do not record, e.g., that Abraham looked toward heaven or counted stars. It is telling that when Paul at Rom. 4:3 cites Gen. 15:6 in support of Paul’s teaching that Abraham was not “justified by works,” Gen. 15:6 does not record that Abraham did “works” of any kind, i.e., the verse does not record that Abraham did any ”outward conduct.”

4. You have said:

“As long as one remembers when Paul says none are justified by works that the SPECIFIC works Paul is talking about refers to the flawless, perfect work of law-keeping the OT law of Moses required for justification . . . .”

(Italics added.) However, I would respectfully submit that Paul never uses the limited phrase “justified by works” except at Rom. 4:2. And because Paul is there referring to Abraham who came before the law of Moses, Paul is not, by the phrase “justified by works” referring to the “work of law-keeping the OT law of Moses required for justification.” (Italics added.) It follows that when Paul uses the phrase “justified by works” at Rom. 4:2, Paul is not, at that verse, referring to “the flawless, perfect work of law-keeping the OT law of Moses required for justification . . . .” (Italics added.)

Similarly, you commented:

"Some try and say Paul is eliminating any and all types of works from being saved/justified but in the Roman epistle context he is only eliminating flawless, perfect work required by the law of Moses, NOTHING MORE.”

(Italics added.) However, as to the limited issue of “works” and being “justified,” I would respectfully submit that Rom. 4:2 is “in the Roman epistle context.” Paul teaches at that verse that Abraham was not “justified by works.” It is inaccurate, then, to say that, at that verse, Paul “is only eliminating flawless, perfect work required by the law of Moses, NOTHING MORE.” (Italics added.) Again, Paul was not referring to work “required by the law of Moses” because that law came only centuries after Abraham. And at the verse Paul cites in Rom. 4:3 to exemplify his point—Gen. 15:6—there is no record that Paul did “works” even simply in the sense of the “outward conduct.”

In other words, Paul is “eliminating . . . MORE” at Rom. 4:1-5 then, as you put it, “work required by the law of Moses.” In those verses he is eliminating “outward conduct done with the expectation of receiving righteousness from God in return as payment of a debt owed by Him,” apart from whether that outward conduct is “required by the law of Moses.

Indeed, although, as mentioned, God definitely wants Christians to do “good works” (e.g., Eph. 2:10, Titus 2:4, 3:8), Paul never teaches that “works”—even in the sense of “good works,” or even simply in the sense of “outward conduct”—have any role in the justification of Christians or how they are “justified.”

Instead, when it comes to the limited issue of justification, Christians are simply “justified by faith.” Paul wrote at Rom. 3:28, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Italics added.) He declared at Rom. 5:1, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ[.]” (Italics added.) He proclaimed at Gal. 3:24, “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”

Accordingly, I would respectfully ask the following questions:

1. Is it true that in Rom. 4:1-5, where Paul discusses Abraham, justification, and “works,” that “works” at verse 2 do not refer to the “work of law-keeping the OT law of Moses” (italics added) or “work required by the law of Moses” (italics added), because the law of Moses came centuries after Abraham?

2. Where in Rom. 4:1-5, in which Paul discusses justification and Abraham, does Paul teach that Abraham was justified by “works,” even if “works” means simply “outward conduct”?

3. Where in Rom. 4:1-5, in which Paul discusses justification and Abraham, does Paul teach that Abraham was justified by “works,” even if “works” even means “good outward conduct” that is, “good works”?

Paul and James Reconciled

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Disciple of Jesus

Active Member

Similar threads