That is the point on which Paul's argument turns. . .in his parallel
-of condemnation and death for mankind because of Adam's one act of transgression, with
righteousness and eternal life for mankind because of Jesus' one act of obedience in Romans 5:18-19.
Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), death proves there was sin in the world before the law was given. Since there can be no sin when there is no law, then what sin caused the death of those between Adam and Moses? Paul concludes it was the sin of Adam, that they all died between Adam and Moses because of the sin of Adam that was imputed to men (Romans 5:18), which he parallels to the righteousness of Christ also imputed to men (Romans 5:18-19) in justification/righteousness through faith.
When your interpretation of the Bible is incoherent, then that is a pretty good indicator that your interpretation is not correct. In order to communicate coherently we need to use words that definitions, but if I were to use a word without a definition, such as "asdhghojero", then that would be just as incoherent as speaking about sin before it had a definition. God's nature is eternal, so God's laws for how to testify about his nature are eternal and existed before God created Adam, but people can still transgress those laws before they were given to them, in which case sin is not charged against them. So the law existed before it was given, which means that sin existed before the law was given.
Okay, your conclusion of Romans 2:13 is incorrect, for God justifies the wicked who do not work(s of the law) but trust him (Romans 4:5).
Can you grant that there could be reasons for obeying the Mosaic Law other than trying to earn our justification?
According to Romans 2:13, obedience to the Mosaic Law is required for justification and what Paul said in Romans 4:4-5 should not be interpreted as contradicting what he said in 2:13. In Romans 4:4-5, it denies that our justification is something that can be earned as a wage. So the fact that only doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified means that our justification requires obedience to it for reasons other than earning it as a wage, such as faith. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Mosaic Law, so only those who have faith will obey it, which means that only doers of the law will be justified while we do not earn our justification as wage.
In other words, if it were true that everyone who will be justified is sanctified and the way to be sanctified is by being a doer of the Mosaic Law, then it is true that everyone who be justified is a doer of the Mosaic Law, and if no one will be justified who isn't a doer of the law, then being a doers of the law is a requirement for justification, but we do not earn our justification by obeying it.
Jesus is speaking of the Old Covenant order, under which Jesus preached and died.
Jesus referred those under the law to the law for the same reason that the law was given--it was temporarily added (Galatians 3:19) to the Abrahamic covenant only to reveal to us how sinful we are, to cause us to become conscious of sin (Romans 3:20),
Everything that Jesus taught during his ministry was under the Mosaic Covenant, so there would be no point in his ministry if He established the New Covenant for the purpose of undermining everything he spent his ministry teaching. In John 12:46-50, it does not give us any room to disregard anything that Jesus taught during his ministry. Jesus did not go around with the message that the law had ended and that people needed to stop repenting, but just the opposite. He said nothing about the law being temporarily added. There is no point in giving a law just to show us how sinful we are and then removing the law so that we are no longer sinful. If you believe that the law reveals what sin is, and that the NT calls for us to repent from what God has revealed to be sin, then should believe that the law still exists and that we are still required to obey it.
to increase sin, to reveal sin (Romans 5:20).
A law that increases sin is a law that is sinful and is not a law that is holy, righteous, and good, however, God's law is holy, righteous, and good, and is not sinful (Romans 7:12, 7:7). Likewise, in Romans 7:22, Paul delighted in obeying the Law of God, and it would be absurd to think that Paul delighted in obeying works of the law or to think that Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death.
While Paul uses justify to mean "to declare not guilty," James uses it to mean "to verify, to show to be true."
As in, "she was justified (shown to be true) in not trusting the old car."
That is cobbling together your theology, which makes different those things which are the same.
Abraham's faith was verified by his obedience regarding Isaac, but
Genesis 15:6 and Paul clearly state Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness/justification when he believed the promise,
not when he offered Isaac, which was when his faith was verified, not when his faith justified him.
James is stating that Abraham's faith was verified when he offered Isaac.
James said that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered Isaac. He did not say that Abraham's faith was verified when he offered Isaac, but rather that is you inserting your own theology rather than deriving your theology from what James said. Hebrews 11 lists examples of justifying faith, so Abraham was also justified in Genesis 12:1-3 and Hebrews 11:8 when he obeyed the call to go to the place where he would receive his inheritance.
There is nothing in Daniel 4:35 that states God is sovereign, but we know from the whole counsel of God that he is indeed sovereign, even though it is nowhere specifically stated.
Likewise with both emphatically denying the law's involvement in justification, and upholding the law's involvement in sanctification.
We know it from the necessary conclusion of the whole import of the NT, from the necessary conclusion of Paul's revelation.
Secondly, "not of faith" does not mean "are of unbelief," it means that "by faith" and "by works" are two different principles,
that "by works" is "not of faith," that "by faith" is "not of works,"
not of faith = not by faith, and not of works = not by works, and does not mean that either faith or works are invalid.
Correct understanding of Paul's revelation does not mix works with faith in justification, nor does it negate the validity of either works or faith.
I'm trying to decide if you really misunderstand these texts, or if you are simply knitting them together to support your assertion of the necessity for law keeping in the New Covenant. Right now, the latter seems to have the most weight, which means I am not inclined to unravel your knitting just for the sake of unravelling it, I am willing to do such if it means a truer NT understanding for you.
Are you in a position to tell me which is more likely here?
The plain meaning of Romans 2:13 is that only doers of the law will be justified, so it is you who is misunderstanding the text. Someone can do the same works in order to earn something or because they have faith in someone to guide them in how to rightly live or for a multitude of other motivations. Even if it were true that Jesus was saying that the only two laws of the New Covenant were the greatest two commandments, then the New Covenant would still involve law keeping. Furthermore, in Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves law keeping, so I don't see how you can deny that it involves law keeping. I understand these texts.
The law of works is the principle of works = effected by works, through the Holy Spirit (righteousness of sanctification).
The law of faith is the principle of faith = effected by faith (righteousness of justification/salvation).
Of course, Paul specified nothing about sanctification in this passage.
The practice in Acts 10:28 is called "law" because it was the necessary consequence of the law regarding defilement by the unclean, which made the Israelite unclean if he touched the unclean, which a Gentile was
Actually, it is Paul who ignores them, since he is dealing with the law given by God.
Can you quote where the Mosaic Law forbids Jews to touch Gentiles or forbids Jews to visit or associate with Gentiles? In Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked why his disciples didn't follow the traditions of the elders and he responded by asking them why they set aside the commands of God for the sake of their tradition, so that distinction was talked about in the Bible.
I don't need a command to "help the poor" when I love my neighbor, I help whoever needs help, the rich, the poor, and neither.
There is more to loving your neighbor than what is or can be spelled out in the law.
You are creating a false construct to justify your insistence on adding law keeping to the New Covenant.
If a correct understanding of what it means to love God and our neighbor means that we will help the poor, honor our parents, refrain from idolatry, adultery, kidnapping, and so fourth for all of God's other laws, then I don't see the point in denying that the New Covenant involves following God's other laws. Someone who was living in obedience to the greatest two commandments would be indistinguishable from someone who lived in obedience to the Mosaic Law because they would both be following the same example that Jesus set for us to follow.
There is no NT command to "treat the other commandments as hanging on the greatest two."
This again is a false construct to require law keeping in the New Covenant.
Jesus said that all of the law hangs on the the greatest two commandments, so saying we only need to obey the greatest two commandments is denying the truth of what Jesus said.
Another misconstruction. All mankind is condemned because of the sin of Adam (Romans 5:18; Ephesians 2:3). Only those who believe and trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin and right standing with God's justice (not guilty) receive the gift of eternal life in Christ Jesus.
In Romans 6:19-23 no longer presenting ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin is contrasted with now presenting ourselves as slaves to God and righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, so all of this is part of God's gift of eternal life. Likewise, in Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that the way to enter into eternal life is by obeying God's commandments, so that is what it means to believe and trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the remission of our sins and right standing with God's justice.
That is precisely the meaning of "will worship," worshipping God according to what we think is better--either from man or ordinances of God, it matters not, because it is not what he has specifically prescribed.
Uzzah thought he was doing a really good thing when the oxen stumbled and he kept the Ark from falling, but it was contrary to what God had specifically prescribed, and God struck him dead (1 Chronicles 13:9-11).
I am comparing you to the will worship of Colossians in your adding specific law keeping to what God has prescribed: "Love your neighbor as yourself," where Jesus specifically prescribes the standard we are to follow, but which you want to improve with law keeping.
I don't see how you can deny that what God commanded is what He has specifically prescribed. The Mosaic Law is what God has commanded, so there is a difference between saying that we should obey it and speaking about going beyond what God has commanded. Things that were only said against going beyond what God has commanded should not be mistaken as speaking against obeying what God has commanded. Everything that God has commanded is in regard to how to love God or how to love our neighbor, so that is not adding what Jesus commanded. You understanding that loving our neighbor involves helping the poor is not seeking to improve about what Jesus commanded.
Less cutting and pasting would be appreciated.
I did not copy and paste that.
