Paul and James Reconciled

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ok. I can agree that we should be willing to read the New Testament as it was intending to be understood, even in full if possible.
But what is your definition of "fudging"? What does this term mean to you specifically?
To me, fudging means not taking the text at its word.
Ok. And which books is this scripture referring to?
That would be the writings of those personally taught by Jesus, the 12 and Paul, who likewise lends the same authority
to Luke's writing (1Ti 5:18) as he does to the OT Scriptures.
I'm not understanding what your method of systematization involves. Do you care to briefly explain it to me?
Systemization is nothing more than understanding various truths as they relate to one another.
I agree. We need to receive them, but
not everything in Scripture is clear for us to receive with ease, is it?
It's as clear as it can be Biblically demonstrated to be, which is very clear.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hello. I have written an essay and would like to know what you think about the summary of it below. Thanks!

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). Second, Christians are free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with the law. Third, Christians are free to live a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law in accord with their preferences or the dictates of their consciences. Finally, when Christians interact with people who comply with the law as a way of life (e.g., devout Jews), Christians are free to engage in a nonobligatory compliance with the law to avoid offending such people.

Galatians 1 and 2, and other Scriptures, teach the following. Paul received a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” a “gospel” that included not only truths that the other apostles knew but truths that the apostles did not know, including Paul’s teachings in the above paragraph. (This “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12) that Paul received was just as much a revelation to him as the “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1) and the Book of Revelations were to the apostle John.) Moreover, Paul shared this revelation, this “gospel,” with the other apostles. Three— James, Peter, and John—agreed at the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) that Paul and Barnabas would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the circumcision (generally, Jews who emphasized compliance with the law as a way of life). In other words, James also agreed that his doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as taught in James’s epistle were transitional (like the law itself (Gal. 3:24-25)), and were no longer to be taught after the agreement of the right hands of fellowship. This is true even though James’s doctrines on those issues were and are inspired Scripture (like the law) and were correct at the time that he taught them in his epistle.

I do not see them in conflict, Eph 2:10 true faith Hebrews 11 and James results in good works. Also, Jesus in Matthew 25

James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
 
Upvote 0

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
INIQUITY,CHARITY AND FAITH​


The following scriptures are enlightening and show how we are to be as Christians.They also help us to see how to reconcile apparently contradictory statements by Paul and James.



“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:21-23)


Iniquity - anomia
Thayer Definition:
1) the condition of without law
1a) because ignorant of it
1b) because of violating it
2) contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness


Strongs Definition
From G459; illegality, that is, violation of law or (generally) wickedness:


Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing…..And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”(I Corinthians 13:1-3,13)


Charity - agape
Thayer definition:
1) brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence
2) love feasts


Strong’s definition:
From G25; love, that is, affection or benevolence; specifically (plural) a love feast:


“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”(James 2:14-17)


Faith - pistis
Thayer Definition:
conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
1a) relating to God
1a1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
1b) relating to Christ
1b1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
1c) the religious beliefs of Christians
1d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2) fidelity, faithfulness
2a) the character of one who can be relied on


Strong’s defintion
From G3982; persuasion, that is, credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly constancy in such profession; by extension the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:



The above is clear concerning the nature of the works done by those whom the Lord rejected and those whom Paul said were nothing.



They did:

“speak with the tongues of men and of angels”
“have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge”
“have all faith, so that I could remove mountains”
“bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned”
I Corinthians 13.



And similarly they also:

“have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?”
Matthew 7:22


These works refer to persons ministering in the name of the Lord by doing miraculous acts etc., and not to works of righteousness as some would like to think.Notice Jesus said only those doing the will of the Father will enter the kingdom of God.Hence those doing the mighty works were not doing the will of the Father.(See;I Corinthians 12:1-31)


The aim of Jesus and Paul is to show that the ability or gift to do these works are not a sign that one is accepted by the Lord or that one is something.The actions which bring acceptance and which allow you to be something in His sight are;to not work iniquity or not do wickedness and to have charity or love which are defined above and charity is further explained in the passage speaking of the same.(I Corinthians 13:4-7)


Paul confirms the importance of love in the life of the child of God when he says:


“For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”(Galatians 5:6)


The facets of love are further explained by Paul:

“Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”(Romans 13:8-10)


The, “faith which worketh by love”, is that which leads James to state clearly:


“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”


The works are works of love and this corresponds to Paul’s statement about the same and puts into context the relationship between faith and works.The persons who, “worketh iniquity” ,lack love and are rejected by the Lord. Those who lack charity also are nothing according to Paul and hence the working of iniquity,the lack of charity and the absence of the appropriate works,according to Jesus,Paul and James will see these persons failing to enter the Kingdom of God.


Hence Paul says:

“And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”(I Corinthians 13:13)

Jesus puts it this way:

“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”(John 8:31,32)


James is in perfect agreement when he says:

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”(James 2:24)


Is this understanding in contradiction to statements like:

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."[Romans 3:28;Galatians 2:16]

Or

“For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.”(Romans 4:2)


When the complete context is considered there is no contradiction. As was said in another study:



“We cannot free ourselves from the curse of the law.Only the death of one who was just could do this great work of reconciliation with God.[Deuteronomy 11:26-29;27: 11-26;28: 15-19;Galatians 3:13; Hebrews 9:15;10:1-10; I Peter 1:18-21;2:24, 25;Romans 3:22,23.]
For neither the blood of bulls and goats(works of the law) nor our good works(works of righteousness) could redeem us from the consequences of sin.[Romans 3:20;Romans 6:23;Ezekiel 20:24,25;Romans 9:31,32; Titus 3:5;Hebrews 10:1-14;Galatians 2:16;3:19,24- 26]”


The persons who benefit from this blessing will be in a position like that of the thief on the cross.


The attitude of one of the thieves was one of unbelief. He said:

“And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.”(Luke 23:39)

The other showed reverence and believed in Christ while confessing he had done wrong.He asked for mercy:


“But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.”(Luke 23:40-42)


Jesus granted him his wish and he was saved as he died and did not have the occasion to fall into sin again:


“And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”(Luke 23:43)


Hence he was:
“…justified by faith without the deeds of the law."


Not all are in this position for all of their remaining lives and in fact most may be in one similar to the woman caught in adultery.

The woman was found guilty of breaking the command:

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."[Exodus 20:14]
According to the law she was to have been stoned to death.[Leviticus 20:10;John 8:5]

Grace was exercised and Jesus said:

"...Neither do I condemn thee.."[John 8:11]

However at the end of it all, she was told :


"...go and sin no more. " [John 8:11,See Romans 6:1,2]


Hence,even though grace alone freed her from the penalty of sin she was not expected to continue in iniquity as she continued to live. She was to show love/charity by no longer committing adultery.


It is the same now, as we access this grace by faith,we are to practice the "good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."[Ephesians 2:8-10]


If not we are said to be among those who:

"They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."[ Titus 1:16]


Are such persons still saved?


We should rather be found among these:

"Little children,let no man deceive you:he that doeth righteousness,is righteous even as he is righteous."[ I John 3:7]
 
Upvote 0

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
FAITH PLUS WORKS = ?/FAITH WITHOUT WORKS = ?​



Prior to his “treatise” on faith James refers the readers to that which identifies sin in the life of the believer.He says:



“If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.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.So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.”(James 2:8-13)



Here James clearly points to the law as that which convinces(persuades) persons that they have sinned. Notice the elements of the law which are mentioned:


Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not kill.


Where was it said and who was it that said the above?

“And God spake all these words, saying,”(Exodus 20:1)


This clearly points to the ten commandments as the royal law(Romans 13:8-10) and the law of liberty being referred to by James. Believers will be judged by this law and their transgressions will be severely dealt with if they have not shown mercy to others.


With this possibility in mind he ensures his readers understand our actions are the true reflection of what we believe. Notice previously he criticized the practice of believers(James 2:1) being partial and he now emphasizes the fact that even if we believe and do not practice that which is associated with that belief we have a faith that is dead.


As Jesus said:


“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;”(John 8:31)


And Paul elaborated:


“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”(Romans 6:1-6)



James states clearly our actions determine our state of salvation as he says:


“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?”(James 2:14)


Can Faith Save?Can Faith Alone Save?Can Faith Without Works Save?


Notice he is asking about salvation.He says:


“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”(James 2:17)
“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?”(James 2:20)
“Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”(James 2:22)
“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”(James 2:26)



Hence salvation is impossible without works and when he says:


“Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”(James 2:22)


And:


“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”(James 2:24)


He is simply confirming the example given to prove his point and the example was that of the father of faith Abraham:


“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.”(James 2:21-23)


He is not saying works are for others to see but after looking at the example of Abraham he is saying;You understand(Ye see,Seest) how by works a man is justified.


In effect,without the appropriate works we cannot be saved.Paul further confirms this when he says:

"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."(Ephesians 2:10)

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."(Titus 2:11-14)

"What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"(Romans 6:15,16)
 
Upvote 0

safswan

Active Member
Nov 15, 2005
383
131
58
✟30,710.00
Faith
Christian
Justification

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."[Romans 3:28;Galatians 2:16]

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only."[James 2:24;I John 3:7]

"He shall see the travail of his soul,and shall be satisfied:by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many,for he shall bear their iniquities." [Isaiah 53:11]

"Let the wicked forsake his way,and the unrighteous man his thoughts:And let him return unto the Lord,and he will have mercy upon him;and to our God for he will abundantly pardon."[Isaiah 55:7]

The statements above made by the apostles Paul and James appear to contradict each other and may be a cause of confusion among those who seek to understand the word of God. Many persons may be tempted to accept one and reject the other.Or claim James is for one dispensation while Paul speaks to another.


A proper search of the scriptures, however, will show that both can be reconciled and the words of Isaiah stated above,also sheds some light on this.Many, instead of reconciling both passages tend to accept one and teach that we are saved by grace and are made righteous by Jesus' atoning action and hence those who try to live righteous or keep God's commandments, are trying to be righteous by themselves and hence,are fallen from grace.(especially those who use the law as a guide to know sin.)

Nothing could be further from the truth and the passages in Isaiah, stated above, show that those who are to benefit from God's pardon(grace) must also forsake their wicked ways and unrighteous thoughts and conform to God's ways.

The difference in the style of writing of both apostles and the difference in the audience they are writing to, may be a cause of the apparent contradiction. If, however, the reader should consider all of Paul's letter to the Romans and his other epistles,before coming to a conclusion, they would be able to see that both he and James concur on the matter but that they discuss the topic in different ways.

It is to be noted that the apostle Peter noticed that Paul's style of writing is not easily understood and could cause many to be in error. Many pastors and teachers of God's word fail to recognize this and hence, lead their flock into error and keep them there by avoiding scriptures which would illuminate their errors.[II Peter 3:15-17;II Timothy 2:15;Proverbs 14:15;Proverbs 2:1-6]

Paul says justification is by faith and faith alone.[Romans 3:23-28;Galatians 2:16;Ephesians 2:8,9] But he also asks, if, after receiving this pardon, should we continue in sin.[Romans 6:1,2] He says no and hence shows there is another part to justification which James speaks of in his statement above and which Paul alludes to in other passages.[Romans 2:13]

The part which man has no control of and can do nothing to gain may be called redemption or reconciliation( Romans 3:24;Ephesians 1:7;Colossians 1:14;Hebrews 9:12,15;Romans 5:10;II Corinthians 5:18-20) and the second area is that which man will do by the power which God has given him, by his submitting to the will of God and living a righteous and holy life. Hence whereas Paul is making clear to the readers at Rome that the reason we have the opportunity to gain eternal life is not by our own doing,he also says, when we have accepted this opportunity by accepting baptism, we are not expected to continue to live in sin, but we must live in a manner which is acceptable to God who gives us the power to do this.

James in his letter may have been speaking to a more informed audience and hence ,he links both parts of the justification process, without highlighting the act performed by Jesus which motivates and gives the faith needed to continue in good works.


The following scriptures show the way in which the justification process may be divided.


REDEMPTION /AFTER REDEMPTION

Romans 3:23-26./ Romans 6:20-22.

Romans 5:9. /Romans 6:1-4,6,15.

Ephesians 2:8,9./ Ephesians 2:10;4:22-24.

Titus 3:7. /Titus 3:8.

Hebrews 9:11-15./ Hebrews 10:22-29.

Galatians 2:16./ Galatians 5:6,16,19-23.


redemption - (629,Strong' s)apolutrosis, from a comp. of 575 and 3083;(the act)ransom in full.ie.(fig. ) riddance,or (spec.)Chr. salvation:

Also: (3085,Strong' s)lutrosis, from 3084;a ransoming(fig. ):

James however, speaks of the whole process as one and is very simple in his explanation of what should happen to the redeemed person.[James 2:1,14-26;1: 1-3,12] He does not describe the actions of Jesus in the justification process in the detail that Paul does but is mainly concerned with the fruits of the process. Persons reading parts of Paul's letter may believe that just by having faith they are righteous and may gain eternal life, without forsaking sin also. James' method of describing the process ensures that no one could make this error with his letter and there are many other scriptures which support this method. Whereas James makes his point quickly, Paul only gets to the "meat" of the matter in chapter 12 of his letter to the Romans.[Romans 3:5-8;II Peter 3:15-17;Romans 12:1-21;13:8- 10,14;Hebrews 11:1-40;Galatians 5:6;I Corinthians 7:19;I John 5:2,3]

Jesus also was very clear on the subject as was the apostle John.[Matthew 7:21-27;19:16- 30;John 6:35-40;7:16; 8:31 - 45;11:25,26; 12:47-50; I John 1:5-10;2:1-6; 3:1-10;Revelatio n 14:12]

In using Abraham as the example for all to follow, the dual nature of the justification process is obvious.

Abraham was called by God to leave his father's house and he obeyed.[Genesis 12:1-4;Hebrews 11:8]
His faith caused him to obey God.[James 2:21-23]
He was declared righteous as God cleared him of any sin he had committed because he believed God.[Romans 4:1-8;Genesis 15:6]

When this relationship was sealed Abraham was told to:

"...walk before me and be thou perfect."[Genesis 17:1]

Hence God called him, redeemed him and told him to obey his laws, and he received the institution of circumcision as a seal of this agreement or covenant.[Genesis 17:3-14;James 2:14-20;Ephesians 2:8-10;Titus 3:4-8]

Did Abraham keep the laws of God after being redeemed, justified or cleared of sin?

"Because that Abraham obeyed my voice,and kept my charge,my commandments, my statutes,and my laws."[Genesis 26:5]

Jesus said the children of Abraham would follow his example.[John 8:39;Galatians 3:28,29]

Hence Abraham's faith was first acknowledged but continued to be tested and was proven because he obeyed God.[Genesis 22:1-14;Hebrews 11:8-10,17]

As it was with Abraham and others, it is our works which will show our faith or lack of it.[Romans 4:19-22;9:30- 33;11:20- 22;Hebrews 3:14-19;4:1- 16;Numbers 14:1-35;James 2:22,23;1:2- 4,12;Proverbs 28:13;21:21]

In conclusion,we cannot free ourselves from the curse of the law.Only the death of one who was just could do this great work of reconciliation with God.[Deuteronomy 11:26-29;27: 11-26;28: 15-19;Galatians 3:13;Hebrews 9:15;10:1-10; I Peter 1:18-21;2:24, 25;Romans 3:22,23.]

For neither the blood of bulls and goats(works of the law) nor our good works(works of righteousness) could redeem us from the consequences of sin.[Romans 3:20;Romans 6:23;Ezekiel 20:24,25;Romans 9:31,32;Titus 3:5;Hebrews 10:1-14;Galatians 2:16;3:19,24- 26]

After being redeemed,however, in order to attain the promise of eternal life,which was made possible by the death of Jesus,we must forsake sin and live according to God's laws.[I Peter 1:9-23;Romans 6:1-14;I Corinthians 6:9-11;Titus 3:8;Romans 8:1-8,13;Ezekiel 36:26,27;I Peter 4:1-4;Romans 7;7;3:20b;I John 3:4;I Timothy 1:8;Jeremiah 31:33,34;Exodus 24:12;Hebrews 8:8-13; II Corinthians 3:1-3;Revelation 22:14]

This is how the law justifies. As Paul said:

Romans 2:
11For there is no respect of persons with God.
12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.


If we continue in sin after accepting this gift of grace,we are in danger of facing the wrath of God,however, we still have an advocate who intercedes on our behalf if we have strayed from the path of righteousness. [Hebrews 7:22-25;10:26- 29,38,39; 12:1-17;I John 2:1,2;Psalm 32:1-5,8,10]

Those who fail to do those works pleasing unto God are said to be:

"They profess that they know God;but in works they deny him,being abominable,and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."[ Titus 1:16]

We should rather be found among those described below:

"Little children,let no man decieve you:he that doeth righteousness, is righteous even as he is righteous."[ I John 3:7]

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts,we should live soberly,righteously ,and godly,in this present world.....who gave himself for us,that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works."[Titus 2:11-14]
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Clare73 said:
No incomplete doctrine in my Bible. . .

The incompleteness is not in the doctrine, it's in your understanding.
you said it yourself, the incompleteness of the doctrine is not about what's in the Bible but in your understanding.
No, I said the incompleteness is in your understanding, because
the Bible presents the doctrine in its completeness.
In the systematization to the level of doctrine, it is rendered incomplete.
I do not find any incompleteness in its "systemization."
There remain no unanswered questions for me regarding the doctrine, all questions are answered in the revelation regarding it. . .which is not always found in the same place in Scripture, hence "systemization".

The context under discussion is Paul's demonstration of the unrighteousness of all mankind
(Ro 1:18-3:20)
, wherein he gives the principles that govern God's judgment of mankind:
1) according to truth (2:2),
2) according to deeds (2:6-11), and
3) according to the light one has (2:12-15), in his demonstration of the guilt of the Jews (2:17-24).
wherein is found 2:13, which you allege "places Paul teaching contrary things himself," as in Gal 3:21.
You speak of the context of what I quoted in Romans, but you gave no textual evidence for where Paul's thought originated or where he went with it merely made an assertion about what he was teaching.
I gave the context as 1:18-3:20.
Paul's thought on his point regarding the unrighteousness of all mankind originates in 1:18
with his point on the unrighteousness of the Gentiles in 1:18-32.
His principles of God's righteous judgment are given in 2:2-16.
His point regarding the unrighteousness of the Jews continues in 2:17-24.
And where "it went" is to the conclusion in 3:9-20:
"There is no one righteous, not even one." (3:10)
Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law. (3:20)
And that includes the Gentiles.
In full context here is the passage:
2 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law
is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Nothing in there has anything to do with the "unrighteousness of the jews," or any idea of perfect compliance
The unrighteousness of the Jews is presented in 2:17-24 (part of the context of 1:18-3:20) after Paul has demonstrated that no one can be righteous under the law, and also where the "idea of perfect compliance" is found; i.e., Gal 3:10:

"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse (of death), for it is written:
'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.'
(Dt 27:6)"

All are under a curse because no one under the law ever perfectly kept the law.
instead it is entirely about the law itself and its role in judgment,
Not in light of what I have just demonstrated.
demonstrating that it is a universal thing
No, demonstrating that is a universal principle of God's judgment.
since the Gentiles obey it in ignorance. So when Paul says "the doers of the law is justified" that is the context he's speaking to, that the
Gentiles are justified by the law through their obedience to it.
The first way you know your understanding is incorrect here, is that it makes Scripture contradict itself, it puts Gal 3:10:
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse"--(what is the curse based on?---disobedience)
in contradiction to your "Gentiles are justified by the law through their obedience."

Gentiles are part of the "all" that are under the curse of the law, they are not justified by their obedience to it.
I never allege Paul is in disagreement with himself, but that
your insistence on a hard line between justification and sanctification puts Paul at odds with his own teachings.
But in response to my statement that it fell "to you to present Biblical demonstrations of your assertions,"
did you not present "Paul at odds with his own teaching" in Ro 1:23 and Gal 3:21,
which teachings in Ro 1:23 and Gal 3:21, I showed to be in perfect agreement?

Actually, it is my "hard line between justification and sanctification" which reconciles Scriptures
(Ro 1:23 vs. Gal 3:21) that you put at odds with each other, causing the Word of God written to contradict itself.
Bible 101: God does not contradict himself in his Word written.
Obedience to the law through works of the law didn't justify because the law was not given to justify but to condemn,
What happened to "the doer of the law is justified"?
which Paul adds to by making clear if the intent of the law had been to make righteous then righteousness would surely come by the law.
Actually, Paul makes clear that righteousness does not come by the law because
"All who who rely on observing the law are under a curse because they do not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law (Gal 3:10), rather than "the law was not given to justify."
You're not giving the "historic teachings" of Paul, but a twisted understanding that arose from 16th century polemics.
If what you allege truly were the historic teachings of Paul,
Strawman. . .

The "historic" teachings of Paul are what his NT writings state, nothing more and nothing less.
surely those who were in the position to best understand him through cultural proximity and direct instruction would have used that teaching when combating schismatics like the Montanists or the Donatists or other groups that focused heavily on the necessity of works as part of their theology, yet we find no such admonition until Luther tried to add the word "alone" to Romans 3:28.
I take my understanding of Scripture from the text itself, not from speculative suppositions regarding the conduct of men.

In summary:
1) Gentiles are not justified by obedience to law,

2) Ro 1:18-3:20 is about the unrighteousness of the Jews (as well as Gentiles), while
Gal 3:10 is about failure in perfect compliance being the reason for the curse of the law on all mankind,

3) my understanding of Scripture reconciles Ro 1:23 and Gal 3:21, which your understanding sets in conflict, and

4) righteousness does not come by the law because "All who who rely on observing the law are under a curse because they do not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law (Gal 3:10); i.e., failure in perfect compliance.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, I said the incompleteness is in your understanding, because
the Bible presents the doctrine in its completeness.

I do not find any incompleteness in its "systemization."
There remain no unanswered questions for me regarding the doctrine, all questions are answered in the revelation regarding it. . .which is not always found in the same place in Scripture, hence "systemization".

The context under discussion is Paul's demonstration of the unrighteousness of all mankind
(Ro 1:18-3:20)
, wherein he gives the principles that govern God's judgment:
1) according to truth (2:2),
2) according to deeds (2:6-11), and
3) according to the light one has (2:12-15). . .
[parenthetical: wherein is found 2:13, which you allege "places Paul teaching contrary things himself," as in Gal 3:21]. . .
in his demonstration of the guilt of the Jews (2:17-24).


I gave the context as 1:18-3:20.
Paul's thought on his point regarding the unrighteousness of all mankind originates in 1:18
with his point on the unrighteousness of the Gentiles (1:18-32).
His principles of God's righteous judgment are given in 2:2-16.
His point regarding the unrighteousness of the Jews continues in 2:17-24.
And where "it went" is to the conclusion in 3:9-20:
"There is no one righteous, not even one." (3:10)
Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law. (3:20)
And that includes the Gentiles.


The unrighteousness of the Jews is presented in 2:17-24 (part of the context of 1:18-3:20) after Paul has demonstrated that no one can be righteous under the law, and also where the "idea of perfect compliance" is found--Gal 3:10:

"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse (of death), for it is written:
'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.'
(Dt 27:6)"

All are under a curse because no one under the law ever perfectly kept the law.

Not in light of what I have just demonstrated.

No, demonstrating that is a universal principle of God's judgment.

The first way you know your understanding is incorrect here, is that it makes Scripture contradict itself, it puts Gal 3:10:
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse"--(what is the curse based on?)
in contradiction to your
"Gentiles are justified by the law through their obedience."

Gentiles are part of the "all" that are under the curse of the law, they are not justified by their obedience to it.
But in response to my statement that it fell "to you to present Biblical demonstrations of your assertions,"
did you not present "Paul at odds with his own teaching" in Ro 1:23 and Gal 3:21,
which teachings in Ro 1:23 and Gal 3:21, I showed to be in perfect agreement?

Actually, it is my "hard line between justification and sanctification" which reconciles Scriptures
(Ro 1:23 vs. Gal 3:21) that you put at odds with each other, causing the Word of God written to contradict itself.
Bible 101: God does not contradict himself in his Word written.

What happened to "the doer of the law is justified"?

Actually, Paul makes clear that righteousness does not come by the law because
"All who who rely on observing the law are under a curse because they do not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law (Gal 3:10), rather than "the law was not given to justify."

The "historic" teachings of Paul are what his NT writings state, nothing more and nothing less.
I take my understanding of Scripture from the text itself, not from speculative suppositions regarding the conduct of men.

In summary:
1) Gentiles are not justified by obedience to law,

2) Ro 1:18-3:20 is about the unrighteousness of the Jews (as well as Gentiles), while
Gal 3:10 is about failure in perfect compliance being the reason for the curse of the law on all mankind,

3) my understanding of Scripture reconciles Ro 1:23 and Gal 3:21, which your understanding sets in conflict, and

4) righteousness does not come by the law because "All who who rely on observing the law are under a curse because they do not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law (Gal 3:10); i.e., failure in perfect compliance.
Given the extent to which you are dug into your position I will not bother going through a full rebuttal, so I'll try to keep my remarks short. While the discussion in Romans 1-4 link together it is not a single thought, but instead a series of related arguments with different aspects in mind and the occasion which Paul is writing the the Romans. It acts as a pre-amble to his main argument in Romans which is presented in Romans 9-11 with the focus being on how the Gentiles were grafted in . In Romans 1-4 he approaches how the Gentiles did what was right in God's eyes contrasted with how the Jews despite having the law did not achieve that aim( What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.) And Paul's quote of Psalm 14 can only be understood as a polemic use otherwise Paul is contradicting the very Scripture he is quoting by ignoring the whole statement because that very psalm goes on to not only speak of individuals who are righteous but an entire generation. What you seem to be missing in the whole thing is in both Romans and Galatians what is in mind is how the law is pursued determines whether it is justifying, as those who pursue it by faith are justified according to it in that they are able to be doers of it because they rely on God whereas those who look to the letter of the law and seek to justify themselves through their performance are not justified by it since its ministry in that respect is to condemn. Your reading requires placing a blanket theology over the text and enforcing a single topic across multiple arguments that isn't appropriate instead of following Paul's development of his main argument. In Romans, how God's mercy was not restricted to ethnic jews but instead included Gentiles all along as it is clear those who were disposed to doing the law in faith were justified through hearing the gospel and believing it, and those who were not of faith were hardened into not receiving the gospel instead rejecting their Messiah so that the Gentiles could be grafted in. In Galatians, an argument against returning to a mindset of statutory obedience as a means of self-justification rather than relying on the obedience of the heart produced by submission to the gospel.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
To me, fudging means not taking the text at its word.
Alright. I'm guessing, then, that if I told you how I evaluate biblical texts, you'd think I don't "take them at their word." But I'm not here to contend with you, so I'll just quickly state that I think good exegesis requires more than just working with a 'prima facie' reading of God's Word.

That would be the writings of those personally taught by Jesus, the 12 and Paul, who likewise lends the same authority to Luke's writing (1Ti 5:18) as he does to the OT Scriptures.
How do you know this? Wouldn't the "Scriptures" Paul refers to be the O.T. books rather than other N.T. writings?

Systemization is nothing more than understanding various truths as they relate to one another.
It's as clear as it can be Biblically demonstrated to be.
I for one will contend against the idea that even a good method of systematization will in fact produce a comprehensive, fully coherent account of the doctrines of the Christian faith.

In my estimation, at best we'll get pieces of insight from the Bible into what God has done in Christ; we'll even get enough insight that we'll have a sufficient understanding of how God saves us by faith, but we won't have actually end with a comprehensive system of all that God does in His economy of salvation. We also won't be able to see the Bible as answer book for every single situation a human being could possibly ever be in or confront.

Hence, this is why I think both sides of this Faith/Law and Paul/James divide should treat each other a little bit more nicely. Neither side has the 'final word' on God's Word. And, of course, I don't have the final word either.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Given the extent to which you are dug into your position I will not bother going through a full rebuttal, so I'll try to keep my remarks short. While the discussion in Romans 1-4 link together it is not a single thought, but instead a series of related arguments with different aspects in mind and the occasion which Paul is writing the the Romans. It acts as a pre-amble to his main argument in Romans which is presented in Romans 9-11 with the focus being on how the Gentiles were grafted in .
In Romans 1-4 he approaches how the Gentiles did what was right in God's eyes contrasted with how the Jews despite having the law did not achieve that aim( What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.) And
And I quote you verbatim in the following (ellipses indicting omitted text):
"Ro 1-4. . .acts as a preamble. . .to Ro 9-11. . .In Roman 1-4. . .(What shall we say then? . . .Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.) And Paul's quote of Psalm 14 can only be understood as a polemic use otherwise Paul is contradicting the very Scripture he is quoting by ignoring the whole statement because that very psalm goes on to not only speak of individuals who are righteous but an entire generation. "
Evidently you aren't familiar with Paul's not-infrequent use of texts in a different context than the one from which the text is taken.
What you seem to be missing in the whole thing is in both Romans and Galatians
what is in mind is how the law is pursued determines whether it is justifying,
That is precisely what has been Biblically demonstrated as a misunderstanding in my previous post.

You have yet to address (refute) a single Biblical demonstration of your misunderstanding of Scripture. You just glide over those demonstrations... and on to your next misunderstanding, just as you are doing here again. You are now several posts behind (see #68, 71, 77) in addressing (refuting) Biblical demonstrations of your misunderstanding.

And until you show Biblical error in them, they remain on the table as Biblical demonstrations of your misunderstanding.
as those who pursue the law by faith are justified according to it
The Gentiles did not pursue the law for righteousness, they believed the gospel for righteousness, as stated in
Ro 9:30 - "The Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it,
a righteousness that is by faith."
are justified according to it in that they are able to be doers of it because they rely on God whereas those who look to the letter of the law and seek to justify themselves through their performance are not justified by it since its ministry in that respect is to condemn.
This tortuous, convoluted exegesis of Ro 9:30 couldn't be further from what Scripture actually presents if you threw it in a mixer.
Your reading requires placing a blanket theology over the text and enforcing a single topic across multiple arguments that isn't appropriate instead of following Paul's development of his main argument.
Well, surely you should be able to Biblically demonstrate that assertion by showing any error regarding them.
Rather, you followed "Paul's development of his main argument" by skipping from Ro 1-4 to Ro 9-11, ignoring everything in between like chopped liver.

When in between, Ro 5-10, lies the whole theology of righteousness
by imputation:
of Adam's sin to all men,
of Christ's righteousness in justification through faith, and
by impartation
:
in sanctification,
continuing on in Ro 9-11 with the vindication of God's righteousness in the rejection of Israel.
In Romans, how God's mercy was not restricted to ethnic jews but instead included Gentiles all along as it is clear those who were disposed to doing the law in faith were justified through hearing the gospel and believing it, and those who were not of faith were hardened into not receiving the gospel instead rejecting their Messiah so that the Gentiles could be grafted in. In Galatians, an argument against returning to a mindset of statutory obedience as a means of self-justification rather than relying on the obedience of the heart produced by submission to the gospel.
That is rich in semi-creative misunderstanding. . .and unadulterated false doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Evidently you aren't familiar with Paul's not-infrequent use of texts in a different context than the one from which the text is taken.
Accusing Paul of eisegesis is not a good argument. Paul used texts in different contexts, but his usage only changed the application while maintaining the meaning from the original context. In this place he applies the original meaning as a means of making an argument that the Jews were not superior to the Gentiles simply because they were the recipients of the law.

That is precisely what has been Biblically demonstrated as a misunderstanding in my previous post.

You have yet to address (refute) a single Biblical demonstration of your misunderstanding of Scripture. You just glide over those demonstrations. . .and on to your next misunderstanding, as you are doing here. You are now several posts behind in addressing (refuting) the Biblical demonstrations of your misunderstanding.

And until you show Biblical error in them, they remain on the table as Biblical demonstrations of your misunderstanding.
I told you, I'm not interested in exchanging proof texts with you. The issue is the texts you've used to establish your position do not actually teach what you insist they do when the full context including Paul's occasion for writing and hallmarks of his style are understood so I am limited my conversation to issues surrounding those texts and adding evidence of the historical absence of such a position to bolster the claim that Paul did not teach in those texts what you read into them. A point you have done nothing to even attempt to address, simply camping on proof texts.

The Gentiles did not pursue the law for righteousness, they believed the gospel for righteousness.
Ro 9:30 - "The Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it,
a righteousness that is by faith."

This tortuous, convoluted exegesis of Ro 9:30 couldn't be further from what Scripture actually presents if you dropped it in a mixer.
You cannot simply speak of the Gentiles when speaking of those verses because the point is that the Gentiles had achieved something the Jews had not in spite of the supposed superior position of the Jews as keepers of the law. Especially when Paul states the issue was not the presence of the law with the Jews nor their obedience to it but the manner in which they obeyed it.

And you followed "Paul's development of his main argument" by skipping from Ro 1-4 to Ro 9-11, ignoring everything in between like chopped liver.
I skipped nothing, I simply am not going to take the time to put together a detailed exegetical outline of Paul's argument when the point is that the central piece to his argument, the climax of it, occurs in Romans 9-11 not 5-8 as the material in 5-8 is to set the stage by demonstrating that the Jewish understanding of an ethnic Israel was never the complete picture, nor was the picture of a people obtaining righteousness through their submission to a legal structure, but that the entire enterprise is a merciful act from God.

When in between, Ro 5-10, lies the whole theology of righteousness
by imputation:
of Adam's sin to all men,
of Christ's righteousness in justification through faith, and
by impartation
:
in sanctification,
continuing on in Ro 9-11 with the vindication of God's righteousness in the rejection of Israel.
And that systematic treatment devoid of recognition of Paul's purpose in writing the letter, simply treating the theological material as if Paul was himself writing a systematic theology instead of writing to address a situation within the church at Rome is why your analysis is so off. The entire book, from back to front, is about division between the Jews and Gentiles with the theology being presented to heal a rift. Paul didn't write systematic theologies, he wrote occasional letters. Failing to read them as occasional letters is a form of eisegesis.

That is rich in semi-creative misunderstanding. . .and unadulterated false doctrine.
No, it's not. It's a doctrinal position based on a broad based methodological exegesis that begins by considering each piece of literature for what it is and examining the material based on how that type of literature unfolds. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, but casting them aside based on your traditional systematic theologies that comes from treating the Bible and the books within as something other than what they are and building proof-texted arguments I'm not going to simply be silent about.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Alright. I'm guessing, then, that if I told you how I evaluate biblical texts, you'd think I don't "take them at their word." But I'm not here to contend with you, so I'll just quickly state that I think good exegesis requires more than just working with a 'prima facie' reading of God's Word.

How do you know this? Wouldn't the "Scriptures" Paul refers to be the O.T. books rather than other N.T. writings?
The quote of Paul in 1Tim 5:18, "the worker deserves his wages" is found only in Lk 10:7,
nowhere else is "wages" used in that concept.
I for one will contend against the idea that even a good method of systematization will in fact produce a comprehensive, fully coherent account of the doctrines of the Christian faith.
Then I guess it falls to you to demonstrate what is not a fully comprehensive, fully coherent account and why. . .keeping in mind that a fully comprehensive, fully coherent account may require no fudging with texts.
In my estimation, at best we'll get pieces of insight from the Bible into what God has done in Christ;
That's a low view of the Word of God written.
we'll even get enough insight that we'll have a sufficient understanding of how God saves us by faith, but
we won't have actually end with a comprehensive system of all that God does in His economy of salvation.
And again, it falls to you to present what is not comprehensive and why.
We also won't be able to see the Bible as answer book for every single situation a human being could possibly ever be in or confront.
Agreed. . .which is a different matter.
Hence, this is why I think both sides of this Faith/Law and Paul/James divide should treat each other a little bit more nicely.
Neither side has the 'final word' on God's Word. And, of course, I don't have the final word either.
The final word in doctrine can be Biblically demonstrated.

Some words are final:
"justification is by faith apart from works" (Ro 3:21)
"God. . .justifies the wicked" (who do not "work" for righteousness) (Ro 4:5)
"Whoever does not believe in the Son stands condemned already" (Jn 3:18)
"Whoever rejects the Son. . .God's wrath remains on him (Jn 3:36)
"No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again" (Jn 3:3)
"All authority (power) in heaven and earth have been given to Jesus (Mt 28:18)
etc., etc., etc.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Accusing Paul of eisegesis is not a good argument.
Strawman. . .
Paul's quote of Psalm 14 can only be understood as a polemic use otherwise Paul is contradicting the very Scripture he is quoting by ignoring the whole statement because that very psalm goes on to not only speak of individuals who are righteous but an entire generation.
Paul used texts in different contexts, but his usage only changed the application
while maintaining the meaning from the original context. In this place he applies the original meaning as a means of making an argument that the Jews were not superior to the Gentiles simply because they were the recipients of the law.
So which is it. . .Paul's use of Ps 14 is polemic, not in agreement with the rest of the Psalm,
or his use of it is in agreement with the rest of the Psalm?

Choose whose side you are going to be on.
I told you, I'm not interested in exchanging proof texts with you.
Translate: I can't Biblically demonstrate my misunderstanding because it is a. . .misunderstanding.
The issue is the texts you've used to establish your position do not actually teach what you insist they do when the full context including Paul's occasion for writing and hallmarks of his style are understood
Smokescreen. . .
Occasion and style do not alter any meaning of Paul's texts when all his texts are in lockstep agreement.
so I am limited my conversation to issues surrounding those texts and adding evidence of the historical absence of such a position to bolster the claim that Paul did not teach in those texts what you read into them. A point you have done nothing to even attempt to address, simply camping on proof texts.
More failure to Biblically demonstrate your assertion.
You cannot simply speak of the Gentiles when speaking of those verses because the point is that the Gentiles had achieved something the Jews had not in spite of the supposed superior position of the Jews as keepers of the law. Especially when Paul states the issue was not the presence of the law with the Jews nor their obedience to it but the manner in which they obeyed it.
No such thing is stated.
It falls to you to Biblically demonstrate that Paul teaches it was the manner in which they obeyed the law.
I skipped nothing, I simply am not going to take the time to put together a detailed exegetical outline of Paul's argument,
Then address my outline.
when the point is that the central piece to his argument, the climax of it, occurs in Romans 9-11 not 5-8 as the material in 5-8 is to set the stage by demonstrating that the Jewish understanding of an ethnic Israel was never the complete picture,
Ro 5-8 has absolutely nothing to do with ethnic Israel,
and everything to do with sanctification (righteousness).
nor was the picture of a people obtaining righteousness through their submission to a legal structure, but that the entire enterprise is a merciful act from God.
Rejection of Israel by God because of unbelief is a merciful act in Ro 9-10?
The only mercy is in that the rejection was not total--a remnant believes, and
that the rejection lasts only as long as they remain in unbelief--2,000 years now, and counting.
And that systematic treatment devoid of recognition of Paul's purpose in writing the letter, simply treating the theological material as if Paul was himself writing a systematic theology instead of writing to address a situation within the church at Rome is why your analysis is so off.
More assertion without Biblical demonstration.
The smaller group of Jewish Christians were being rejected by the larger group of Gentiles in the church (14:1) because of the weak consciences (as in 1Co 8:7, 9, 10, 11, 12) and weak faith of the Jews (Ro 14:2) who still felt constrained to observe dietary laws and sacred days (14:2-6).

The purpose in writing the letter was to explain the relationship between Jew and Gentile in God's overall plan of redemption.
The entire book, from back to front, is about division between the Jews and Gentiles
Have you even read chps 3-8? They have nothing to do with such division:
justification through Christ by faith,
fruits of righteousness,
man's unrighteousness and God's gift of righteousness,
freedom from sin's power,
freedom from the law's condemnation,
life in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Whose analysis is so off?
with the theology being presented to heal a rift. Paul didn't write systematic theologies, he wrote occasional letters.
Failing to read them as occasional letters is a form of eisegesis.
Smokescreen. . .
No, it's not. It's a doctrinal position based on a broad based methodological exegesis that begins by considering each piece of literature for what it is and examining the material based on how that type of literature unfolds. You are free to disagree with my conclusions, but casting them aside based on your traditional systematic theologies that comes from treating the Bible and the books within as something other than what they are and building proof-texted arguments I'm not going to simply be silent about.
Translate: "No, it's not. . .rich in semi-creative misunderstanding. . .and unadulterated false doctrine.
It's really an obscure conglomeration of proof texts requiring a broad-based methodological exegesis examining the material based on how that type of literature unfolds."

Translate: the actual text has little to do with the meaning.

So thanks for the insight into the corrupt nature of the hermeneutics employed in your theological system which handles the God-breathed Holy Scriptures as mere human literature. . .I had no idea how bad it was, but then what else could it be considering such a weak methodology?

Q.E.D.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The quote of Paul in 1Tim 5:18, "the worker deserves his wages" is found only in Lk 10:7, nowhere else is "wages" used in that concept.
I'm at pains to see how your example here provides a direct piece of proof that answers much of anything specific or comprehensive as to what Paul was referring to as "Scripture." No, I rather think Paul was generally referring to the O.T. books. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Then I guess it falls to you to demonstrate what is not a fully comprehensive, fully coherent account and why. . .keeping in mind that a fully comprehensive, fully coherent account may require no fudging with texts.
The problem is that you only so far presented a very simple definition for "fudging," one that implies a proper systematization in method for handling the Bible? Where, by chance, are you getting your instructions for your method?

That's a low view of the Word of God written.
You can evaluate however you wish. I still believe as you do that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity who died for our sins and rose again bodily. So, maybe go easy on me ... :rolleyes:

And again, it falls to you to present what is not comprehensive and why.
What is not comprehensive is any of our individual efforts to fully gather and comprehend all that God has given us in His revelations to humanity through His Church.

The final word in doctrine can be Biblically demonstrated.

Some words are final:
"justification is by faith apart from works" (Ro 3:21)
"God. . .justifies the wicked" (who do not "work" for righteousness) (Ro 4:5)
"Whoever does not believe in the Son stands condemned already" (Jn .3:18)
"Whoever rejects the Son. . .God's wrath remains on him (Jn 3:36)
"No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again" (Jn 3:3)
"All authority (power) in heaven and earth have been given to Jesus (Mt 28:18)
etc., etc., etc.
If it were that "final," we wouldn't have 2,000 years of Ping-Pong conflict between every Tom, Rick and Sally who thought he or she had the final authoritative interpretive matrix for the 'real Christian faith.' Wouldn't you agree?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Were my comments accusational in that direction? I don't feel they were, but I appreciate the perspective. I latched onto the phrasing "free grace" because it's become a watch-word for a movement that teaches an unbalanced theology, in response to the dispute I was already having with her. She may not have been teaching it immediately, but the movement that phraseology is most heavily associated with actively opposes calls to holiness and accuses those who make such calls of teaching a "mixed gospel." It's like if someone said "word of faith," it has a link with a specific movement that teaches name it-claim it theology. There are certain buzzwords that indicate a specific theology, and that was what I was seizing on in connection with the dispute she and I were having on whether to place that hard line between justification and sanctification.

And what is a "balanced theology," exactly? I'm not sure what that would be and by whom we're going to get that. Who do you think can give us that?

For my part, a balanced theology would imply a theology that actually gets us to home plate rather than just to third base.......... and all I see in 2,000 years of Christian Church History are claims about being at 'home-plate' while folks, even perhaps some like yourself, are only standing on 2nd base or even 1st base.

I agree with you that some of our fellow Christians are too narrow and reductionistic in what they interpret to be "real saving faith," but I don't think that in and of itself necessarily disqualifies them from mutual respect or appreciation for their own efforts in understanding the Bible.

For my part, I'm going to have to stick with Kierkegaard in maintaining to some limited extent that systematic attempts at biblical study can't really give us all a 'final word' and fully buttress and one single denominational view of Christianity. There's only a few pieces of biblical theology that, for me, seem to be essential, with the concept of the Trinity being one important piece (something that we all share, too).
 
Upvote 0

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
3,664
2,799
Midwest
✟301,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not based on the merits of our works) that we are justified based on Christ (Romans 3:24; 5:1; 5:9); yet the faith that justifies is never alone (unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine (James 2:14-26). *Perfect Harmony*
upload_2021-1-16_10-56-43.gif
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And what is a "balanced theology," exactly? I'm not sure what that would be and by whom we're going to get that. Who do you think can give us that?

For my part, a balanced theology would imply a theology that actually gets us to home plate rather than just to third base.......... and all I see in 2,000 years of Christian Church History are claims about being at 'home-plate' while folks, even perhaps some like yourself, are only standing on 2nd base or even 1st base.

I agree with you that some of our fellow Christians are too narrow and reductionistic in what they interpret to be "real saving faith," but I don't think that in and of itself necessarily disqualifies them from mutual respect or appreciation for their own efforts in understanding the Bible.

For my part, I'm going to have to stick with Kierkegaard in maintaining to some limited extent that systematic attempts at biblical study can't really give us all a 'final word' and fully buttress and one single denominational view of Christianity. There's only a few pieces of biblical theology that, for me, seem to be essential, with the concept of the Trinity being one important piece (something that we all share, too).
When I speak of balance in theology, I mean one that maintains the tensions that are present within the Bible. An unbalanced theology is one that takes a contentious issue that the Bible has support on both sides for(free will/God's sovereignty, Faith/works, etc) and rather than respecting the Biblical picture and maintaining those dichotomies declares one side to be the correct position.

I am 100% in agreement with you with systematic theologies because they are almost entirely the product of philosophy rather than actual Biblical exegesis. It would simply be impossible to take the time to exegete the texts properly so systematic theologies almost entirely rely on a proof text and human reasoning style presentation. That is in addition to the fact that there are many issues on which the Bible preserves a tension between two opposite ideas and to break that tension in either direction is to cause the Bible to contradict.

All of that is not to say we cannot identify incorrect positions that lead to inappropriate conclusions, which is where my criticisms of such theological systems lay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm at pains to see how your example here provides a direct piece of proof that answers much of anything specific or comprehensive as to what Paul was referring to as "Scripture." No, I rather think Paul was generally referring to the O.T. books. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
I'm not dealing with "proof" here, I'm dealing with evidence.
In answer to the question of what Scripture Paul would be referring to in 2Tim 3:16, I am offering evidence of the church's view at that time regarding the writings which we now regard as Scripture.
The evidence is two things, of which I presented only one.
The second is Peter's grouping of Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe 3:15-16)--evidence of the church's view at that time of Paul's writings.

It's not proof, it's not provable doctrine, it's just evidence for those who are interested.
Smokescreen. . .

And yet you're the one who said Paul's use of the text was a polemic
because it did not agree with the rest of the text in the Psalm.
So now his use of the text does agree with the rest of the Psalm?


Translate: I can't Biblically demonstrate my misunderstanding because it is a. . .misunderstanding.

Smokescreen. . .
Occasion and style do not alter any meaning of Paul's texts when all his texts are in lockstep agreement.

More failure to Biblically demonstrate your assertion.
No such thing is stated.
It falls to you to Biblically demonstrate that Paul teaches it was the manner in which they obeyed the law.

Then address my outline.

Ro 5-8 has absolutely nothing to do with ethnic Israel,
and everything to do with sanctification (righteousness).

Rejection of Israel by God because of unbelief is a merciful act in Ro 9-10?
The only mercy is in that the rejection was not total--a remnant believes, and
that the rejection lasts only as long as they remain in unbelief--2,000 years now.

More assertion without Biblical demonstration.
The smaller group of Jewish Christians were being rejected by the larger group of Gentiles in the church (14:1) because of the weak consciences (as in 1Co 8:7, 9, 10, 11, 12) and weak faith of the Jews (Ro 14:2) who still felt constrained to observe dietary laws and sacred days (14:2-6).

The purpose in writing the letter was to explain the relationship between Jew and Gentile in God's overall plan of redemption as a way to mitigate the rejection.
Have you even read chps 3-8? They have nothing to do with such division:
justification through Christ by faith,
fruits of righteousness,
man's unrighteousness and God's gift of righteousness,
freedom from sin's power,
freedom from the law's condemnation,
life in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Whose analysis is so off?

Smokescreen. . .

"No, it's not. . .rich in semi-creative misunderstanding. . .and unadulterated false doctrine.
It's really an obscure conglomeration of proof texts requiring a broad-based methodological exegesis examining the material based on how that type of literature unfolds."
Translate: the actual text has little to do with the meaning.

So thanks for the insight into the corrupt nature of the hermeneutics employed in your theological system. . .I had no idea.

Q.E.D.
2PhiloVoid said:
The problem is that you only so far presented a very simple definition for "fudging," one that implies a proper systematization in method for handling the Bible? Where, by chance, are you getting your instructions for your method?
I wasn't dealing with "fudging" there. . .so are you standing in for Fervant now?

Let me be more clear on the subject. My meaning of "fudging" refers to Scriptures that some find too uncomfortable to take at their word:
"All are condemned by Adam's sin" (Ro 5:18).
"We are by nature objects of wrath" (Eph 2:3).
"He who does not believe in the Son stands condemned already (Jn 3:18),
etc., etc., etc.

The first rule of good hermeneutics is to take the text at its plain word, and to harmonize whatever understanding you have of Scripture with that plain text, understood in the context of all Scripture, not just some or most. If you are faithful to that rule, your understanding of Scripture will harmonize with all Scripture and disagree with none.
You can evaluate however you wish. I still believe as you do that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity who died for our sins and rose again bodily. So, maybe go easy on me ... :rolleyes:
I can do that for such a nice guy as you. . .
What is not comprehensive is any of our individual efforts to fully gather and comprehend all that God has given us in His revelations to humanity through His Church.
Precisely. . .which is why it is important to have teachers who access those who have.
If it were that "final," we wouldn't have 2,000 years of Ping-Pong conflict between every Tom, Rick and Sally who thought he or she had the final authoritative interpretive matrix for the 'real Christian faith.' Wouldn't you agree?
"Finality" does not depend on human agreement, it depends only on the author of God-breathed Scripture (2Tim 3:16).
The "final words" I presented are indeed final, and not subject to multiple interpretations no matter how many years of Ping-Pong are involved.
Until one comes to realize that not all that is Biblical is fluid, as in the corrupt hermeneutic I have been dealing with, one will never come to a right understanding of the Word of God written.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Smokescreen. . .

And yet you're the one who said Paul's use of the text was a polemic
because it did not agree with the rest of the text in the Psalm.
So now his use of the text agrees with the rest of the Psalm?

Translate: I can't Biblically demonstrate my misunderstanding because it is a. . .misunderstanding.
No, that is not what I said. I said your usage of Paul's words makes it so Paul had to have been using a different meaning than the Psalm allows. It is your reading that is problematic, not Paul's usage, because it introduces an anthropologic meaning to the text that is not present.

Smokescreen. . .
Occasion and style do not alter any meaning of Paul's texts when all his texts are in lockstep agreement.
I agree all of Paul's texts are in agreement, but not with the manner in which you have systematized them and the texts that you use do not support them when the full context is understood.

More failure to Biblically demonstrate your assertion.
No such thing is stated.
It falls to you to Biblically demonstrate that Paul teaches it was the manner in which they obeyed the law.

Again, it's a matter of context and understanding what Paul is objecting to in the law. With the epistles understanding Paul's purpose is necessary because he is highly argumentative and has a habit of isolating points for emphasis with regard to what his purpose is, and not understanding that purpose leads to a failure to recognize where Paul is being hyperbolic or using some other rhetorical device.


Then address my outline.

Ro 5-8 has absolutely nothing to do with ethnic Israel,
and everything to do with sanctification (righteousness).
Romans 5-8 is an expansion on Romans 4, clarifying the role of the law and setting up for the material in 9-10 which returns to the ideas of 1-3 in how the Jews and Gentiles were each prepared for the gospel in a separate fashion.

Rejection of Israel by God because of unbelief is a merciful act in Ro 9-10?
The only mercy is in that the rejection was not total--a remnant believes, and
that the rejection lasts only as long as they remain in unbelief--2,000 years now.
This is where the earlier discussion becomes critical, because Romans 7 speaks to the method by which God hardended the Israelites, something we can also see by looking at a similar discussion in Acts 13 in that it was the Israelites own perceptions of the law that caused the hardening. Do you disbelieve Paul when he says that "all were given to disobedience, so that he could show mercy on all?" Yet here you accuse God of partiality in his mercy, one of the clear signs that your systematization is a false doctrine because it reduces God's kindness and presents a false image of God.

More assertion without Biblical demonstration.
The smaller group of Jewish Christians were being rejected by the larger group of Gentiles in the church (14:1) because of the weak consciences (as in 1Co 8:7, 9, 10, 11, 12) and weak faith of the Jews (Ro 14:2) who still felt constrained to observe dietary laws and sacred days (14:2-6).
Nothing in Romans 14 implies that it was Gentiles abusing Jewish believers, nor is there anywhere indicated the relative size of either group. There is indication that Paul had the relative positions of Jews and gentiles in mind though, such as the fact that right before he quotes psalm 14 he asks if the Jews are better off for having received the law and that after speaking of the righteousness that comes by faith Paul asks whether God is just the God of Jews or if he is the God of Gentiles also.

The purpose in writing the letter was to explain the relationship between Jew and Gentile in God's overall plan of redemption as a way to mitigate the rejection.
Have you even read chps 3-8? They have nothing to do with such division:
justification through Christ by faith,
fruits of righteousness,
man's unrighteousness and God's gift of righteousness,
freedom from sin's power,
freedom from the law's condemnation,
life in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Whose analysis is so off?

Yes, I've read them intently, and there are many references to ethnic struggles that are easily overlooked if the book is mistaken as a systematic theology. I referenced two of Paul's statements above so I won't restate them, but there is also the heavy focus on circumcision in Romans 4 which again speaks to a Jewish identity division, Romans 5 I admit there are no overt references to ethnic issues but the discussion there adds to how Romans 9-10 are understood.

Smokescreen. . .

"No, it's not. . .rich in semi-creative misunderstanding. . .and unadulterated false doctrine.
It's really an obscure conglomeration of proof texts requiring a broad-based methodological exegesis examining the material based on how that type of literature unfolds."

Translate: the actual text has little to do with the meaning.

So thanks for the insight into the corrupt nature of the hermeneutics employed in your theological system. . .I had no idea.

Q.E.D.
The actual text has everything to do with the meaning, as it is from the text that things like occasion and purpose are drawn. But it is a recognition that different types of literature within the Bible are present and we must treat them as the literature they are if we are to get the full meaning. Treating it as if there is only a single type of Biblical material and seeking out quotes that can be used to forward a given systematic understanding does not do justice to the text and leads instead to using the Bible to confirm human philosophies rather than understanding what is being said in the Biblical corpus.

The haste you show in attempting to accuse further adds to the error of your positions.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, that is not what I said. I said your usage of Paul's words makes it so Paul had to have been using a different meaning than the Psalm allows. It is your reading that is problematic, not Paul's usage, because it introduces an anthropologic meaning to the text that is not present.
Paul demonstrates his usage of Ps 14 in the passage!

What gobble-de-gook. . .

. . .if the book is mistaken as a systematic theology.
Strawman. . .

And my Biblical demonstrations of your misunderstanding are still on the table.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And what is a "balanced theology," exactly? I'm not sure what that would be and by whom we're going to get that. Who do you think can give us that?
Fervant said:
When I speak of balance in theology, I mean one that maintains the tensions that are present within the Bible. An unbalanced theology is one that takes a contentious issue that the Bible has support on both sides for(free will/God's sovereignty, Faith/works, etc) and rather than respecting the Biblical picture and maintaining those dichotomies declares one side to be the correct position.

I am 100% in agreement with you with systematic theologies because they are almost entirely the product of philosophy rather than actual Biblical exegesis. It would simply be impossible to take the time to exegete the texts properly so systematic theologies almost entirely rely on a proof text and human reasoning style presentation. That is in addition to the fact that there are many issues on which the Bible preserves a tension between two opposite ideas and to break that tension in either direction is to cause the Bible to contradict.

All of that is not to say we cannot identify incorrect positions that lead to inappropriate conclusions, which is where my criticisms of such theological systems lay.
Sounds like a vested interest in Scripture being unclear as a cover for a corrupt hermeneutic which sets Scripture against itself in defense of a Biblically indefensible theology.
.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0