Predestination and Acts 10:34.

[Tallen]

What works of righteousness did the thief do to be accepted of God?

It appears to me that you are confusing works of righteousness with regeneration. Regeneration is an unmerited act, not of yourself, it is a gift of YHWH. Works of righteousness are what we do in obedience to His word. If anything should be gleaned from scripture it is that we are called to be obedient according to the Covenant, whereby blessing (favor and acceptance) are given. Any person who walks contrary to the Covenant can expect to recieve negative blessings (curses and rejection). How many times did Israel go through this process?

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
(Ephesians 2:8-10 KJV)

And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.
(Deuteronomy 28:1-2 KJV)

But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
(Deuteronomy 28:15 KJV)
​

Define a "work of righteousness" for me.

Works of righteousness are our efforts to follow YHWH's laws and commandments. This is something that follows regeneration and is the cooperation of the believer with the Spirit.

Consider:

ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD. Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart. They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways. Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently. O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes! Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments. I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments. I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.
(Psalms 119:1-8 KJV)

And consider the lives of Zacharias and Elisabeth, who we righteous before YHWH.

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
(Luke 1:5-6 KJV)

 

[DeaconDean]

The thief in himself does not have any righteousness him but the thief recognized he needed a savior to cover his sins because he was in trouble with God with all of the sins he committed against God as the Holy Spirit had already saved him (giving the thief a new heart and a new spirit=eternal life, this was done before he said the things he said to Jesus). Once the Holy Spirit applied the words of Christ to his life, penetrating his old heart with the new heart and the old spirit/soul with the new spirit/soul, now the thief has a new nature in Christ and is now driven to produce good fruit. But at the same time, that thief cannot take the credit for what has happen to him, all the credit goes to the Glory of God.

You are right, but, I brought up the thief on the cross for one major point.

In Acts 10:34 it says:

"I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

In order to be "accepted with him" I only ask that somebody show me where the theif on the cross "worketh righteousness".

Whether or not we have works of righteousness is not the basis of why we are accepted of God.

We are accepted of God because of Christ.

"wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -Eph. 1:6 (KJV)

I do not live my life seeking acceptance by God, because through Jesus Christ I am completely accepted by God. Oh, how we as children of God have missed this point in our preaching, teaching and personal revelation. Many Christians are living their lives with the deep inner motive of being accepted by God. So many Christian fear that they will not be accepted by God, when the Word of the Lord plainly states we are already accepted in Christ.

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Tallen]

It seems to me that you are trying to make scripture contrary to itself.

How do you explain the following?

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Acts 10:34-35 KJV)

And opening his mouth, Peter said, Truly I see that God is not a respecter of faces, but in every nation the one fearing Him and working righteousness is acceptable to Him.
(Acts 10:34-35 LITV)

In light of the OP, which ignored the complete sentence to make a wrong conclusion, this explicitely tells us that in every nation the ones that are fearing YHWH and working righteous, are accept to Him. In fact, it tells us exactly opposite of what the OP's conclusions were. YHWH does respect persons.

What is your explanation?

Blessings.

 

[DeaconDean]

It seems to me that you are trying to make scripture contrary to itself.

How do you explain the following?

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Acts 10:34-35 KJV)

And opening his mouth, Peter said, Truly I see that God is not a respecter of faces, but in every nation the one fearing Him and working righteousness is acceptable to Him.
(Acts 10:34-35 LITV)

In light of the OP, which ignored the complete sentence to make a wrong conclusion, this explicitely tells us that in every nation the ones that are fearing YHWH and working righteous, are accept to Him. In fact, it tells us exactly opposite of what the OP's conclusions were. YHWH does respect persons.

What is your explanation?

Blessings.

What you are espoucing is a "works" based salvation.

One must "work" at doing works of righteousness in order to be accepted of God.

Two things come to light right off.

The ultimate "work of righteousness" was done by Christ on the cross where He died for you and I.

Anything less than this is not righteousness, it pales in comparision.

Secondly, I have already been declared righteous by God Himself.

In Rom. 5:16, we read:

“And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.”

Here in this verse is a key phrase. We see:

“krima ex enoV eiV katakrima,”

This shows us that it was a judicial judgment “krima”, “a judicial sentence” that has passed unto all men by the disobedience of one. If it was a judicial sentence passed, then justification also has to be a judicial sentence passed. Next we see:

“for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” –Gal. 2:21 (KJV)

The Apostle Paul teaches us that the “Law” is “holy,” “just,” and “good.” (cf. Rom. 7:12) And it is, but the “Law” has a flaw, a fault:

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” –Heb. 8:7 (KJV)

The Law had promises for everything. If you sinned, the Law made provision for atonement. If you committed a crime, the Law had a provision for punishment. If you contracted Leprosy, the Law had a provision for that. If you wanted to convert to Judaism, the Law had a provision for that. But the one thing the Law absolutely could not do was to pronounce the sinner “righteous.” “For if righteousness came by the Law, then Christ died in vain.”

In the Old Testament, the name which the Messiah was foretold was: “The Lord our Righteousness” (cf. Jer. 23:6). Daniel said that he should come here to:

“make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,” –Dan. 9:24 (KJV)

The prophet Isaiah said:


“Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.” –Isa. 45:24-25 (KJV)

And speaking of the redeemed, he says:

“I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness,” –Isa. 61:10 (KJV)

Being as since Christ is called “The Lord our Righteousness”, this indicates our righteousness must lie in something besides ourselves. The other point of the Law is that it demands a perfect obedience. Thus James states:

“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” –Jas. 2:10 (KJV)

Strongly opposed to the doctrine that after salvation, works have real merit, is this verse:

“whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” –Gal. 5:4 (KJV)

In Romans 4:6-8, we read:

“Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.”

Here we see two things; God imputing righteousness, and God not imputing sins. These two things are never separate. Unto whom God imputes not sin, He imputes righteousness; likewise, unto whom He imputes righteousness, He imputes not sin. Now we may ask this question: Whose righteousness is it that God imputes, reckons, places to the account of the one who believes?


The answer quite simply is, that righteousness which was wrought out by our Surety, that obedience to the Law which was rendered by our Savior: “the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ” (cf. 2 Pet. 1:1). This righteousness was not only unto all, but “unto all that believe”. (cf. Rom. 3:22)

It is called “the righteousness of God” because it was the righteousness of the God-man Mediator, just as in Acts 20:28 his blood is called the blood of God.


The “righteousness of God” is referenced frequently in Romans refers not to the essential righteousness of His divine character, for that cannot be possibly imputed or transferred to any man. When in Rom. 10:3 we are told that the Jews were “ignorant of God’s righteousness” most certainly does not mean they were in the dark concerning divine righteousness or that they knew nothing about God’s justice, rather, it signified that they were unenlightened as to the righteousness which Jesus had wrought out for His people. We know this from the other half of the verse which states: “and going about to establish their own righteousness” –not their own rectitude or justice, but performing works by which they hoped to merit acceptance with God. So engraved in their minds with the “works” based system, they “submitted not themselves unto the righteousness of God”; that is, they refused to turn from their self-righteousness and put their trust in the obedience and sufferings of the Son of God.

The Doctrine of Justification, Restated and Reviewed; Author: Me

The reason I bring this up is that the same Greek word used for justify, is the very same Greek word used for righteous.

God as the "righteous judge" has already declared me "righteous".

You cannot be justified without being declared righteous, likewise, you cannot be righteous without being declared justified.

God has already pronuonced me as "righteous" and "justified", so you tell me, what "works of righteousness" must I do to be accepted of God?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Tallen]

What you are espoucing is a "works" based salvation.

You didn't read what was said. I explicitly stated that regeneration is not merited. I also stated exactly what Covenant Theology teaches us, that we co-operate in our sanctification.

One must "work" at doing works of righteousness in order to be accepted of God.

You are building a straw man now.

Two things come to light right off.

The ultimate "work of righteousness" was done by Christ on the cross where He died for you and I.

How was He righteous? On what basis? It was that He was obedient to YHWH's law and fulfilled it. This is what righteousness is.

Anything less than this is not righteousness, it pales in comparision.

Secondly, I have already been declared righteous by God Himself.

This righteousness doesn't excuse you to ignore being obedient to Him and the covenant requirements. The Apostle tells us that if we love Him we will follow what He commands.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
(1 John 5:3 KJV)

The Doctrine of Justification, Restated and Reviewed; Author: Me

The reason I bring this up is that the same Greek word used for justify, is the very same Greek word used for righteous.

God as the "righteous judge" has already declared me "righteous".

You cannot be justified without being declared righteous, likewise, you cannot be righteous without being declared justified.

While there is some truth to what you are saying, being justified does not mean that you are not obligated to follow the Commandments of YHWH. You are justified of your past transgression of His Law, but this does not mean that the law is aborogated and done away with.

God has already pronuonced me as "righteous" and "justified", so you tell me, what "works of righteousness" must I do to be accepted of God?

Your straw man is noted. Now tell me what the following verses say.

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Acts 10:34-35 KJV)

Why would the Apostle say such a thing, DD? Do you think he is contradicting other scripture when he says this?

 

[DeaconDean]

You didn't read what was said. I explicitly stated that regeneration is not merited. I also stated exactly what Covenant Theology teaches us, that we co-operate in our sanctification.

Now this is about "sanctification"?

You are building a straw man now.

No I'm not, who is it that quotes scripture about he who worketh righteousness is accepted of God?

How was He righteous? On what basis? It was that He was obedient to YHWH's law and fulfilled it. This is what righteousness is.

So, you are saying that Jesus Christ, the God-man, was not righteous to begin with. It took Him fulfilling the Law to become righteous?

Because that is what you are saying in the above sentence.

He was obedient to YHWH's law and fulfilled it.

Jesus was "righteous" long before He fulfilled the "Law".

This righteousness doesn't excuse you to ignore being obedient to Him and the covenant requirements. The Apostle tells us that if we love Him we will follow what He commands.

Oh, so now we are back under a covenant of works.

God made a covenant with Abraham, a covenant based on circumcision, are we back under a covenant of circumcision?

According to you, we are.

being obedient to Him and the covenant requirements

You said it.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
(1 John 5:3 KJV)

Let me ask you this, have you kept the commandments perfectly?

No?

I didn't think so.

While there is some truth to what you are saying, being justified does not mean that you are not obligated to follow the Commandments of YHWH. You are justified of your past transgression of His Law, but this does not mean that the law is aborogated and done away with.

In Acts 15, we as Gentiles are given a "list" of just what Laws applied to us. According to James, the bishop of the church in Jerusalem, he said:

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood...For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." -Acts 15: 19-20, 28-29 (KJV)

Your straw man is noted. Now tell me what the following verses say.

Your straw man is noted also.

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Acts 10:34-35 KJV)

Why would the Apostle say such a thing, DD? Do you think he is contradicting other scripture when he says this?

So, tell me, what works of righteousness have you personally done that excel what was done on Calvary?

Anything less than that is unacceptable.

Paul said:

"the law worketh wrath" -Rom. 4:15 (KJV)

Where is the Decalogue?

Our faith, just like that of Abraham's, is "imputed" for righteousness. (cf. Rom. 4:22)

I have already been declared "righteous".

And this is by God's declaration, not mine. (cf. Rom. 8:33)

Our Greek word has its root in the Greek word “dikh”. This word means “right”, “justice”; in the NT, judicial punishment, vengeance; 2 Thes. 1:9; Jude 7; sentence of punishment, judgment, Acts 25:15; personified, the goddess of justice or vengeance, Nemesis, Paena, Acts 28:4.


This word draws directly from the Hebrew word “tsadag” (tsaw-dak). Which is rendered in the OT as “justify”, “righteous”, “just”, “justice”, “cleansed”, “cleanse ourselves”, “righteousness”.

Looking at the word in the LXX, it is a “forensic” term. Yet in the LXX, the predominate usage does not carry a negative meaning as some Greek usage: (w QemistokleeV, en toisi agwsi oi proexanistamenoi rapizontai. o de apoluomenoV efh oi de ge egkataleipomenoi ou stefanountai.
[*]) but is constantly used in the most positive sense of “to pronounce righteous,” “to justify”, “to vindicate”. The forensic element is even stronger in the Masoretic text in that the Masoretic Isa. 42:25 is rendered as they find righteousness with Yahweh, and in the LXX it is rendered that they are declared righteous by him (apo kuriou dikaiw qhsoutai).


[*] “Themistocles, at the games those who start before the signal are beaten with rods.” Themistocles said in justification. “Those left behind win no crown.” Herodotus, Histories, Book VIII, Chapter 59, A.D. Godfey, Cambridge, Howard University Press, 1920.

The Doctrine of Justification, Restated and Reviewed; Author: Me

I have already been "pronounced righteous". What more do I need. More "righteousness"?

As I said, the same Greek word rendered as "righteous" also means "justified".

A perfect example is found here:

"ti gar h grafh legei; episteusen de abraam tw qew, kai elogisqh autw eiV dikaiosunhn."

Greek Bible

dikaiosunh,n \{dik-ah-yos-oo'-nay}
1) in a broad sense: state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God 1a) the doctrine concerning the way in which man may attain a state approved of God 1b) integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting 2) in a narrower sense, justice or the virtue which gives each his due

Point blank, I am already acceptable to God!

Point blank, I am already "righteous" in the eyes of God.

long definition (about)
δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosunē, 1343), -ης, ἡ, (δίκαιος most frequently in Sept. for צֶדֶק and צְדָקָה, rarely for חֶסֶד; the virtue or quality or state of one who is δίκαιος;

1. in the broad sense, the state of him who is such as he ought to be, righteousness (Germ. Rechtbeschaffenheit); the condition acceptable to God (Germ. Gottwohlgefälligkeit);

Source

I came to the judgment seat of God at the foot of the Cross and there my sins were imputed to Jesus, and His righteousness was imputed to me.

Therefore, I have already been declared righteous, and therefore I am justified in the sight of God and therefore, I am acceptable unto God.

And now you want to tell me that I have to perform "works of righteousness" to be acceptable to God?

Why should I have to "labor" to bring about righteousness?

ἐργάζομαι (ergazomai 2038)
1. work [verb] -eth, -ing, wrought
to work, to labour; to form by labour, produce, bring to pass. Reference(s)
Mat 7:23, Mat 21:28, Mat 26:10, Mar 14:6, Luk 13:14, Joh 3:21, Joh 5:17, Joh 5:17, Joh 6:28, Joh 6:30, Joh 9:4, Joh 9:4, Act 10:35, Act 13:41, Act 18:3, Rom 2:10, Rom 4:4, Rom 4:5, Rom 13:10, 1Co 4:12, 1Co 9:6, 1Co 16:10, Eph 4:28, 1Th 4:11, 2Th 3:8, 2Th 3:10, 2Th 3:11, 2Th 3:12, Heb 11:33, 2Jo 1:8
2. do -st, -th, -eth, -ing, did
to work, to labour; transitive to form by labour, perform. Reference(s)
Joh 6:30, Gal 6:10, Col 3:23
3. trade [verb] -ed
to work, to labour. Reference(s)
Mat 25:16, Rev 18:17
4. commit -ed, -eth, -ing
to work, labour; used of all kinds of labour; metaphorically to work good or evil, to commit, practise. Reference(s)
Jas 2:9
5. gain [verb] -ed
to work, labour (properly of husbandry, but also of manual labour), to work, do, perform, then to work out, earn by working, trade, traffic.
6. labour [verb] -ed, -eth, -ing
to work, to labour as at a trade, to do business.
7. labour for
8. minister about
intrans., to work, labour; trans., to work, perform, practice, conduct certain works.
9. wrought (be)
Here, passive.
In phrases: 1. μὴ ἐργάζομαι (mē ergazomai 2038) working (forbear); not to work, to forbear working.
μὴ (m&#275 not
ἐργάζομαι (ergazomai 2038) to work (see work, 1). Reference(s)
1Co 9:6


2. μή ἐργάζομαι (mē 3361 ergazomai 2038) forbear working
μή (mē 3361) not.
ἐργάζομαι (ergazomai 2038) to work, labour. Reference(s)
1Co 9:6

Source

If I have to "labor" to bring about my own righteousness, then it isn't grace.

"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. " -Rom. 4:2-5 (KJV)

It either grace, or works, it can't be both.

"if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." -Rom. 11:6 (KJV)

You cannot "observe" the Law and expect "righteousness":

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." -Rom. 10:4 (KJV)

And try as I may, I cannot keep the Decalogue.

Jesus boiled the Decalogue down to two commandments, and sadly you and I can't even do this.

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." -Mt. 22:37-40 (KJV)

For if we could do just these two, we wouldn't need Christ.

No sir, I have already been declared "righteous" in the eyes of God.

I don't need to do "works" to be accepted of God.

But, I do need "works" as a witness to my faith.

If it takes works for me to be "righteous" and acepted of God, then like Paul said, I'd have "whereof to glory".

But, even if I don't have "works" what did Paul say:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." -Rom. 4:5 (KJV)

No sir, I do not have to do "works of righteousness" to be "accepted of God" because I already am.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Tallen]

Now this is about "sanctification"?

It's about what is meant in Acts 10:34-35.

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Acts 10:34-35 KJV)

No I'm not, who is it that quotes scripture about he who worketh righteousness is accepted of God?

Scripture you are ignoring. Can you tell me what these verse mean?

So, you are saying that Jesus Christ, the God-man, was not righteous to begin with. It took Him fulfilling the Law to become righteous?

Because that is what you are saying in the above sentence.

No I'm not, he never transgressed the law to begin with. He was perfect in all His ways and grew in stature and grace.

Jesus was "righteous" long before He fulfilled the "Law".

He was never unrighteous. He fulfilled the law every day of His being. Fron conception on. Haven't you read the scripture?

Oh, so now we are back under a covenant of works.

Your under a covenant that requires works. And you are continuing to add straw to your man, at this point.

God made a covenant with Abraham, a covenant based on circumcision, are we back under a covenant of circumcision?

According to you, we are.

HUH!?!

Let me ask you this, have you kept the commandments perfectly?

No?

I didn't think so.

Has nothing to do with what I said, you're running off into nonsensical responses.

In Acts 15, we as Gentiles are given a "list" of just what Laws applied to us. According to James, the bishop of the church in Jerusalem, he said:

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood...For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." -Acts 15: 19-20, 28-29 (KJV)

This is part of the story, you left out his statement:

For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
(Acts 15:21 KJV)

Why did you do that?

Your straw man is noted also.

Your working hard to avoid what the verses we are talking about say. Why is that?

So, tell me, what works of righteousness have you personally done that excel what was done on Calvary?

You miss the point. Where have I said that I add to the work of Calvary? What I have said is that we are to do what the scripture tells us, we are to be obedient. We are to follow the Commandments and precept of YHWH. What do you think, that we are to do acts of unrighteousness?

I think your being obtuse at this point and trying very hard to make up things to attribute to the conversation that was never said. And all of this to avoid dealing with what the verses we are talking say.

Anything less than that is unacceptable.

That's ridiculous.

Paul said:

"the law worketh wrath" -Rom. 4:15 (KJV)

Thanks for a qoute out of context.

Where is the Decalogue?

At the heart of morality and the duty of man. It was written in stone, prior to the Mosiac law.

Our faith, just like that of Abraham's, is "imputed" for righteousness. (cf. Rom. 4:22)

Agreed. You are still avoiding Acts 10:34-35. Are we to ignore them so that your theology works for you?

I have already been declared "righteous".

And this is by God's declaration, not mine. (cf. Rom. 8:33)

The Doctrine of Justification, Restated and Reviewed; Author: Me

I have already been "pronounced righteous". What more do I need. More "righteousness"?

You need to be obedient and follow the commandments of YHWH. I have already given you scripture that says that explicitly.

As I said, the same Greek word rendered as "righteous" also means "justified".

You already said that, and shown you don't comprehend the context of the conversation.

A perfect example is found here:

"ti gar h grafh legei; episteusen de abraam tw qew, kai elogisqh autw eiV dikaiosunhn."

Greek Bible



Point blank, I am already acceptable to God!

And if you continue to be obedient and do works of righteousness, you'll continue to be acceptable. Just like Acts 10:34-35 says. If you don't, you'll be under a curse.

Point blank, I am already "righteous" in the eyes of God.

Point blank:

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
(1 John 5:3 KJV)

And,

Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
(Revelation 14:12 KJV)

And,

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
(Revelation 22:14 KJV)

I came to the judgment seat of God at the foot of the Cross and there my sins were imputed to Jesus, and His righteousness was imputed to me.

Therefore, I have already been declared righteous, and therefore I am justified in the sight of God and therefore, I am acceptable unto God.

And now you want to tell me that I have to perform "works of righteousness" to be acceptable to God?

Why should I have to "labor" to bring about righteousness?



Source

If I have to "labor" to bring about my own righteousness, then it isn't grace.

"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. " -Rom. 4:2-5 (KJV)

It either grace, or works, it can't be both.

"if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." -Rom. 11:6 (KJV)

You cannot "observe" the Law and expect "righteousness":

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." -Rom. 10:4 (KJV)

And try as I may, I cannot keep the Decalogue.

Jesus boiled the Decalogue down to two commandments, and sadly you and I can't even do this.

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." -Mt. 22:37-40 (KJV)

For if we could do just these two, we wouldn't need Christ.

No sir, I have already been declared "righteous" in the eyes of God.

I don't need to do "works" to be accepted of God.

But, I do need "works" as a witness to my faith.

If it takes works for me to be "righteous" and acepted of God, then like Paul said, I'd have "whereof to glory".

But, even if I don't have "works" what did Paul say:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." -Rom. 4:5 (KJV)

No sir, I do not have to do "works of righteousness" to be "accepted of God" because I already am.

You still have dealt with Acts 10:34-35. When are you going to address it?

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Acts 10:34-35 KJV)

Do these words of the Apostle have any meaning? What does he mean when he says that ..."he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him..."? Is he contradicting all that you have just said?

If you don't come up with anything except out of context quotes and straw manning, this will be my last post. We are repeating ourselves and there is no conversation happening concerning the words of the Apostle.

Blessings.

 

[DeaconDean]

It's about what is meant in Acts 10:34-35.

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Acts 10:34-35 KJV)



Scripture you are ignoring. Can you tell me what these verse mean?



No I'm not, he never transgressed the law to begin with. He was perfect in all His ways and grew in stature and grace.



He was never unrighteous. He fulfilled the law every day of His being. Fron conception on. Haven't you read the scripture?



Your under a covenant that requires works. And you are continuing to add straw to your man, at this point.



HUH!?!



Has nothing to do with what I said, you're running off into nonsensical responses.



This is part of the story, you left out his statement:

For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
(Acts 15:21 KJV)

Why did you do that?



Your working hard to avoid what the verses we are talking about say. Why is that?



You miss the point. Where have I said that I add to the work of Calvary? What I have said is that we are to do what the scripture tells us, we are to be obedient. We are to follow the Commandments and precept of YHWH. What do you think, that we are to do acts of unrighteousness?

I think your being obtuse at this point and trying very hard to make up things to attribute to the conversation that was never said. And all of this to avoid dealing with what the verses we are talking say.



That's ridiculous.



Thanks for a qoute out of context.



At the heart of morality and the duty of man. It was written in stone, prior to the Mosiac law.



Agreed. You are still avoiding Acts 10:34-35. Are we to ignore them so that your theology works for you?



You need to be obedient and follow the commandments of YHWH. I have already given you scripture that says that explicitly.



You already said that, and shown you don't comprehend the context of the conversation.



And if you continue to be obedient and do works of righteousness, you'll continue to be acceptable. Just like Acts 10:34-35 says. If you don't, you'll be under a curse.



Point blank:

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
(1 John 5:3 KJV)

And,

Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
(Revelation 14:12 KJV)

And,

Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
(Revelation 22:14 KJV)




You still have dealt with Acts 10:34-35. When are you going to address it?

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
(Acts 10:34-35 KJV)

Do these words of the Apostle have any meaning? What does he mean when he says that ..."he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him..."? Is he contradicting all that you have just said?

If you don't come up with anything except out of context quotes and straw manning, this will be my last post. We are repeating ourselves and there is no conversation happening concerning the words of the Apostle.

Blessings.

You dance all around things.

One: The ultimate "work of righteousness" was done on the cross by Christ.

Whatever we do, will pale in comparison.

You have been given a definition of what the Greek word "dikaiosunh" (right, righteous, righteousness) means.

And showed you that by declaration by God, I am already "righteous".

Tried to show you that I cannot be made more righteous by doing "works".

I ask you one thing, define for what exactly is a "work of righteousness"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Tallen]

You dance all around things.

One: The ultimate "work of righteousness" was done on the cross by Christ.

Whatever we do, will pale in comparison.

You have been given a definition of what the Greek word "dikaiosunh" (right, righteous, righteousness) means.

And showed you that by declaration by God, I am already "righteous".

Tried to show you that I cannot be made more righteous by doing "works".

I ask you one thing, define for what exactly is a "work of righteousness"?

You have once again avoided the scripture in question, why is that?

tyfyt

 

[Tallen]

Consider Calvin's words:

"The third use of the Law (being also the principal use, and more closely connected with its proper end) has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns. For although the Law is written and engraven on their hearts by the finger of God, that is, although they are so influenced and actuated by the Spirit, that they desire to obey God, there are two ways in which they still profit in the Law. For it is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desires with all his soul to approve himself to his master, must still observe, and be careful to ascertain his master’s dispositions, that he may comport himself in accommodation to them. Let none of us deem ourselves exempt from this necessity, for none have as yet attained to such a degree of wisdom, as that they may not, by the daily instruction of the Law, advance to a purer knowledge of the Divine will. Then, because we need not doctrine merely, but exhortation also, the servant of God will derive this further advantage from the Law: by frequently meditating upon it, he will be excited to obedience, and confirmed in it, and so drawn away from the slippery paths of sin. In this way must the saints press onward, since, however great the alacrity with which, under the Spirit, they hasten toward righteousness, they are retarded by the sluggishness of the flesh, and make less progress than they ought. The Law acts like a whip to the flesh, urging it on as men do a lazy sluggish ass. Even in the case of a spiritual man, inasmuch as he is still burdened with the weight of the flesh, the Law is a constant stimulus, pricking him forward when he would indulge in sloth. David had this use in view when he pronounced this high eulogium on the Law, "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes" (Psa_19:7-8). Again, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path" Psa_119:105. The whole psalm abounds in passages to the same effect. Such passages are not inconsistent with those of Paul, which show not the utility of the law to the regenerate, but what it is able of itself to bestow. The object of the Psalmist is to celebrate the advantages which the Lord, by means of his law, bestows on those whom he inwardly inspires with a love of obedience. And he adverts not to the mere precepts, but also to the promise annexed to them, which alone makes that sweet which in itself is bitter. For what is less attractive than the law, when, by its demands and threatening, it overawes the soul, and fills it with terror? David specially shows that in the law he saw the Mediator, without whom it gives no pleasure or delight." Institutes of the Christian Religion 2:7:12, By; John Calvin

 

[Tallen]

"Some unskilful persons, from not attending to this, boldly discard the whole law of Moses, and do away with both its Tables, imagining it unchristian to adhere to a doctrine which contains the ministration of death. Far from our thoughts be this profane notion. Moses has admirably shown that the Law, which can produce nothing but death in sinners, ought to have a better and more excellent effect upon the righteous. When about to die, he thus addressed the people, "Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law. For it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life" (Deu_32:46, Deu_32:47). If it cannot be denied that it contains a perfect pattern of righteousness, then, unless we ought not to have any proper rule of life, it must be impious to discard it. There are not various rules of life, but one perpetual and inflexible rule; and, therefore, when David describes the righteous as spending their whole lives in meditating on the Law (Psa_1:2), we must not confine to a single age, an employment which is most appropriate to all ages, even to the end of the world. Nor are we to be deterred or to shun its instructions, because the holiness which it prescribes is stricter than we are able to render, so long as we bear about the prison of the body. It does not now perform toward us the part of a hard taskmaster, who will not be satisfied without full payment; but, in the perfection to which it exhorts us, points out the goal at which, during the whole course of our lives, it is not less our interest than our duty to aim. It is well if we thus press onward. Our whole life is a race, and after we have finished our course, the Lord will enable us to reach that goal to which, at present, we can only aspire in wish.

Since, in regard to believers, the law has the force of exhortation, not to bind their consciences with a curse, but by urging them, from time to time, to shake off sluggishness and chastise imperfection, many, when they would express this exemption from the curse, say, that in regard to believers the Law (I still mean the Moral Law) is abrogated: not that the things which it enjoins are no longer right to be observed, but only that it is not to believers what it formerly was; in other words, that it does not, by terrifying and confounding their consciences, condemn and destroy. It is certainly true that Paul shows, in clear terms, that there is such an abrogation of the Law. And that the same was preached by our Lord appears from this, that he would not have refuted the opinion of his destroying the Law, if it had not been prevalent among the Jews. Since such an opinion could not have arisen at random without some pretext, there is reason to presume that it originated in a false interpretation of his doctrine, in the same way in which all errors generally arise from a perversion of the truth. But lest we should stumble against the same stone, let us distinguish accurately between what has been abrogated in the Law, and what still remains in force. When the Lord declares, that he came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil (Mat_5:17); that until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or little shall remain unfulfilled; he shows that his advent was not to derogate, in any degree, from the observance of the Law. And justly, since the very end of his coming was to remedy the transgression of the Law. Therefore, the doctrine of the Law has not been infringed by Christ, but remains, that, by teaching, admonishing, rebuking, and correcting, it may fit and prepare us for every good work." Institutes 2:7:13-14

 

[Tallen]

"Antinomianism has never had any hold in the churches of the Reformation. There is no logical connection between the neglect of moral duties, and the system which teaches that Christ is a Saviour as well from the power as from the penalty of sin; that faith is the act by which the soul receives and rests on Him for sanctification as well as for justification ; and that such is the nature of the union with Christ by faith and indwelling of the Spirit, that no one is, or can be partaker of the benefit of his death, who is not also partaker of the power of his life ; which holds to the divine authority of the Scripture which declares that without holiness no man shall see the Lord (Heb. xii. 14) ; and which, in the language of the great advocate of salvation by grace, warns all who call themselves Christians: "Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10.) It is not the system which regards sin as so great an evil that it requires the blood of the Son of God for its expiation, and the law as so immutable that it requires the perfect righteousness of Christ for the sinner's justification, which leads to loose views of moral obligation; these are reached by the system which teaches that the demands of the law have been lowered, that they can be more than met by the imperfect obedience of fallen men, and that sin can be pardoned by priestly intervention. This is what logic and history alike teach." Systematic Theology; Volume 3, p. 241​

 

[Tallen]

“What makes an antinomian?

Claiming that NCT is antinomian requires two qualifications. First, NCT is not morally antinomian. It does not say that we should “continue in sin that grace might increase." Second, NCT is not typically antinomian. In many ways, it is more dangerous than explicit antinomianism because it acknowledges many Reformed doctrines. However, it seeks to redefine the moral law, drives a wedge between Old and New Testament sanctification, and destroys the foundation of much of the Reformed view of the law. Thus, NCT fits within the theologically antinomian camp.

NCT even sounds a clear alarm against antinomianism. However, we must be careful to ascertain what NCT means when it speaks of antinomianism. We must ask: Against what law? And what does the word against mean? Does it mean against altogether? Could it mean against in part? The prefix anti has various nuances. It can mean “against," “instead of," or "in place of." In other words, although NCT may not be against law in an absolute sense, if it denies that the moral law of the Old Testament is the Moral law of the New Testament, and if it replaces the moral with another, then it is antinomian on two counts.

Examining NCT is not easy. Adherents of NCT often disagree when it comes to identifying its fundamental axioms. Another difficulty concerns its origin. Some say it goes back to John Bunyan’s perspective on the law. Others say its origin resides in a mediating position on the law buried in seventeenth-century obscurity. One major NCT proponent even calls it “a novel approach to systematic theology.” Still, though NCT is not easy to pin down, it is not impossible to critique.

Theological antinomianism of NCT

Two tenets of NCT distance it from Reformed orthodoxy and place it within theological antinomianism. The first concerns the function of the Ten Commandments (the Decalogue).

The commandments function in at least three ways. First, the Decalogue formed the heart of old covenant law. It was spoken by God, written by God on Stone tablets, and then placed in the ark of the covenant (Ex. 20:1-17; 31:18; 2 Chron. 5:10 ). It constitutes a body of apodictic law; that is, laws that unconditionally and categorically assert right and wrong.

Second, the Decalogue forms the heart of new covenant law. In the promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:33, God says: "'I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts. . . .'" Whenever God speaks of “My law," He is referring to something already revealed to Israel throughout the Old Testament (2 Chron. 6:16 ; Ps. 89:30; Jer. 6:19 ; 16:11 ). God Himself writing a law is a familiar Old Testament scene. Jeremiah teaches that the basic law of the new covenant is a law that was written on Stone by God and will be written on hearts by God.

A comparison of Exodus 31:18, Jeremiah 31:33, and 2 Corinthians 3:3 is illuminating:
“. . . He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, writ- ten with the finger of God."

“But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts…”
“[c]learly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, 'Written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart."

Both antecedent (Ex. 31:18) and subsequent (2 Cor. 3:3) revelation agree that God Himself wrote the law on stone and will write it on hearts.

Third, the Decalogue forms the heart of the moral law- the law common to all men written their hearts (WCF 4:2; 19:5). Many New Testament texts rely on the Decalogue as the basic ethical canon for all men (Matt. 19:18-19; Rom. 1:18ff.; 2:14-15; 3:19-20,31; 7:7; 1 Tim. 1:8-11; James 2:8-11). This explains why Jesus, Paul, and James are quick to cite it in evangelistic or didactic contexts.

These functions of the Decalogue teach us that it is transcovenantal. Its utility as basic, apodictic law of the Bible starts at Creation and continues through the history of redemption.

However) NCT views the Decalogue as functioning as a guide to sanctification under the old covenant alone. NCT does teach the perpetuity of nine of the Ten Commandments. However, it does so upon faulty reasoning - since nine of the 10 are repeated in the New Testament, then nine of the 10 are binding. This is a logical conclusion based on the faulty premise that the Decalogue as a guide to sanctification went when the Old Covenant went. It also presupposes that only repeated commands of the Decalogue are moral law. NCT’s view of the function of the Decalogue pits it against the very heart of the moral law.

A second tenet that places NCT within theological antinomianism concerns the Sermon on the Mount as it relates to the Law of Moses. The Reformed view of the Sermon on the Mount sees Jesus as introducing a contrast between a true understanding of the Law and the false one of the scribes and Pharisees. Christ is not altering the Law or supplanting it with another. But NCT views the Sermon on the Mount very differently. Christ is seen as "giving the church a new canon of moral conduct," according to John G. Reisinger in But I Say Unto You. . . . Moreover, Reisinger writes in Christ, Lord and Lawgiver Over the Church, Christ's law is "infinitely higher and more spiritual than anything Moses ever wrote." The Sermon on the Mount is said to contrast rule under law (Moses) and rule under grace (Christ). What Christ affirms in Matthew 5:17 is that the Law of Moses points to Him and to His advanced and heightened law. The law of Christ is the eschatological transcendent law that Moses' Law both anticipated and is advanced by, according to Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel in New Covenant Theology.

These claims are impossible to reconcile with the rest of Scripture. Claiming that Christ's law is higher and more spiritual than Moses' contradicts the fact that the law Christ expounded in the Sermon on the Mount and revealed in the epistles includes portions of the very things Moses wrote. The Sem1on on the Mount is old law masterfully applied by the Lord of law!

NCT's understanding of the Sermon on the Mount is antinomian because it supplants the Old Testament's moral law and forces the New Testament to repeat the Old for it to be bending. But moral law is applicable to all men because it is based on the character of God and man's status as image bearer of God.

These tenets of NCT expose its antinomianism on two fronts. First, NCT is against the moral law of the Old Testament, claiming that only repeated laws are binding. The Biblical and Reformed view is that all laws are binding unless rescinded (Matt. 5: 17 -20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Second, NCT replaces the Old Testament's moral law with a new law – the law of Christ. This does not do justice to the continuity of law as promised in Jeremiah and the sweeping statements by Christ in Matthew 5:17-20 and Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

The essence of righteousness in man is the same from Creation to consummation. The righteousness demanded of Adam is essentially the same demanded of us. The righteousness procured by Christ's life (His active obedience) and imputed to believers is the same for all the elect. NCT unwittingly tampers with what constitutes essential righteousness in man. This is so because NCT sees the moral law as a dynamic concept in Scripture and therefore in process, both changing and advancing as revelation unfolds. This impinges upon the active obedience of Christ, the imputation of righteousness, and the ground of justification. The Bible teaches one Justification based on one righteousness, not various levels of righteousness depending on what moral law one is under.

The Decalogue is the heart of the moral law. It summarizes all moral law. Its utility transcends covenantal bounds. The Sermon on the Mount is an exposition and application of the Bible's moral law. The essence of what constitutes righteousness in man is the same throughout Scripture. As long as NCT denies these Biblical verities, it must be considered theologically antinomian. NCT is a novel approach to an age-old problem - extolling grace at the expense of the law.” The Death of the Decalogue, by Richard Barcellos
​

 

[Tallen]

ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD. Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart. They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways. Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently. O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes! Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments. I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments. I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.

BETH. Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments. Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes. With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth. I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, as much as in all riches. I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways. I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word.

GIMEL. Deal bountifully with thy servant, that I may live, and keep thy word. Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. I am a stranger in the earth: hide not thy commandments from me. My soul breaketh for the longing that it hath unto thy judgments at all times. Thou hast rebuked the proud that are cursed, which do err from thy commandments. Remove from me reproach and contempt; for I have kept thy testimonies. Princes also did sit and speak against me: but thy servant did meditate in thy statutes. Thy testimonies also are my delight and my counsellors.

DALETH. My soul cleaveth unto the dust: quicken thou me according to thy word. I have declared my ways, and thou heardest me: teach me thy statutes. Make me to understand the way of thy precepts: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works. My soul melteth for heaviness: strengthen thou me according unto thy word. Remove from me the way of lying: and grant me thy law graciously. I have chosen the way of truth: thy judgments have I laid before me. I have stuck unto thy testimonies: O LORD, put me not to shame. I will run the way of thy commandments, when thou shalt enlarge my heart.

HE. Teach me, O LORD, the way of thy statutes; and I shall keep it unto the end. Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart. Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight. Incline my heart unto thy testimonies, and not to covetousness. Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me in thy way. Stablish thy word unto thy servant, who is devoted to thy fear. Turn away my reproach which I fear: for thy judgments are good. Behold, I have longed after thy precepts: quicken me in thy righteousness.

VAU. Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word. So shall I have wherewith to answer him that reproacheth me: for I trust in thy word. And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in thy judgments. So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever. And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts. I will speak of thy testimonies also before kings, and will not be ashamed. And I will delight myself in thy commandments, which I have loved. My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and I will meditate in thy statutes.

ZAIN. Remember the word unto thy servant, upon which thou hast caused me to hope. This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me. The proud have had me greatly in derision: yet have I not declined from thy law. I remembered thy judgments of old, O LORD; and have comforted myself. Horror hath taken hold upon me because of the wicked that forsake thy law. Thy statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage. I have remembered thy name, O LORD, in the night, and have kept thy law. This I had, because I kept thy precepts.

CHETH. Thou art my portion, O LORD: I have said that I would keep thy words. I intreated thy favour with my whole heart: be merciful unto me according to thy word. I thought on my ways, and turned my feet unto thy testimonies. I made haste, and delayed not to keep thy commandments. The bands of the wicked have robbed me: but I have not forgotten thy law. At midnight I will rise to give thanks unto thee because of thy righteous judgments. I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts. The earth, O LORD, is full of thy mercy: teach me thy statutes.

TETH. Thou hast dealt well with thy servant, O LORD, according unto thy word. Teach me good judgment and knowledge: for I have believed thy commandments. Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word. Thou art good, and doest good; teach me thy statutes. The proud have forged a lie against me: but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart. Their heart is as fat as grease; but I delight in thy law. It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes. The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.

JOD. Thy hands have made me and fashioned me: give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments. They that fear thee will be glad when they see me; because I have hoped in thy word. I know, O LORD, that thy judgments are right, and that thou in faithfulness hast afflicted me. Let, I pray thee, thy merciful kindness be for my comfort, according to thy word unto thy servant. Let thy tender mercies come unto me, that I may live: for thy law is my delight. Let the proud be ashamed; for they dealt perversely with me without a cause: but I will meditate in thy precepts. Let those that fear thee turn unto me, and those that have known thy testimonies. Let my heart be sound in thy statutes; that I be not ashamed.

CAPH. My soul fainteth for thy salvation: but I hope in thy word. Mine eyes fail for thy word, saying, When wilt thou comfort me? For I am become like a bottle in the smoke; yet do I not forget thy statutes. How many are the days of thy servant? when wilt thou execute judgment on them that persecute me? The proud have digged pits for me, which are not after thy law. All thy commandments are faithful: they persecute me wrongfully; help thou me. They had almost consumed me upon earth; but I forsook not thy precepts. Quicken me after thy lovingkindness; so shall I keep the testimony of thy mouth.

LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth. They continue this day according to thine ordinances: for all are thy servants. Unless thy law had been my delights, I should then have perished in mine affliction. I will never forget thy precepts: for with them thou hast quickened me. I am thine, save me; for I have sought thy precepts. The wicked have waited for me to destroy me: but I will consider thy testimonies. I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.

MEM. O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me. How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.

NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments. I am afflicted very much: quicken me, O LORD, according unto thy word. Accept, I beseech thee, the freewill offerings of my mouth, O LORD, and teach me thy judgments. My soul is continually in my hand: yet do I not forget thy law. The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts. Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. I have inclined mine heart to perform thy statutes alway, even unto the end.

SAMECH. I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love. Thou art my hiding place and my shield: I hope in thy word. Depart from me, ye evildoers: for I will keep the commandments of my God. Uphold me according unto thy word, that I may live: and let me not be ashamed of my hope. Hold thou me up, and I shall be safe: and I will have respect unto thy statutes continually. Thou hast trodden down all them that err from thy statutes: for their deceit is falsehood. Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth like dross: therefore I love thy testimonies. My flesh trembleth for fear of thee; and I am afraid of thy judgments.

AIN. I have done judgment and justice: leave me not to mine oppressors. Be surety for thy servant for good: let not the proud oppress me. Mine eyes fail for thy salvation, and for the word of thy righteousness. Deal with thy servant according unto thy mercy, and teach me thy statutes. I am thy servant; give me understanding, that I may know thy testimonies. It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law. Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold. Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.

PE. Thy testimonies are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them. The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. I opened my mouth, and panted: for I longed for thy commandments. Look thou upon me, and be merciful unto me, as thou usest to do unto those that love thy name. Order my steps in thy word: and let not any iniquity have dominion over me. Deliver me from the oppression of man: so will I keep thy precepts. Make thy face to shine upon thy servant; and teach me thy statutes. Rivers of waters run down mine eyes, because they keep not thy law.

TZADDI. Righteous art thou, O LORD, and upright are thy judgments. Thy testimonies that thou hast commanded are righteous and very faithful. My zeal hath consumed me, because mine enemies have forgotten thy words. Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. I am small and despised: yet do not I forget thy precepts. Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth. Trouble and anguish have taken hold on me: yet thy commandments are my delights. The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live.

KOPH. I cried with my whole heart; hear me, O LORD: I will keep thy statutes. I cried unto thee; save me, and I shall keep thy testimonies. I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy word. Mine eyes prevent the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word. Hear my voice according unto thy lovingkindness: O LORD, quicken me according to thy judgment. They draw nigh that follow after mischief: they are far from thy law. Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

RESH. Consider mine affliction, and deliver me: for I do not forget thy law. Plead my cause, and deliver me: quicken me according to thy word. Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes. Great are thy tender mercies, O LORD: quicken me according to thy judgments. Many are my persecutors and mine enemies; yet do I not decline from thy testimonies. I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word. Consider how I love thy precepts: quicken me, O LORD, according to thy lovingkindness. Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

SCHIN. Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy word. I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil. I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love. Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments. Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them. LORD, I have hoped for thy salvation, and done thy commandments. My soul hath kept thy testimonies; and I love them exceedingly. I have kept thy precepts and thy testimonies: for all my ways are before thee.

TAU. Let my cry come near before thee, O LORD: give me understanding according to thy word. Let my supplication come before thee: deliver me according to thy word. My lips shall utter praise, when thou hast taught me thy statutes. My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness. Let thine hand help me; for I have chosen thy precepts. I have longed for thy salvation, O LORD; and thy law is my delight. Let my soul live, and it shall praise thee; and let thy judgments help me. I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments.
(Psa 119:1-176)​

 

[Tallen]

Actually, no one is capable of salvation, Jesus Christ purchased our salvation for us. We just have to accept His gift.

You are promoting a Pelagian theology with this statement. Consider the following.

The Pelagian Captivity of the Church

 

[DeaconDean]

You have once again avoided the scripture in question, why is that?

tyfyt

And avoid the obvious.

We (believers) have already been declared "righteous" by the Lord Almighty.

And because we are "righteous", we are also justified.

So, tell me, according to Acts 10:35, which you quote:

"But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

What is a "work of righteousness"?

Are we not as born again Christians already acceptable to God?

Paul says:

"he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -Eph. 1:6 (KJV)

According to Paul, all we have to do is:

"present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." -Rom. 12:1 (KJV)

So you tell me, what is a "work of righteousness" that I must do to be declared "righteous" and be made "accepted with him"?

Simple question.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

2. Jesus’ Negation of the Law

The essential and basic negation of the Law in Jesus consists in the fact He disposes it from its position of mediation. In other words, what determines mans position to God is no longer the Law and mans relation to it. The decisive factor now is no longer the Law, it is now occupied by the Word of Jesus, even Jesus Himself. Man now finds his relation to God in his relation to Jesus. Several classic examples are found scattered thougout the Synoptics.

To illustrate this point, look at Mt. 21:28-32. A father has two sons, he says to one, go work in my vineyards. The son says no, but later repented and went. The second said yes and went not. Which of the two did the will of the father? According to the context here, what separates man from God is not transgression and negation of the Law. (21:28) In the latter part of verse 31, the reference here is not to the cleavage between word and act, but to the difference between actual refusal of the Law and the new event of conversion and doing the will of God. But that this hopeless situation can be remedied. This is seen in verse 31: “oi telwnai kai ai pornai proagousin umaV eiV thn basileian tou qeou.” (tax-collectors and harlots go before you into the kingdom of God) The point being that tax-collectors and harlots would enter heaven because they would sooner come to repentance than those who would be justified by supposedly living according to the law which Jesus eventually accused them of “making a pretense.” (Mt. 23:14)

This is further illustrated in the parable of the prodigal son. In the parable, one son leaves and one stays at home. The one who stayed obeyed his father, done all that was asked, but, he did not profit by staying home. By this we mean it is not in his relation to the Law, whether in a constant fulfillment which is not disputed or in flagrant transgression which is not condoned, that the righteous or the sinner find his definitive relation to God . If the sinner is received into pardoning fellowship with Jesus, he is at home in his fathers home. And this fact puts the man who is legally righteous the challenge whether he is building on his obedience to the commandments as hard-earned merit - this seems to be suggested by the grumbling when the prodigal returns - or whether he regards his perseverance in obedience as a joyous being at home in the fathers house. This leads us, however, that in both cases the Law is disposed from its position of mediation. The relation to the word and deed of Jesus now decides ones relation to God.

In essence, the same point is made in the sayings in Mt. 10:32. Confession or denial of Jesus decides the eternal destiny of man. Similarly, the parables collected in Mk. 2 are possible only if the Law no linger plays a decisive role between God and man, and conduct either in accordance with or opposition to the Law no longer justifies or condemns a man definitively before God.

“What Jesus did was grounded in the fact that He determined mans relation to God, not according to the Law, but in the power of His mission.”[3]

The blessing of the children in Mk. 10:13, the beatitudes in Mt. 5:3; and the saying in Mt. 11:28, all point in the same direction. Jesus pronounces these words precisely to those who are so burdened under the Law that they no longer have any “anapausiV” (rest). On the publican who falls down in repentance before God, and counts on God’s grace alone, the sentence is passed: “katebh outoV dedikaiwmenoV eiV ton oikon autou par ekeinon” (this one went to his house having been justified rather than that one. Lk. 18:4), rather than on the man who can boast of his observance of the Law. (cf. also Lk. 17:7) The scribes and Pharisees close the kingdom of God (Mt. 23:13) because they will allow men to enter by fulfillment of the Law which they themselves administer.

So that we are left with this conclusion, Jesus then, bases the relation of men to God on their relation to Himself and the Lordship of God, which comes in Him. His specific invitation as the one who pardons is to sinners. This means that He firmly negates the righteousness of the Law. The Law is now forced out of its key position by the person of Jesus Himself.

[2] T. Zahn, Kommentar z. Matthausev, 1905

[3] A. Schlatter, Kommentar z. Mk., 1930

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittle, Editor, Geoffery W. Bromiley, Translator, Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1964, Vol. IV, Section D, The Law in the New Testament, Sub-Section 2, Jesus' Negation of the Law, “nomoV”, p. 1060-61

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

When Paul says Christians are not under law (Rom. 6.14; 1 Cor. 9.20, etc.), he means that Christians are not under any obligation or constraint to do or observe what the law commands. 2. That Paul thought the law did not have to be obeyed is clear from his attitude toward food laws (Rom. 14.14, 20; cf. Leviticus 11; Deut. 14.3-21), and his stance toward observing festival days and the Sabbath (Rom. 14.5; Gal. 4.10). 3. Even though the phrase “everything is lawful“ in 1 Cor. 6.12 and 10.23 is not a full description of Pauline ethics, Paul’s qualifying explanation shows that he avoids speaking of any obligation upon the Christian to do what the law demands. 4. The Christian cannot concretely discover God’s will in the law, but must discover it by giving himself to God (Rom. 12.1-2; Phil. 1.9f.), by testing what is excellent, and by the renewal of the mind. 5. Paul does speak of fulfilling the law, but the point here is not that one is bound to fulfill the concrete demands of the law; rather, such obedience is the natural result of life in the Spirit. Furthermore, Paul usually distinguishes between “doing” the law and “fulfilling” it; the latter more indirect way of expressing obedience is preferable for Paul.

Although Westerholm rightly stresses the role of the Spirit, and the importance of the believer’s testing and proving the will of God, he wrongly downplays the place of external commandments in Pauline ethics. l. Both W. Schrage and T.J. Deidun have demonstrated conclusively that concrete external commandments are still binding for Paul,[20] for the Pauline parenesis shows that he is not content with simply saying that God wants a person to be committed fully to him. Instead, Paul demands that this obedience be expressed concretely.
The Spirit and the Word work in harmony for Paul (Gal. 3.2; Rom.10.16-17).39 In 1 Cor. 6.18-19 Paul commands the Corinthians to flee “porneia” but in the same context he speaks of the presence of the Spirit.

Thus, Westerholm’s generalizing conclusions on Pauline ethics are unconvincing. But are his particular statements on the relationship of the Mosaic law to ethics more accurate? Although this issue is more difficult, his arguments are not conclusive here either. l. What Paul means when he says Christians are not under law (1 Cor. 9.21; Rom. 6.14; Gal. 3.23; cf. 3.25; 4.3-5) will be explained shortly, but he does not mean that all OT commands are unbinding and matters of adiaphora. The commandments cited from the Decalogue in Rom 13.9 illustrate that these commandments are still externally binding for the Christian. To be sure, they cannot be fulfilled apart from love, but love cannot be manifested apart from the commandments either (cf. Gal. 5.14), i.e. no one can claim to be practicing love and be involved in adultery at the same time. In 1 Cor. 14.34 Paul supports his restriction on the women at Corinth by appealing to the OT.[21]

Westerholm rightly cites texts which show that Paul was indifferent about some OT laws (cf. Rom.14.14, 20; Gal. 4.9-10), and concludes that the OT law is not authoritative for Paul. Nevertheless, all his citations prove is that some of the OT law was not binding for Paul. The phrase “panta moi exestin” (“all things are lawful for me&#8221 in 1 Cor. 6.12 and 10.23 seems to indicate that Paul’s stance toward the law was lax, but the precise phrase is probably a citation of the opponents’ argument.41 What is more pertinent, moreover, is the context of that statement. Paul is not baldly agreeing that “all things are lawful”; rather, he is speaking of adiaphora.[22] Paul certainly does not think that “all things are lawful” because in this very context he forbids “porneia” (“sexual immorality&#8221. 4. Westerholm’s distinction between “doing” and “fulfilling” the law is tenuous. If Paul is speaking of Christian obedience in Rom. 2.25-29,43 then he uses the verbs “prassein”(“to do&#8221,“julassein” (“to guard&#8221, and “telein” (“to keep&#8221 to describe that obedience. 5. Lastly, while the claim that believers naturally fulfill the claims of the law by the Spirit has an element of truth, it is not sufficiently nuanced. For if Paul thought that believers would naturally obey the entire law by the Spirit, then why did he give any commands at all? Paul must have believed that concrete parenesis, and yes even binding and obligatory statements (1 Cor. 7.l0ff ) were necessary for Christians. And that they were even necessary for Christians who were progressing well in the faith is indicated by 1 Thess. 4.1-8. Thus one should not conclude that parenesis is only intended for weaker Christians.

Liberation From the Law

But if the Sinai covenant has been abolished, as was argued above contra Cranfield, then how can the above criticisms of Westerholm stand? Here it is crucial to make a very important distinction. When Paul says that Christians are no longer under law (Gal. 3.23-25; 4.4S, 21;1 Cor. 9.20; Rom.6.14-15), that they are released from the law through the death of Christ (Rom. 7.1-6), that the law was an interim period in salvation history (Gal. 3.15ff ), that the Mosaic “diakonia” is impermanent and has come to an end (2 Cor. 3.7ff; cf. Rom.10.4) he means that the Mosaic law in terms of the Mosaic covenant has ceased.[23] The Mosaic covenant was intended by God to be in force for a certain period of salvation history (Gal. 3.15ff; 2 Cor. 3.7ff ), but it was always subsidiary to the covenant with Abraham, for the promise to bless all people would only become a reality through the promise to Abraham and the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3.8, 16; cf. Gen. 12.3; 18.18-19; 22.18; 26.4; 28.14).

What does it mean, though, to say that the Mosaic covenantis abolished, and yet the ethical commands from the same law are binding? The insights of the “new perspective” on Paul[24] should be included at this point. It has already been noted that Paul contended that Gentile Christians did not have to obey the entire OT law, but what is remarkable is that the laws which Paul specifically excludes, as Sanders and Dunn have pointed out, focus on circumcision (Gal. 2.3ff.; 5.2ff.; 6.15; 1 Cor. 7.19; Rom. 2.25-29; 4.9-12; Phil. 3.3), food laws (Gal. 2.llff.; Romans 14-15; 1 Corinthians 8-10), and the observance of certain days (Gal. 4.10; Rom. 14.5f.; cf. Col. 2.16f.).[25] Now it is precisely these practices that separated Jews from Gentiles in the Greco-Roman world. It is well known that these particular practices were the object of scorn and curiosity in the Greco-Roman world, and that they distinguished the Jews from the Gentiles.[26] For Paul the Mosaic covenant was of such a character that it separated Jews and Gentiles. The promise to bless all nations which was contained in the OT was to be fulfilled in and through the Abrahamic covenant, not through the Mosaic covenant. Of course, for Paul this did not mean that the Mosaic covenant was evil; instead, the Mosaic covenant had only a temporary role in salvation history.

To sum up: Paul spoke against particular ritual practices in the Mosaic covenant which separated the Jews from the Gentiles because it was these practices which uniquely characterized that covenant, and uniquely characterized the Jews.[27] Now that Christ the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3.16) had arrived and had taken upon himself the curse of the law (Gal. 3.13) the Mosaic covenant was no longer in force for those who had believed in Christ. The new era had dawned, and the blessings of the new age were now available to all nations.

But if the above explanation is correct, then why does Paul speak of the condemnation of the law,
of sin being provoked by the law, of sin increasing because of the law, and of the believer dying to the law through the death of Christ (Gal. 2.15ff; 3.10-13,19, 22; Rom. 5.20; 7.1-25; 1 Cor. 15.56; 2 Cor. 3.7ff? These texts seem to imply that the dissolution of the law is necessary because through the law sin is provided with a bridgehead and even increases in its power. This would also suggest that the problem with the Mosaic law was not only cultural and ethnic, i.e. that it created a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, but the law also had an intrinsic problem, namely that because of sin it ended up producing more unrighteousness.

Therefore, one could infer, as Westerholm seems to, that the law as a whole must be abolished in order to counter sin. Furthermore, Paul’s statement about the law producing transgressions in Gal. 3.19 must refer to more than just transgressions in the ritual sphere, but it must also include transgressions in the moral sphere as well (cf. Rom. 5.20; 7.7ff ). And this would suggest that it is improper to limit the dissolution of the Mosaic covenant to the particular ritual practices which distinguish Jews from Gentiles.

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

It would seem to prove that the whole law is abolished now that Christ has come (see Gal. 3.1525; 4.1-7), not just the ritual aspect of the Mosaic law. The above objections can be satisfactorily answered. Doubtless Paul sees a close relationship between the law and sin, but he never sees a problem with the law per se (Rom 7.12, 14; Gal. 3.21). The problem is with the flesh or with sin which use the law to produce sin (Rom. 7.8,11,14,17-18, 24). Thus, when Paul speaks of release from the law (Rom. 7.6) he is not implying that all external law is counterproductive for Christians. The point is that the person in the flesh cannot obey the law of God (Rom. 7.14-25; 8.5-8). The problem is not with the law, but with sin and the flesh. So the necessity of freedom from the law which Paul speaks of must be carefully explained. Believers need freedom from the law in this sense because they cannot obey it, because they are in slavery to sin. However, in the new age the power of the Spirit makes obedience to the law possible (Rom. 8.4). Thus, when Paul relates sin and the law to each other, he has the moral demands of the law in mind, and he does argue that the person who is in the flesh cannot obey the law and therefore is condemned (Gal. 3.10-13), but his solution is not to do away with all external commands. He asserts that Christians by the power of the Spirit can now fulfill what the law demands.[28]

Thus, Paul had at least two things in mind when he spoke of the dissolution of the Mosaic covenant. The nature of that covenant was such that it divided Jews from Gentiles, and thus the covenant was intrinsically nationalistic. With the arrival of Christ the time of particularism was over and now the universal blessing promised to Abraham was available for all nations. But Paul conjoins with this another thought, namely, the idea that those under the law are under a curse (Gal. 3.1x13), that to be under the law is to be under sin (Gal. 3.21-25; Rom. 6.1415; 7.1-6), and that the commandments of the law even provoke one to sin (Rom. 7.7ff.), and that the power of sin is found in the law (1 Cor. 15.56). Paul is still using a salvation-historical argument here, for in his mind obedience to the law was simply impossible for those who did not have the Spirit, who were dominated by the flesh (Rom. 8.5-8). But Paul strains to make it clear in Rom. 7.7ff. that he sees no intrinsic problem with the content of the law. The commandment is still from God; the problem is the lack of power to dowhat God has commanded.

Thus, Paul can speak of being liberated from the law in two senses. 1. It can signify liberation
from the Mosaic covenant which contains rites that are particularly Jewish and therefore leads to a separation between Jews and Gentiles. 2. It can also signify liberation from the power of sin which uses the law as a bridgehead. But now that the age of the Spirit has arrived and Christ has broken the power of sin by his death, the age of slavery to sin has ended. Paul does not carefully distinguish these two notions of liberation from the Mosaic law because they were inextricably intertwined in the era before the descent of the Spirit, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, and the death and resurrection of Christ. Before the new age arrived the Mosaic covenant erected barriers between Jews and Gentiles by requiring Gentiles to be circumcised, to observe certain days, and to keep the food laws. What I am suggesting, of course, is that there is a distinction in Paul’s mind between the ritual and moral law. The dissolution of the Mosaic covenant also implies the abolition of practices, such as circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws, which separated Jews from Gentiles. On the other hand, Paul still thinks that the universal moral norms contained in the Mosaic laws are authoritative for the church. Believer by faith in the power of the Sprit can obey the moral norms of the OT law. Thus, when Paul says believers are not under the law, he s not saying that they are liberated from all moral norms. Such a distinction between the moral and ritual law is still held by some scholars,[29] but it is rejected by most.

[20] Schrage, Einzelgebote; Deidun, New Covenant, esp. 188-217.

[21] The text is often suspected of being an interpolation (see the recent discussion by Fee, First Corinthians, 699ff), but contra Fee et al. the evidence for an interpolation is not impressive. Such a theory should only be embraced as a last resort. The manuscript evidence overwhelmingly favors the inclusion of the verses. Fee claims (p. 700) that no one would insert the text after v. 40 because all agree that the placement of the text is Logical here. But such a statement assumes what cannot, in fact, be proven. Some copyists may not have thought the text was logically placed, and they may not have understood it as well as Fee thinks they would have.

[22] Schrage, Einzelgebote, 57-58; Fee, First Corinthians, 252.

[23] Cf. Moo, “Works of the Law,” 88-89.

[24] To borrow J. D. G. Dunn’s term (“The New Perspective on Paul,” BJRL 65 [1983]: 95-122).

[25] Dunn, “New Perspective,” 107-10, 114-15; idem, “Works of Law,” 524ff.; E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 100-03. Nevertheless, Dunn’s attempt to limit “works of law” to these identity markers is not successful. For a more convincing explanation see Moo, “Works of Law,” 90-99; cf. H. Räisänen’s (“Galatians 2.16 and Paul’s Break with Judaism,” NTS 31 [1985]: 543-53) criticism of Dunn.

[26] M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. I, 1976, Vol. II, 1980) see sections 195, 258, 281, 301.

[27] On this point see K. Kertelge, “Gesetz und Freiheit im Galaterbrief,” NTS 30 (1984): 391; N. T. Wright, “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith,” TynB 29 (1978): 61-78; M. Barth, Ephesians (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1974), 290-91; C. Haufe, “Die Stellung des Paulus zunm Gesetz,” TLZ 91 (1966), 173.

[28] For the view that significant ethical righteousness is now possible in Christ see B. J. Byrne, “Living out the Righteousness of God: The Contribution of Rom. 6.1-8.13 to an Understanding of Paul’s Ethical Presuppositions,” CBQ 43 (1981): 557-81; A. van Dülmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus (SBM, 5; Stuttgart; Kathohsches Bibelwerk, 1968), 140-52, 158-68, 185-204.

[29] G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 510; Cranfield, “St. Paul and the Law,” 49-52, 66; Gundry, “Grace,” 7; C. F. D. Moule, “Obligation,” 397; D .P. Fuller, “Paul and the Works of the Law,” WTJ 38 (1975): 38-39; Haufe, “Paulus zum Gesetz,” 171-78; J. Hempel, “On the Problem of the Law in the Old and New Testaments,” ATR 34 (1952): 229-31. For the view that such a distinction was implicit in the teaching of Jesus see K. Berger, Die Gesetzauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament (Teil I: Markus und Parallelen) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1972)pp.171ff.; R. H. Stein, The Method and Message of Jesus Teachings (Philadelphia: Westminster,1978), 102-104; D. Wenham, “Jesus and the Law: An Exegesis of Matthew 5.17-20,” Themelios 4 (1979): 5.

The Fulfillment of the Law, Thomas R. Schreiner - A paper presented at the Evangelical Theological Society

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

That Paul made a distinction between the moral and ritual law seems to be indicated by Rom. 13.8-10. Paul clearly did not require circumcision (2.25-29; 4.9-12), the observance of certain days (14.5f.), or the observance of food laws (14.1-23) in Romans. But he does call believers to fulfill the law through love (13.8-10; cf. Gal. 5.14). Love, furthermore, cannot be separated from the specific commandments which Paul cites from the Decalogue in 13.9, namely, the prohibitions against adultery, murder, stealing, and coveting.[1] It is easy to see that these commandments are in a different category from circumcision, food laws, and the observance of days. The commandments cited here refer to matters which would be acknowledged universally as moral norms. It is not the case that Paul thinks these demands are normative only because they are loving; rather, there is a mutual and dialectical relationship between love and the demands cited here. No one can claim to be loving end yet at the same time be guilty of murder, adultery, stealing, and coveting. But these external commands are necessary so that one can measure, at least to some extent, what love is. Love without specific and concrete moral explication easily becomes a plastic notion which is molded in the way each person desires. Adherence to these commands is not a sufficient indication that one is living in love, but no one can claim to be living in love and at the same time transgress these commandments. Thus, love of necessity involves the observance of these commandments, but these commandments are not a comprehensive description of what love is.[2] One can do very noble things, after all, and love may be lacking (1 Cor. 13.1-3).[3]

Rom. 8:4 speaks of fulfilling the “dikaiwma” (ordinance) of the law, and here Paul stresses that this is possible by the power of the Spirit. Käsemann argues, on the other hand, that Paul is not speaking of the fulfillment of the Torah in the new age, although Paul’s citation from tradition has wrongly given many interpreters this impression. Instead, according to Käsemann, Christology is the focus of the passage, and it is the objective work of the Spirit and the cross which is predominant in this text.[4] The most straightforward reading of the text, however, suggests otherwise. The cross-work of Christ and the gift of the Spirit enable the believer to fulfill the “legal claim” of the laws Käsemann rightly sees that Paul is referring to the objective work on the cross here, but this objective work of Christ is linked directly to concrete obedience to the requirement of the law. Paul’s point in this passage is that those in the Spirit manifest the work of the Spirit in their lives. As 8.13 says, “they put to death the practices of the body by the Spirit.”

Thus, when Paul speaks of fulfilling the “dikaiwma” of the law in Rom. 8.4, he is referring to the fulfillment of the moral norms contained in the Mosaic law It was the inability to fulfill these moral norms which produced frustration and despair (so Rom.7.14-25). The singular “dikaiwma” in 8:4 shows that Paul is thinking of the moral norms of the law as a unity, and the context indicates that the moral norms of the law are fulfilled by the power of the Spirit, not by human effort.[5] Paul’s use of “dikaiwma” elsewhere in Romans confirms our interpretation.[6] In Rom.1.32 Paul says Gentiles know the , i.e. they know what God requires, but they delight in evil anyway. The “dikaiwma tou qeou” (“the ordinance of God”) which the Gentiles have knowledge of cannot refer to the ritual law of the OT, for Gentiles were not universally aware of the ritual requirements contained in the OT law. The preceding verses indicate that the ordinance of God which Paul refers to here concerns moral norms which the Gentiles disobeyed.

In addition, Paul says in Rom. 2.26 that the Gentiles keep “ta dikaiwmata tou nomou” “the ordinances of God”. The use of the plural of dikaiwma (“ordinance”) does not suggest the fulfillment of a different law from that described in Rom. 8.4, for as we have already pointed out the singular in 8.4 is used to show that the moral norms of the law could be fulfilled as a unity by the power of the Spirit. The singular is not used in 8.4 in order to deny the plurality of God’s commandments. The plural of dikaiwma is used in 2.26 to itemize various commandments of the law which are fulfilled by Gentiles.

What is especially pertinent is that the fulfillment of the law Paul has in mind can only refer to a fulfillment of the moral norms located in the OT law, for he specifically ascribes this keeping of the law to the uncircumcisedGentile (Rom. 2.26-27). Obviously, then, the obedience to the law described here does not include the ritual law. Paul has limited obedience of the law here to the moral norms which are contained in that law.

This interpretation is strengthened by the context of Romans 2. Paul charges the Jews with specific violations of the law in 2.21-22, namely, stealing, adultery, and robbing temples. All of these sins relate to a violation of the moral law. Jews who possess the covenant sign of circumcision (2.25) and who possess the Torah (2.17-20), but who do not practice “prasshV” the law (2.25) are contrasted with Gentiles who keep the law, even though they are not circumcised (2.26-27).

But if the Jews are circumcised, then what does Paul mean when he speaks of the necessity of their practicing the rest of the law in 2.25? Clearly, he means that Jews who are circumcised but fail to observe the moral norms of the law are condemned (2.25-29). Gentiles, on the other hand, who do not possess the ritual law, but who obey the moral law are justified.

It is not possible to examine all the issues which arise in such an interpretation of Rom. 2.25-29 here, although this has been examined briefly in another article.[7] Nevertheless, a few comments are necessary here. There is no evidence that Paul is speaking hypothetically of Gentile obedience here, nor is it probable that he is referring to Gentiles who are justified apart from Christ.[8] Instead, Paul is speaking of Gentile Christians in this passage. The Gentile who is truly circumcised and who is truly a Jew (2.28-29) has been transformed by the Spirit of God. Thus the “gramma-pneuma” antithesis in 2.29 indicates a contrast between the old and new aeon.[9]

Despite the above, few scholars today believe that there is a moral-ritual distinction in Paul’s view of the law. Three male objections are usually raised to such a distinction. 1. There is no evidence for such a distinction in Paul, and Paul would have made such a distinction explicit. Indeed, Paul’s failure to cite the moral norms of the law in an authoritative manner proves that none of the law was binding for him.[10] 2. There is no evidence in Judaism for such divisions in the law.[11] 3. Such a distinction would inevitably produce a complex casuistry of trying to distinguish between moral and ritual law.[12]

This first objection, that Paul does not use the law to establish binding moral norms, is developed in depth in an article by A. Lindemann.[13] Lindemann focuses upon 1 Corinthians, contending that Paul does not base his ethic upon Torah commands. For example, in 5.1-13 peal rebukes the Corinthians for their response to the incestuous relationship, but he fails to ground his advice on the OT law. So too in 6.1-11 and 6.12-20 Paul opposes litigation and “porneia”, and yet he fails to use the Torah to support his case, and even renounces the Jewish model of litigation in 6.1-11. Paul’s exaltation of singleness and his stance against divorce counter Gen. 2.18 and Deut. 24.1ff respectively.

Furthermore, Jewish tradition viewed marriage as an obligation. The permission to eat food offered to idols in chapters. 8-10 violates the OT law with respect to eating unclean foods. Paul does not base his view on women’s adornment in 11.2-16 on the OT, but his argument is based on what is fitting, which is a Stoic viewpoint, not one from the OT law. 14.33b-36 can probably be dismissed as a later interpolation.

Lindemann builds an effective case against the conception that Torah is normative for Paul. Nevertheless, his analysis is not ultimately compelling. Many of Lindemann’s arguments are arguments from silence-for example, since Paul does not base his view on the OT law, it cannot have been a moral norm for him. Such an interpretation would only be successful if it could be demonstrated that Paul never uses the OT law as a moral norm.

Continued...