Romans 2 shows both succeeding and Failing examples

Byfaithalone1 · Dec 18, 2008

BobRyan said:
It also brings up another good point - there are 28 Fundamental Beliefs for SDAs -- not "a million and 8".

To my knowledge, #18 still remains and still stands as confirmation that the SDA denomination endorses the quotes I cited as representing the teachings of the SDA denomination. One might wonder why you seek to distance yourself from them.

BFA

BobRyan · Dec 19, 2008

Originally Posted by BobRyan

It also brings up another good point - there are 28 Fundamental Beliefs for SDAs -- not "a million and 8".

Byfaithalone1 said:
To my knowledge, #18 still remains and still stands as confirmation that the SDA denomination endorses the quotes I cited as representing the teachings of the SDA denomination. One might wonder why you seek to distance yourself from them.

BFA

#1. FB#1 states that All SDA doctrines stand or fall "sola scriptura".

#2. There is NO FB stating that we have as many doctrinal statements as someone can find out-of-context-EGW-snippets to post.

#3. Going back to each one and posting the full context - would flood this subject with what is sometimes called "data blindness", get's into an endless round of "prove-EGW by more quotes of EGW" and defeats the purpose of the thread.

So -- I guess you might say that I am just stating the obvious here - but it seems like that is the question you are asking.

in Christ,

Bob

Byfaithalone1 · Dec 19, 2008

BobRyan said:
#1. FB#1 states that All SDA doctrines stand or fall "sola scriptura".

#2. There is NO FB stating that we have as many doctrinal statements as someone can find out-of-context-EGW-snippets to post.

#3. Going back to each one and posting the full context - would flood this subject with what is sometimes called "data blindness", get's into an endless round of "prove-EGW by more quotes of EGW" and defeats the purpose of the thread.

So -- I guess you might say that I am just stating the obvious here - but it seems like that is the question you are asking.

in Christ,

Bob

I've often heard various SDAs suggest that the context might alter the way one views certain plain teachings of Ellen G. White. However, I have yet to find any place where Ellen G. White recants her position and later teaches that she was incorrect when she wrote that:

(1) Only by perfect obedience to the requirements of God's holy law can man be justified;

(2) Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them.

(3) It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement.

(4) Your only safety is in coming to Christ, and ceasing from sin this very moment.

(5) Christ presents obedience to law as the condition of eternal life.

(6) God's requirement under grace is just the same as He made in Eden – perfect obedience to His law.

(7) The condition of eternal life is now just what it always has been,—just what it was in Paradise before the fall of our first parents,—perfect obedience to the law of God.

(8) Redemption in Christ means to be free from every sin.

(9) Christ can never put His robe of righteousness upon a sinner to hide his deformity.

If you believe that Mrs. White recanted these statements, or that the SDA denomination has officially repudiated them, please cite the evidence. Otherwise, it is clear that the SDA denomination has repeatedly affirmed Mrs. White's writings--including these--as representing an authoritative source of truth.

If we cannot rely on writings that the SDA denomination has referred to as "authoritative" in order to understand the teachings of the SDA denomination, upon basis should we determine what the SDA denomination teaches? Should we base our perspective on that which you--one individual SDA--says the denomination teaches? Should we conclude that the 28 fundamentals are the only things that the SDA denomination teaches?

BFA

BobRyan · Dec 19, 2008

Bob said
How can salvation 'hinge" on "looking to see if you are a good tree" AS IF a good tree "turns into a bad one" if you look at it??

If the "looking" is not changing your salvation state then how is your salvation status "hinging" on that "looking"???

[quoe]BFA

Because--if I've correctly understood your position--you have connected your ultimate salvation, your status as a justified person at the end of time, with your works.

We are saved by grace through faith. The law is not of faith. Please explain how "looking" at things that can be seen is consistent with faith.

Christ is the one that said "you shall know them by their fruits" and Paul argues "EVERYONE will be judged according to the DEEDS done in the body whether they be good or evil" 2Cor 5:10. You seem to argue that God "can not let anyone look" at the tree - because to LOOK is to "change it".

I find your logic illusive on that point. Therefore I continue to claim that looking at the Matt 7 tree does not change it in anyway.

Bob said
It is like saying "my cancer hinges on the Doctor's exam next week" AS if the exam will either give me cancer or the exam will "take away cancer".

BFA
I assert that it is nothing like that.

On the contrary you keep arguing that the exam itself is a threat to health and that health "hinges on the result of the exam".

How do you get around that problem in your argument?

Rather, it is like going to the divine healer and being told that, regardless of any short-term illnesses or tumors you may see, you will ultimately realize all of the benefits of being cancer-free.

Once again you ignore the context of Matt 7 and Romans 2 and choose to only evaluate subject from the standpoint of the lost that NEEDS to BECOME the good tree.

But in Matt 7 Christ is not arguing this is "how to BECOME a good tree" he is arguing that once choices are made and people either ARE or ARE NOT good trees - you can TELL by their fruits.

Notice that in Heb 6 Paul addressed the problem you are having here in that you refuse to get past step-1 the POV of the LOST that needs to BECOME saved.. .the POV of the terminally ill that NEEDS to be made well, the POV of the BAD tree that NEEDS to BECOME the good tree.

I have already agreed a long time ago that this is not HOW the bad tree BECOMES a good tree -- rather it is the objective and accurate rule of Matt 7 that SEES that the tree either IS bad or good. Looking at the tree -- does not change the tree.

You seem to stumble when it comes to the Bible doctrine of "perseverance of the saints" by choosing to ONLY allow your thoughts to dwell on the context of the lost needing to BECOME saved. A thing that happens basically in an INSTANT!. And you are willing to circle back to that lost-not-saved starting point repeatedly rather than look at the Rom 2:7 "context" for the succeeding cases in Romans 2.

I don't see that line of argument working for you as well as you may have at first supposed.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Dec 19, 2008

Byfaithalone1 said:
I've often heard various SDAs suggest that the context might alter the way one views certain plain teachings of Ellen G. White. However, I have yet to find any place where Ellen G. White recants her position and later teaches that she was incorrect
BFA

It is not a question of recant -- it is a question of accuracy on your part. Snippet quotes are by definition a text-of-document without a context -- which as we all know -- is a pretext.

If you want to start a thread on snippet-quoting Ellen White and then finding out if the snippet quote is A-accurate and then B-in harmony with SDA doctrine, feel free to do it.

I am just not so interested in sidetracking this Romans 2 thread with that other topic.

in Christ,

Bob

Byfaithalone1 · Dec 19, 2008

BobRyan said:
It is not a question of recant -- it is a question of accuracy on your part.

Unless it is your claim that I have changed her words, the quotes are accurate. If you wish to explore more of the context, I have provided the citation so you may do so.

Snippet quotes are by definition a text-of-document without a context -- which as we all know -- is a pretext.

If this is relevant, than please demonstrate how the context finds Ellen G. White recanting the statements I've cited. Without such a retraction, the statements are--on their face--heretical.

BFA

Byfaithalone1 · Dec 19, 2008

Christ is the one that said "you shall know them by their fruits"

Christ does not suggest, "You will know you are saved by your fruits." Rather, in addressing the subject of false prophets, he writes, "you will know them by their fruits."

and Paul argues "EVERYONE will be judged according to the DEEDS done in the body whether they be good or evil" 2Cor 5:10. You seem to argue that God "can not let anyone look" at the tree - because to LOOK is to "change it".

Do you assume that the phrase "things due him" as set out in 2 Corinthians 5:10 is a reference to salvation? If so, why?

On the contrary you keep arguing that the exam itself is a threat to health and that health "hinges on the result of the exam".

No. That is an argument you have attributed to me. It is not an argument I have made. Rather, I have suggested that if a man's faith and assurance of salvation is built upon that which he can see, then it isn't really faith. I've never said that you cannot look. What I have said is that, if you look, you will see sin and this will hardly contribute to assurance. That's what faith is for.

But in Matt 7 Christ is not arguing this is "how to BECOME a good tree" he is arguing that once choices are made and people either ARE or ARE NOT good trees - you can TELL by their fruits.

Actually, he is talking about evaluating false prophets, and he indicates that you will know them by their fruits. In another time and another place, we can discuss the fruits of your denomination's prophet to see this principle in action.

Notice that in Heb 6 Paul addressed the problem you are having here

Is "the problem" real or imagined? Since you bring up Hebrews 6, I note the following:

"When God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, "I WILL SURELY BLESS YOU AND I WILL SURELY MULTIPLY YOU." And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise. For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

Abraham had to wait to see signs of the fulfillment of the promise. We also have to wait. If we gauge our salvation according to our sinlessness, we will never have the assurance we've been promised.

Also notice that Jesus has become our high priest forever. He ever lives to intercede for us.

you refuse to get past step-1 the POV of the LOST that needs to BECOME saved.. .the POV of the terminally ill that NEEDS to be made well, the POV of the BAD tree that NEEDS to BECOME the good tree.

There is no question that the sinner is in need of salvation. He is in need of salvation not because he is sinless (which he will never be in this life), but because he sins.

Paul is not arguing one thing in Romans 2 and another in Romans 3-4. In Romans 3, we learn that all have sinned and that there is no one who understands. In Romans 4, we learn that Abraham was credited with righteousness.

I have already agreed a long time ago that this is not HOW the bad tree BECOMES a good tree -- rather it is the objective and accurate rule of Matt 7 that SEES that the tree either IS bad or good. Looking at the tree -- does not change the tree.

I agree. Looking at the tree does not change the tree. It merely confirms that the tree is in need of salvation. Matthew 7 does not establish a new justification that is different from the justification described throughout Scripture. The tree is credited with goodness and does not become truly good until all things are made new. According to Matthew 19:27-28, Revelation 21:1-5 and 1 Corinthians 15, this takes place in connection with Christ's return.

You seem to stumble when it comes to the Bible doctrine of "perseverance of the saints"

If so, then I am in good company. For all of us stumble when it comes to our perseverence. It is for this reason that we are in need of a Savior. Nonetheless, I rightly notice that, if I persevere, it is because of He who dwells within me and not because of any goodness that I independently possess.

by choosing to ONLY allow your thoughts to dwell on the context of the lost needing to BECOME saved. A thing that happens basically in an INSTANT!

Really? It would seem that you believe that, though a person may be saved in an instant, he doesn't really know whether he is saved because he doesn't know whether he has adequately earned the right to maintain the free gift of salvation.

I don't see that line of argument working for you as well as you may have at first supposed.

No, I suppose you would not. The veil is thick and unwieldy.

BFA

Man-ofGod · Dec 19, 2008

Adventtruth said:
We can discuss the dynamics of the passage, but for now I ask of you...is works the foundation of the justification here? Why or Why not?

The foundation of justificaiton if faith and works. Cause one cannot be without the other. Faith first, and works second.

Review Matthew 7:14 and think about what that means.

"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Why would it be narrow? Why would only few find it?

Luke 11:4

"And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."

What is sin, what is temptation, what is evil?

John 14:15

"If ye love me, keep my commandments."

What are the commandments?

Seems pretty clear to me.

Man-ofGod · Dec 19, 2008

BobRyan said:
PAST Justification "example"
"Having BEEN justified by faith we HAVE peace with God" Romans 5:1

FUTURE Justification "example"
"It is not the hearers of the law that are just before God but the DOERS of the Law WILL BE JUSTIFIED"

Notice that the past justification is "By faith alone"

Notice that future justification is based on evaluation of the fruit IN the life -- what the person DOES reveals what the "tree that is" or as Paul says in Romans 2:7 "PERSEVERING in doing GOOD"

BOTH deal with Gospel "Justification"

in Christ,

Bob

Can't get any clearer then that.

Adventtruth · Dec 22, 2008

By AT:

Works or performance may justify your faith as genuine faith before others, but never God.

BY BobHmmm the text about "justifying your faith before God" -- I guess I missed that one. Please quote it.

The closest I see is when God himself says "NOT everyone who SAYS Lord Lord..." Matt 7

Is this where you paraphrase to mean "claims to have faith"?? If so.. then ok - I agree!

Once again - we may be good on this point as well.

My only point is that justification by works in James 2 is only a validation that your faith is genuine. Your works testify that you have genuine faith before others and never God. Our Lord does not need to see your works to determine if we are genuine.

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
James 2:17 (KJV)

AT

Adventtruth · Dec 22, 2008

By BobPaul places FUTURE justification as a reality at that FUTURE judgment when HE says "WILL be justified... on the DAY WHEN God WILL JUDGE".

Impossible to miss that one in Romans 2

Well Im having a hard time finding this quote by you. Perhaps you can give the scripture to show it?

AT

Adventtruth · Dec 22, 2008

By Bob And of course we know that because we SEE in vs 7 the RESULT of that "perseverance in doing GOOD" is as Paul states "eternal life"

It is right there in vs 7 -- all we have to do is read it and not ignore the inconvenient details in the text.

And please tell me who is justified in this way? You? Me? If not then who is without ever doing any wrong and always persevering in doing good?

Paul was making a point, and you seem to miss the point by not understanding the doctrine of law and gospel. You make it about you, and take the glory away from the cross of Christ. We all are sinners and deserve death. But you seem to teach that we can merit salvation by performance to the law.

AT

Adventtruth · Dec 22, 2008

By bobReally? How so?

Why not go ahead and exegete Rom 2:7-8 to show how Paul is really saying "To those who Persevere in doing good -- the lake of fire -- and to those who choose to do evil -- also the lake of fire"

Because I have to say that from the actual reading of the text -- it is just not there.

Also note that in Romans 2 succeeding cases come from BOTH Jews AND Gentiles "to the Jew first and THEN to the Gentile"

And in Romans 2 failing cases also come from BOTH groups not "just from Jews" as we notice again those inconvenient details in Rom 2:7-13.

IF you recall...the chapter headings where not installed by bible writers. Paul continues over in chapter 3 that we are all under sin and that justification is by faith and not by works. Justification happens at a moment in time and continues on into the future to those who trust by faith alone apart from works. You have added to the gospel and made it more complicated than what God intended it to be because you have not clearly defined law and gospel.

AT

Adventtruth · Dec 22, 2008

Man-ofGod said:
The foundation of justificaiton if faith and works. Cause one cannot be without the other. Faith first, and works second.

IF the foundation is both, then why did Christ die if you could merit it through the law? Have you died to the law through the body of Christ?

Review Matthew 7:14 and think about what that means.

"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Why would it be narrow? Why would only few find it?

Matthew 7 is not about being justified by performance to law or works...that would be workers of iniquity.

(Rom 7:5) For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
(Rom 7:6) But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

We are justified by grace through genuine faith...not by the perfromance of life through a set of does and do nots.

Luke 11:4

"And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."

And have you ever fell to temptation? I have. And if you are honest you know you have as well.

What is sin, what is temptation, what is evil?

Have you ever been quilty of any of them? I'm sure you have...all you have is one time to fail at it then you need grace alone.

John 14:15

"If ye love me, keep my commandments."

What are the commandments?

Its not keeping the law.

Tell me something...do you recieve the Holy Spirit because you follow the law or because you are born again by grace through faith?

AT

BobRyan · Dec 22, 2008

Opening Post -- Romans 2

Rom 2

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

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my GOSPEL, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus

Bob - highlightig that section in BLUE in the OPENING Post.

By Bob

Paul places FUTURE justification as a reality at that FUTURE judgment when HE says "WILL be justified... on the DAY WHEN God WILL JUDGE".

Impossible to miss that one in Romans 2

AT

Well Im having a hard time finding this quote by you. Perhaps you can give the scripture to show it?

AT

Are you talking about the OP Rom 2:13-16?

Are you talking about the part where I keep refering to this as FUTURE since the terms are "WILL be justified" and the DAY is said to be "ON the DAY WHEN God WILL judge"??

What quote are you looking for?

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Dec 22, 2008

By AT:

Works or performance may justify your faith as genuine faith before others, but never God.

BY Bob

Hmmm the text about "justifying your faith before God" -- I guess I missed that one. Please quote it.

The closest I see is when God himself says "NOT everyone who SAYS Lord Lord..." Matt 7

Is this where you paraphrase to mean "claims to have faith"?? If so.. then ok - I agree!

Once again - we may be good on this point as well.

AT
My only point is that justification by works in James 2 is only a validation that your faith is genuine. Your works testify that you have genuine faith before others and never God. Our Lord does not need to see your works to determine if we are genuine.

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
James 2:17 (KJV)

Indeed -- the tree must have ALREADY existed and must already be a GOOD one to have the faith "validated" by SEEING it in action.

But SEEING the faith in action - (seeing the fruits of Matt 7) does not "change the tree".

In Job 1 God declares Job righteous - the challenge is put forth then in Job 1-2 you SEE that Job is righteous in that he has the "good fruit" of a changed live -- of the new birth, of the one who has the Law of God written on the heart as circumcision is that which is done by the Holy Spirit on the heart -- resulting in the NEW creation...

But Job did not BECOME that person by being tested or by being SEEN by those sitting at the table -- he already WAS that new creation as God stated. SEEING him did not change the fact.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Dec 22, 2008

By Bob And of course we know that because we SEE in vs 7 the RESULT of that "perseverance in doing GOOD" is as Paul states "eternal life"

It is right there in vs 7 -- all we have to do is read it and not ignore the inconvenient details in the text.

Notice that in Romans 2 we have only TWO groups for ALL mankind.

1. Those who go to heaven.

2. Those who go to hell.

Those in heaven are seen in Romans 2:7

Those going to hell are seen in Rom 2:8.

Paul says that ALL "both Jew AND Gentile" will be in ONE of those two groups. Because of this Paul can make the argument in Rom 2:11 "God is NOT partial". The rule identified covers ALL.

Adventtruth said:
And please tell me who is justified in this way? You? Me?

err.... um... ALL who go to heaven are being described in Rom 2:7.

ALL who go to hell are being described in Rom 2:8.

Rom 2:7 is speaking of the Bible doctrine we call "PERSEVERANCE of the saints". As far as I know -- 4 point Calvinists are the only ones with a Doctrinal construct for denying that Bible truth.

If not then who is without ever doing any wrong and always persevering in doing good?

Paul was making a point, and you seem to miss the point by not understanding the doctrine of law and gospel. You make it about you, and take the glory away from the cross of Christ.

An interesting a story - but poor exegesis of the text of Romans 2.

Sticking with the inconvenient details IN the text it is clear that Paul has identified ALL of mankind "both Jew and GENTILE" as being divided up between those who inherit eternal life -- vs those who suffer the 2nd death.

In Rom 2 Paul argue that those who get eternal life do so via that GOSPEL JUDGMENT that is FUTURE and that Romans 2:7 declares to be based on revealing the fruits of the good tree "PERSEVERING in doing good" as Paul calls it.

We all are sinners and deserve death.

Indeed that is the point of Romans 3 dealing with the perspective of the LOST person whom we do NOT want to "persevere".

There are some here whose only context is that of the LOST for some reason. But Paul introduces the context of the SAVED in Rom 2:7 as he speaks about those who "PERSEVERE in doing good" in other words they KEEP doing it.

You are arguing the case of the lost -- the case of those who are doing EVIL who are NOT supposed to "persevere in doing evil" But rather are in need of that Romans 5:1 "Justification past" "HAVING BEEN justified by faith we HAVE peace with God".

When you gloss over the less of Romans 2 and James 2 and Matt 7 and then try to shoe horn it into the pre-saved LOST context of Romans 3 - you get a garbled Gospel message as a result INSTEAD of the Bible doctrine on "perseverance of the saints" when EVEN our Calvinist brethren accept (in some fashion) - except the 4 pointers of course.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Dec 22, 2008

6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS

7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life ;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness[/font], wrath and indignation
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil , of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek

11 For there is no partiality with God.

Bob
The argument of Romans 2:7 and 13 are discussing rebellion vs obedience where obedience in the Romans 2 context is always "good" because it is always the gospel context of "perseverance of the saints" seen in vs 7.

And of course we know that because we SEE in vs 7 the RESULT of that "perseverance in doing GOOD" is as Paul states "eternal life"

It is right there in vs 7 -- all we have to do is read it and not ignore the inconvenient details in the text.

AT

Click to expand...

False...not so!

Bob said --

Really? How so?

Why not go ahead and exegete Rom 2:7-8 to show how Paul is really saying "To those who Persevere in doing good -- the lake of fire -- and to those who choose to do evil -- also the lake of fire"

Because I have to say that from the actual reading of the text -- it is just not there.

Also note that in Romans 2 succeeding cases come from BOTH Jews AND Gentiles "to the Jew first and THEN to the Gentile"

And in Romans 2 failing cases also come from BOTH groups not "just from Jews" as we notice again those inconvenient details in Rom 2:7-13.

AT

IF you recall...the chapter headings where not installed by bible writers.

Agreed -- but it is sure nice short hand for saying "this Portion of the long letter" -- so as to not confuse the reader.

Now about exegeting vs 2:7-11.

Paul continues over in chapter 3 that we are all under sin and that justification is by faith and not by works.

Indeed the POV of the LOSt. And of course we would NOT want the LOST to "persevere in being lost" would we?

So in Rom 2:7 and 8 wave have the contrast between the saved who ARE born again and ARE persevering "BOTH Jew AND Gentile" (doctrine of the perseverance of the saints again) vs the lost who are simply going to the 2nd death "BOTH Jew and Gentile"

Justification happens at a moment in time

Indeed. And then the BAD tree becomes a GOOD tree. At that point the good tree starts to produce good fruit according to Christ in Matt 7. And HE affirms the point "BY their FRUITS you shall know them". Hence no big surprise to see that very principle taking place in that FUTURE "Gospel judgment" event Paul references in Romans 2.

Sticking with the text of scripture itself -- no possibility of man-made tradition creeping in to destroy the Bible doctrine on "Perseverance of the saints" the way our 4 point Calvinist brethren try to delete it.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Dec 22, 2008

Bob said
Snippet quotes (of Ellen White in this case) are by definition a text-of-document without a context -- which as we all know -- is a pretext.

BFA
If this is relevant, than please demonstrate how the context finds Ellen G. White recanting the statements I've cited. Without such a retraction, the statements are--on their face--heretical.

Getting us to that endless round of "prove Ellen White by quoting more Ellen White" -- an exercise which your snippet quote example begs to have -- and one that you might want to start as it's own thread.

This one is on Romans 2. A Bible text.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Dec 22, 2008

AT
Tell me something...do you recieve the Holy Spirit because you follow the law or because you are born again by grace through faith?

Again from the point of the lost person... the lost person sees that the Law still exists and is STILL authorotative and so it STILL condemns the lost pointing to their need of a savior. The Lost then submits - surrenders to Christ, confesses and repents (under the influence and power of the Holy Spirit) and is "born again" by the Holy Spirit.

The lost comes to Christ admitting to the PROBLEM. which is law breaking.

The lost does not come to Christ to "persevere in being lost". This is not what Paul argues in Rom 2:7.

Rather what Christ argues in Matt 7 and what Paul argues in Rom 2:7 are the same thing. They speak about the Bible doctrine we call "perseverance of the saints" --- something our 4 point Calvinist friends have a hard time with.

in Christ,

Bob

Romans 2 shows both succeeding and Failing examples

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

Junior Member

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

Junior Member

Junior Member

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

The gospel is Jesus Christ!

Giving glory to the most high.

Giving glory to the most high.

God is the Gospel!

God is the Gospel!

God is the Gospel!

God is the Gospel!

God is the Gospel!

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency