Romans 2 shows both succeeding and Failing examples

[BobRyan]

25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Here Paul contrasts the Jews BREAKING the Law of God -- with the Gentile's KEEPING it. And argues on that basis that the Gentile IS therefore considered to be a Jew "inwardly" in such a situation.
​

AT
So who is it that performs the law without breaking it? No one!

You respond by turning a blind eye to Paul's ONE group KEEPING the Law and the other one BREAKING it -- by arguing "BOTH breaking it" and then making no sense at all out of Paul's conclusion showing that the Gentile in KEEPING the LAW of God is shown to be a Jew "inwardly" while the Jew BREAKING it is not.

Using your argument - the Jew is STILL a "Jew inwardly" AS much as the Gentile for NEITHER of them is keeping the Law.

Your logic places them BOTH either in or out -- but the text places ONE in and the other out AND says that the gentile (in this specific example) is KEEPING the LAW AND is considered a Jew "INWARDLY".

How can you possibly keep missing this point?

Have you answered Paul's question??

26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

Each time the text is quoted you simply respond with "no" to that section highlighted in blue.

IS the argument of Rom 2:25-28 "the gentile does not keep the requirements of the law and neither do you -- so don't worry. Neither of you can do such a thing no matter if you are born again or not. It all means nothing. So you are doing just fine for you are a jew inwardly even if you do NOT keep the requirement of the Law"

Clearly that argument totally contradicts Paul's case for the "perseverance of the saints" in Rom 2:7 and in vs 25-28 above. But it DOES fit the 4 point Calvinist position that totally rejects the Bible doctrine on Perseverance of the Saints!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Adventtruth]

Are you exegeting that text above just by saying "Paul says no"???

I think the case has to be made FROM The text you are trying to explain or interpret -- not "in spite of it".

If you seek to explain the text by avoiding the text -- then what every-day run-of-the-mill man-made-tradition could not do the same every day of the week?

Have you answered Paul's question??

26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?


in Christ,

Bob

Let me ask you this very simple question...do the uncircumcised man keep the law? Yes or no please.

AT

 

[Adventtruth]

Here Paul contrasts the Jews BREAKING the Law of God -- with the Gentile's KEEPING it. And argues on that basis that the Gentile IS therefore considered to be a Jew "inwardly" in such a situation.
​

You respond by turning a blind eye to Paul's ONE group KEEPING the Law and the other one BREAKING it -- by arguing "BOTH breaking it" and then making no sense at all out of Paul's conclusion showing that the Gentile in KEEPING the LAW of God is shown to be a Jew "inwardly" while the Jew BREAKING it is not.

No I'm not. Paul is using the word "IF". Its a hypothetical question because Paul understands that no one keeps the law perfectly. You seem to think there are those who do.

Using your argument - the Jew is STILL a "Jew inwardly" AS much as the Gentile for NEITHER of them is keeping the Law.

Then neither are Jews in the sence that Paul describes.

Your logic places them BOTH either in or out -- but the text places ONE in and the other out AND says that the gentile (in this specific example) is KEEPING the LAW AND is considered a Jew "INWARDLY".

Paul was making a point. A Jew is one inwardly through the Spirit and not of the letter which is the law.

How can you possibly keep missing this point?

I'm not...if righteousness was of the law, then Christ died in vain.

Have you answered Paul's question??

26 So

if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

And are you going to answer my question???? Who keeps the requirments of the law?

Each time the text is quoted you simply respond with "no" to that section highlighted in blue.

Thats because Paul taught that righteousness is not of the law, and I believe him and you don't.

IS the argument of Rom 2:25-28 "the gentile does not keep the requirements of the law and neither do you -- so don't worry. Neither of you can do such a thing no matter if you are born again or not. It all means nothing. So you are doing just fine for you are a jew inwardly even if you do NOT keep the requirement of the Law"

Pauls point to the Jew was that a mere circumcised descendant of Abraham who conformes externally to the law is not what a real Jew is. A real Jew is one who is circumcised in teh heart by the Spirit and not of the letter. We are lead of the Spirit and not law as you seem to be espousing.


AT

 

[BobRyan]

Let me ask you this very simple question...do the uncircumcised man keep the law? Yes or no please.

AT

Paul's answer in Rom 2:13-16 is yes and he says that they "show the works of the law written on the heart".

Paul's answer in Rom 2:25-28 is "yes" because he offers them in contrast to that subset of Jews who choose rebellion and so "blaspheme the name of God among the gentiles".

The other view is to ignore all of these inconvenient details AS IF "all saints and sinners must constantly blaspheme the name of God among the unbelievers by constant rebellion".

A lesson that Paul is not teaching in Romans 2 as he clearly divides ALL the world between the saved and the lost - and then shows how BOTH groups (saved and lost) contain BOTH Jews AND Gentiles.

An incredibly obvious point to the reader of Romans 2 -- as I am sure we all agree.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
Here Paul contrasts the Jews BREAKING the Law of God -- with the Gentile's KEEPING it. And argues on that basis that the Gentile IS therefore considered to be a Jew "inwardly" in such a situation.

You respond by turning a blind eye to Paul's ONE group KEEPING the Law and the other one BREAKING it -- by arguing "BOTH breaking it" and then making no sense at all out of Paul's conclusion showing that the Gentile in KEEPING the LAW of God is shown to be a Jew "inwardly" while the Jew BREAKING it is not.

to put it another way -- you take the LOST group (both jew and gentile) in Romans 2 and say "they are real" you take the SAVED group those who under the GOSPEL judgment to come are deemed to be Jews "Inwardly" who consist of both Jews and Gentiles and argue "they are merely hypothetical -- merely fictional" THUS spin-doctoring Romans 2 to have only ONE actual group for mankind under the GOSPEL.

those lost without the Gospel and those IN that Gospel judgment of Rom2:13-16 that are according to Paul "Affirmed" as "Jews INWARDLY" that "SHOW the works of the Law written on the heart" -- as FICTIONAL or as you call them "hypothetical only".

AT said
No I'm not. Paul is using the word "IF". Its a hypothetical question because Paul understands that no one keeps the law perfectly.

And so you take Paul's GOSPEL judgment of Rom 2:13-16 and declare that under the gospel there is NOT the saved - there is NOT that group (of BOTH Jews AND gentiles) that by the Holy Spirit have their hearts circumcised and are found to be KEEPING the Law of God and thus Jews "inwardly" the way Paul affirms in Rom 2:25-28... You dismiss his arguement as being merely fictional "hypothetical" in your words.

But you have to WANT to twist the text that way to start with to get to that conclusion -- you have not been able to SHOW that Romans2 is actually doing the work of bending the text for you because it repeatedly shows the cases of SUCCESS not just of utter failure.

Here then is the glaring weakness in your spin of Romans 2 for the reader who is looking at the details in Romans 2 that your POV needs to ignore to cling to your faulty conclusion "anyway".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Joe67]

Sometimes it is claimed that in Romans 2 -- you only find examples of failing outside of the Gospel.

My argument is that you find failing outside the gospel in Romans 2 AND ou find "perseverance of the saints" examples of succeeding within the Gospel in that chapter.

in Christ,
Bob

Since we can do nothing against the truth but for it, there is no failing outside the gospel; since God turns my lie to his glory in the day when he judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ.

Let God be true and every man a liar, that you may be justified in your sayings and overcome when you are judged.

Joe

 

[BobRyan]

Joe you said "since God turns my lie to his glory in the day when he judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ."

Is the idea there that the wicked glorify God by being wicked?

In Rom 2 the statement is made "The name of God is blashemed among the gentiles" because of the rebellion against the Law of God seen among some Jews.

That is a "bad thing" in your view "right"?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Man-ofGod]

Here Paul asked them if they are neglecting the Goodness of God, that they perverted it, took it for granted. They seemed not to understand that His goodness leads to repentence of sin. If they did, and if they regarded Gods goodness, judgment would have been with grace and mercy in Chirst. But that was not the case, the Jews regarded not His goodness and where in danger of a judgment by performance void of grace.

Do you agree?

AT

According to scripture, what does the word repent mean? What does the word sin mean? I think once you define the meaning of these two words, we can continue to cover more ground.

 

[Man-ofGod]

Joe you said "since God turns my lie to his glory in the day when he judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ."

Is the idea there that the wicked glorify God by being wicked?

In Rom 2 the statement is made "The name of God is blashemed among the gentiles" because of the rebellion against the Law of God seen among some Jews.

That is a "bad thing" in your view "right"?

in Christ,

Bob

I guess according to their theology, Jesus came so that we can keep on sinning.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

BOBRYAN: In Matt 7 Christ said "not EVERYONE who SAYS Lord Lord will ENTER the kingdom of heaven but he who DOES the will of my Father".

Agreed. Now what is the will of His Father?

in Matt 7 "EVERYONE who HEARS these words of mine and acts on them is like the man who built his house upon the rocks".

Would this include Christ’s words as recorded in John 5:16-18?

1. Christ points to BOTH good trees and BAD trees in Matt 7.

In connection with His discussion of false prophets, yes He does. Have you considered the bad fruit of your own prophet?

2. Paul points to BOTH the cases of those who go to heaven AND to those who fail and go to hell in Romans 2.

Actually, the words “heaven” and “hell” aren’t found in Romans 2. Instead, we have this:

“For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law.”
​

Only TWO groups

Yup. Those with the law, and those without the law.

3. In each of your replies you seem to only grasp the failing examples

I am willing to consider the context. Are you willing to do the same. Would you care to explain why you believe it is possible for good trees to bring forth good fruit? Is it because the good trees are inherently good?

OR as in the case of the Matt 7 GOOD tree -- it confirms that the person HAS salvation!

Matthew 7 teaches that false prophets will be cut down and thrown into the fire. You can be sure that I agree with Matthew 7 on this point.

BTW—I noticed that you chose not to address this issue (cited in my previous post):

The tree is credited with goodness and does not become truly good until all things are made new.
​

Indeed - if NOT talking about the saints -- if JUST stuck in the perspective of "the lost" then we always say "Please do NOT persevere in being lost".

How does a man persevere in being lost when he has a God who is wooing the man unto Himself (a doctrine that both Presbyterians and Methodists espouse). Has He called me from the foundation of the world? Has He sealed me with the Spirit who guarantees what is to come? If I succeed in “not being lost,” will it be because of anything I have done?

Arminians reject many of your assertions.

It is the value of the Gospel AFTER being saved that you seem to struggle with

Indeed I do not. The Spirit sanctifies those He justifies. It is HIS work and not my own.

Notice what Paul says in Romans 11 "QUITE right THEY were broken off for unbelief - and you stand only by your faith.

One readily notices that--in Romans 11--Paul is discussing belief and faith, not goodness or obedience.

IF you persevere then it is because you have chosen the same course as did Paul

Are you referring to Paul's confirmation that he was sold as a prisoner of sin and that the whole world is a slave to sin?

(Here again is another place I would typically take my 4 point Calvinist friends).

Do you view calvinists as friends or opponents? Your post seems to betray an oppositional attitude toward those who espouse all (five?) points of calvinism.

Where have I ever said such a thing???

If a man depends upon his goodness as a sign that he is maintaining the free gift of salvation, will he recognize in himself goodness or will he recognize sin? When he recognizes sin, will this recognition lead to assurance of salvation or a conviction that he is not saved because he is not good?

A person who espouses your belief system can have no assurance of salvation.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I guess according to their theology, Jesus came so that we can keep on sinning.

Did Jesus come to immediately eradicate sin? Were the apostles sinless? If not, then Jesus obviously realized that justified persons sin. There is no question that Jesus could have made all things new when He was walking this earth. For some reason, He chose not to do so at that time.

BFA

 

[Man-ofGod]

Agreed. Now what is the will of His Father?

Just let the Bible answer that, this way you can argue w/ the Bible if you like;-)

Genesis 26:5
"because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.”"


1 Kings 11:38
Then it shall be, if you heed all that I command you, walk in My ways, and do what is right in My sight, to keep My statutes and My commandments, as My servant David did

Psalm 119:160
"The entirety of Your word is truth,And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever."

Mark 7:9
He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

Matthew 19:17
So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Would this include Christ’s words as recorded in John 5:16-18?

What are you implying?

In connection with His discussion of false prophets, yes He does. Have you considered the bad fruit of your own prophet?

Oh no, another person who thinks they know the fruit Ellen G White bares. Hope its something credible this time. BTW, why cannot anyone stand on scripture alone in a debate?

Actually, the words “heaven” and “hell” aren’t found in Romans 2. Instead, we have this:

“For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law.”

Yup. Those with the law, and those without the law.

And your point is?

I am willing to consider the context. Are you willing to do the same. Would you care to explain why you believe it is possible for good trees to bring forth good fruit? Is it because the good trees are inherently good?

Matthew 7 teaches that false prophets will be cut down and thrown into the fire. You can be sure that I agree with Matthew 7 on this point.

BTW—I noticed that you chose not to address this issue (cited in my previous post):

The tree is credited with goodness and does not become truly good until all things are made new.

How does a man persevere in being lost when he has a God who is wooing the man unto Himself (a doctrine that both Presbyterians and Methodists espouse). Has He called me from the foundation of the world? Has He sealed me with the Spirit who guarantees what is to come? If I succeed in “not being lost,” will it be because of anything I have done?

Your saved by grace. Works is a byproduct of salvation. If you do not truly repent (turn away from your sins) then your not saved.

Hebrews 10:28-30 (New King James Version) see below.

Arminians reject many of your assertions.

Indeed I do not. The Spirit sanctifies those He justifies. It is HIS work and not my own.

One readily notices that--in Romans 11--Paul is discussing belief and faith, not goodness or obedience.

Are you referring to Paul's confirmation that he was sold as a prisoner of sin and that the whole world is a slave to sin?

Do you view calvinists as friends or opponents? Your post seems to betray an oppositional attitude toward those who espouse all (five?) points of calvinism.

If a man depends upon his goodness as a sign that he is maintaining the free gift of salvation, will he recognize in himself goodness or will he recognize sin? When he recognizes sin, will this recognition lead to assurance of salvation or a conviction that he is not saved because he is not good?

A person who espouses your belief system can have no assurance of salvation.

BFA[/quote]


Willfully sinning after accepting Jesus grace is the same as being wicked. Therefore, unless you truly repent, your done for since your dishonoring Jesus sacrifice.

1 John 2:7
Brethren, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning.

Hebrew 10: 26-30

26 Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins. 27 There is only the terrible expectation of God’s judgment and the raging fire that will consume his enemies. 28 For anyone who refused to obey the law of Moses was put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Just think how much worse the punishment will be for those who have trampled on the Son of God, and have treated the blood of the covenant, which made us holy, as if it were common and unholy, and have insulted and disdained the Holy Spirit who brings God’s mercy to us. 30 For we know the one who said,

“I will take revenge.
I will pay them back.”[h]

He also said,

“The Lord will judge his own people.”


You must look at all of scripture, not just one verse and build a whole theology on it. Scripture is perfect and does not conflict with each other.

 

[Man-ofGod]

Did Jesus come to immediately eradicate sin? Were the apostles sinless? If not, then Jesus obviously realized that justified persons sin. There is no question that Jesus could have made all things new when He was walking this earth. For some reason, He chose not to do so at that time.

BFA

See my other post.

 

[Adventtruth]

Originally Posted by Adventtruth

Yes Paul makes that argument. But you never answered my question. Why was he making that argument in the first place?
​

Bob wrote Actually I already gave that answer -

Here it is again.

Bob said -
Paul argues that the Jews ACTIONs cause "the name of God to be Blasphemed among the Gentiles" IF those actions are examples of Law BREAKING!

In Romans 2 - law BREAKING causes the name of God to be blasphemed among the gentiles -- it is never called "a good thing".

Rather it is the "perseverance of the saints" in Rom 2:7 that is "good" in Romans 2.

God "is not partial" as Paul points out - so he will not simply "take the Jew no matter how they rebell against God's LAW" simply "because they are Jews" and then reject Gentiles no matter how they serve God "because they are gentiles".

Paul makes his point in triplicate in Romans 2 - it is impossible to miss.
​

Here is what Paul says the problem was.

6 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;... 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them....Chapter 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. 3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

The problem has nothing to do with the law. It had to do with despising the truth and rightousness of God. Holding it in unrighteousness. This is the PREMISE of Pauls whole argument. To suggest otherwise is to distort Pauls perspective of the gospel.

Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? Rom 2:4

To suggest it has to do with a keeping of and following after and performing law that is impossible for fallen man to follow is to take the glory of God and hide it in the dirt infavor of your own perfections. You have made the entire argument about self.

AT












​

 

[BobRyan]

here is what Paul identifies IN Romans 2 -- as a problem that he is addressing -

21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal?
22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?
24 For "THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU," just as it is written. [/b]

Do Bible Believing Christians (including non-SDAs) "teach"?? Do they "preach"??

do they claim that men should or should NOT commit adultery?

These are the questions Paul asks.

Then Paul points to those who have the Word of God and TEACH that adultery is wrong -- that they are causing the "Name of God to be blasphemed among the gentiles" if while preaching they are also "boasting in the law THROUGH BREAKING the law"

The problem has nothing to do with the law.
​

What an unnexpected summary of Romans 2 as compared to the "actual words" we find Paul using in Romans 2.

in Christ,

Bob
​

 

[BobRyan]

Did Jesus come to immediately eradicate sin? Were the apostles sinless? If not, then Jesus obviously realized that justified persons sin. There is no question that Jesus could have made all things new when He was walking this earth. For some reason, He chose not to do so at that time.

BFA

Jesus said repeatedly "go and sin no more"

Jesus never said "keep sinning - I prefer it that way"

John - an apostle of Jesus, states that sin is rebellion against the Law of God.

in the New Covenant "the LAW is written on the heart" Heb 8.

There is no teaching at all by Christ that "sin is the way to heaven".

RATHER we have Christ dying on the Cross to pay for each and every sin that we commit - NOT to encourage us to continue in sin.

Paul makes this clear in Romans 2 when He argues that those who "Boast in the Law through their breaking the LAW" are causing the "name of God to be blasphemed among the gentiles".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I guess according to their theology, Jesus came so that we can keep on sinning.

You do get the sense of "sin -- good.... stop sin -- bad!"

And yet Christ said "Go and sin no more"

John says "These things I write unto you that you sin NOT".

Paul writes "you have not resisted unto blood in your striving against sin" Heb 12.

And again He writes "NO sin has overtaken you but such as is common to man and God is faithful who will NOT allow you to be tempted beyond that which YOU are able but will with the temptation provide a way of escape" 1Cor 10.

No wonder Paul is so clear on this point in Romans 2:7-16!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BOBRYAN: In Matt 7 Christ said "not EVERYONE who SAYS Lord Lord will ENTER the kingdom of heaven but he who DOES the will of my Father".
​

BFA 1

Agreed. Now what is the will of His Father?

in Matt 7 "EVERYONE who HEARS these words of mine and acts on them is like the man who built his house upon the rocks".
​

BFA1

Would this include Christ’s words as recorded in John 5:16-18?

Yes -- AND in John 14:15 "If you Love Me KEEP My commandments"

This is why Paul can affirm in 1Cor 7:19 "But what MATTERS is KEEPING the commandments of God"

Bob said

Notice what Paul says in Romans 11 "QUITE right THEY were broken off for unbelief - and you stand only by your faith.
​

BFA1
One readily notices that--in Romans 11--Paul is discussing belief and faith, not goodness or obedience.

A "distinction without a difference" as Christ notes in Matt 7 regarding "good trees" vs "bad trees" that are "known by fruit" he affirms " not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will ENTER but he who DOES the Will of My father".

Paul affirms this in Rom 2:13 "for it is not the HEARERS of the Law that ARE just before God but the DOERS of the Law WILL be JUSTIFIED"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Jesus said repeatedly "go and sin no more"

Jesus also said that there is only One who is righteous. Jesus did not come to immediately eradicate sin. Justified persons still sin.

Jesus never said "keep sinning - I prefer it that way"

Jesus said "stop sinning or risk losing the free gift of salvation."

John - an apostle of Jesus, states that sin is rebellion against the Law of God.

John also writes that, when we sin, we have an advocate with the Father.

in the New Covenant "the LAW is written on the heart" Heb 8.

Who are the parties to the new covenant?

There is no teaching at all by Christ that "sin is the way to heaven".

There is no teaching by Christ that sinlessness is the way to heaven.

RATHER we have Christ dying on the Cross to pay for each and every sin that we commit

Exactly. He has done that which we cannot do.

- NOT to encourage us to continue in sin.

Who needs encouragement? We are human. We sin. In fact, the whole world is a prisoner to sin.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

BOBRYAN: In Matt 7 Christ said "not EVERYONE who SAYS Lord Lord will ENTER the kingdom of heaven but he who DOES the will of my Father".

And which words are those?

• "Do not judge so that you will not be judged."
• "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you."
• "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you."
• "Beware of the false prophets."

Nothing here about sabbath keeping!

A "distinction without a difference" as Christ notes in Matt 7 regarding "good trees" vs "bad trees" that are "known by fruit" he affirms " not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will ENTER but he who DOES the Will of My father".

Yes, we agree that false prophets will not inherit the kingdom. This is the context of the passage you are discussing.

BFA