Old Testament salvation

[Toolman]

Lay out the OT scriptures that let those then, under the OT before Christ, understand what they needed to do to obtain eternal life.

Here are several passages where Jews speak of a Messiah/Christ:

John 1:41 - He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated, the Christ).

John 4:25 - The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.”

Matthew 22:42 - saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” They said to Him, “ The Son of David.”

Matthew 26:63 - But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”

Mark 14:61 - But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”

Luke 2:26 - And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.

Luke 3:15 - Now as the people were in expectation, and all reasoned in their hearts about John, whether he was the Christ or not,

John 1:20 - He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.”

John 4:29 - “Come, see a Man who told me all things that I ever did. Could this be the Christ?”

This is just a small sample, there are many others, that reveal to us that the Jews most definitely understood that there was a Messiah/Christ who was prophesied to come. That this Christ would be the Son of God (Matthew 26:63). They understood that Christ would restore and save Israel.

Some even wondered if John the Baptist was Christ. Which he clearly denied and pointed to Jesus.

Now, all that to say that obviously the Jews were able to understand the OT prophesies well enough to realize that God was going to send His Son, the Christ, to redeem Israel.

Perfect knowledge of Jesus is not needed to be saved. If it was then none of us would be saved because we are not perfect in our knowledge.

All that is required is a simple trust in the One who is the Christ. To put all our faith in Him and His atoning work. The OT saints looked forward to Him and we look back to Him but our focus is still on the same person and work of Jesus Christ alone, apart from any works of merit on our part.

Faith = Trusting in Christ alone as the atoning and redeeming One.

[Jesusinmyheart]

Perfect knowledge of Jesus is not needed to be saved. If it was then none of us would be saved because we are not perfect in our knowledge.

Maybe not perfect knowledge, but we certainly are supposed to seek Him, and His word is very much needed. And as far as perfected knowledge goes, the Spirit leads us into truth revealing to us the truth of the Word.

It seems to me too many dismiss the Word thinking they "know" Him, cause they accepted Jesus as their Messiah. How can you truly know Him, if you're not making any effort to learn what He said?

Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.
Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
Eph 6:13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness,
Eph 6:15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace.
Eph 6:16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one;
Eph 6:17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,

The Sword of the Spirit is the Word of God..... so without the Word, you don't have a sword, IOW no denfense.

Shalom,
Tanja

[Pleroo]

Lay out the OT scriptures that let those then, under the OT before Christ, understand what they needed to do to obtain eternal life.

I appreciate that challenge. My first thought was to point you to the covenants in the OT. I did find a helpful site that does just that:

The Covenants


Also what came to mind was the book of Ezekiel.

Eze 18: 30 "Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!


God tells them to rid themselves of ALL their offenses (and He doesn't say that there is anyone who hasn't committed any) and He also tells them to get a new heart and spirit.

Now, just how are they supposed to do that? Well ... they aren't:

Eze 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.
26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
28 You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God.
29 I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and make it plentiful and will not bring famine upon you.
30 I will increase the fruit of the trees and the crops of the field, so that you will no longer suffer disgrace among the nations because of famine.
31 Then you will remember your evil ways and wicked deeds, and you will loathe yourselves for your sins and detestable practices.
32 I want you to know that I am not doing this for your sake, declares the Sovereign Lord. Be ashamed and disgraced for your conduct, O house of Israel!


20:44 You will know that I am the Lord, when I deal with you for my name's sake and not according to your evil ways and your corrupt practices, O house of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord.'"

[Alaska]

That is the point. The OT referred to the time when the messiah would come who would then do something.
Things were in types and shadows that were generally very hidden until the man Jesus would come.

So this is the mentality we need to deal with:
Even though it wasn't until Jesus and the NT brought the clarity on what the OT pointed to, what things were truth as opposed to temporary impositions as Paul calls them, (Ex. polygamy, divorce, sacrifices etc), it is assumed in order for God to be fair, they also had to have had a fair clear chance of eternal salvation like we do.

Where is it written, "believe in the prophecy that the messiah will come and you will be saved simply by this faith even though you won't hear what he says needs to be done to be saved?"

Moses told of Jesus and said when he comes you better listen to him. He didn't say, do all I teach and you will have eternal life. Or be righteous and you will have eternal life. The message of the messiah was when he would come, then the solution. Eternal life is a clear NT message. There are only hints of it throughout the OT. Right, Ez. has some good statements. A little late though aren't they?

Where is the clarity on their eternal state as living souls after death? In Gen. 3 they were to die. The Sadducees understandably did not understand about souls existing after death. The OT was not designed to clearly address the matter. Enoch was translated, but did everyone else who didn't walk close to God simply die and turn to dust like Gen, says and that's it? They really needed the messiah to answer all of this.

The fact that he brought a personal message pertaining to everyones personal relationship with God with regard to their sin needing to be taken care of was NOT what hardly anyone would have guessed. That death would bring life, that his "defeat" would be victory etc. It is the NT that reveals all of this yet the claim will be maintained that they in the OT had a conscience of heaven or hell based on whether or not they followed Moses or something like that. Just admit, the law was not of faith, but the man that does them shall live in them. It was a practical system, a civil law to a large degree for while they lived to regulate and order matters to some extent and ensure their continuance as a nation UNTIL the messiah would come who would then clearly reveal his message of salvation for their souls, which message would be preached to the entire world.

What about the dead who knew nothing about this when they lived? Just trust in God as a righteous judge to have had a system planned out for them so that fairness would surely somehow be administered. The NT speaks of Him preaching to the spirits in prison.
There simply was not a clearly laid out OT eternal salvation message. The eternal salvation message was reserved for the saviour.

[Pleroo]

What about the dead who knew nothing about this when they lived? Just trust in God as a righteous judge to have had a system planned out for them so that fairness would surely somehow be administered. The NT speaks of Him preaching to the spirits in prison.
There simply was not a clearly laid out OT eternal salvation message. The eternal salvation message was reserved for the saviour.

I don't think they were counting on "fairness". They were counting on the fact that God was their Savior and Redeemer -- 2 things that had nothing to do with fairness, but with mercy. Look up Savior & Redeemer in the OT and see that God was proclaimed to be just that whether the details of how He was going to save had been revealed or not.

I also don't think that knowledge came "late". Job was, arguably, the oldest OT book and it proclaimed God as a Redeemer.

Job 19:25 I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. 26 And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; 27 I myself will see him with my own eyes--I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!

[Alaska]

No dispute. Redeemer with a capital R but that is beside the point. The knowledge we have that is necessary for us to be saved was not given to them. Their saving and being redeemed was most often in a physical sense like being saved by water and being saved from the Egyptians etc.
The NT plainly states that the blood of bulls and of goats could not take away sins. It was a type of the blood that would take away sins when Jesus would come.
There was no eternal salvation message and clarity for those in the OT though we see God doing amazing things like translating Enoch and Elijah etc. The OT pointed to the NT for the answers to be revealed then, which they have.

Job spoke prophetically being a righteous man who God revealed things to. The average Joe needed the knowledge but God decided for it to come only when Jesus came for the offer of salvation to the world.

In the NT Jesus is the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. What set of instructions existed laying out what needed to be done then, pertaining to the salvation of their souls in the OT?

Those who have gone before us and lived and died before Jesus, both Jew and Gentile did not have the Saviour. He came after they had already died. So it is a matter of fairness because what people DO relates to how they are judged and hence their eternal state of being.
Even though we don't fully know how God is going to sort all of that out, our attitude should be that somehow he will be fair in judgment because all of mankind has to be judged.
As for us, we have been given much, things they did not have, therefore much will be required of us. The servant in the parable who knew his Lords will and did not prepare himself shall be beaten with many stripes. Someone who has no knowledge will be beaten with few. They have the excuse of ignorance. The stripes are spoken of in an eternal sense.

[Teke]

Lay out the OT scriptures that let those then, under the OT before Christ, understand what they needed to do to obtain eternal life.

All they had to do was believe in the one and only true God. Jesus confirms this in the NT.

Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

[drew]

I have argued that many in the reformed tradition basically ignore Romans 2, arguing that it applies to a non-existent set of persons and that Romans 2 is really about how people would be saved if they could be saved by "works". But of course they cannot.

My understanding of the position of Toolman on Romans 2: He does believe Romans 2 is indeed a criteria that applies to all people, but that, of course, no one will actually pass this "works" test and so God provided another way of being justified. Fair enough.

You have misunderstood the position. Paul's point is that anyone who keeps the Law is justified before God.

I never said that this applied only in a certain dispensation. It applies today. Anyone who is not guilty of breaking God's Law is justified before Him.

Paul explains in his continuing argument how many people have actually done that.

You cannot read Romans 2 in a vacuum but must read it in context of the whole of the letter.

I still maintain that this works out to Paul giving us a long story about a "criteria" that no one will, in fact. pass. This makes Paul into a very odd writer indeed - saying things like "God will give eternal life to those who persist in doing God" and "the doers of the law" will be declared righteous, all the while believing that precisely zero people will be in this set. This is really a strange way to make a case and I think we need to give Paul more credit for being a good writer.

I cannot go into more detail right now, but I do not think that what Paul goes on to say in Romans 3 and 4 in any way makes a case that there be no people who meet the Romans 2 test. I suggest that people misread "works" in chapters 3 and 4 as being "good works" when in fact Paul is referring to works of Torah being specifically done "as if by works and not by faith". If this is what Paul really means he makes statements like:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

then we need not conclude that zero people will meet the criteria of Romans 2. I can still claim that there are 2 ways of doing Torah - "as if by works" and "as if by faith" - and please remember, I am not making this distinction to suit my argument, Paul makes it himself (see the end of Romans 9).

Romans 2 says those who do Torah "as if by faith" will be justified, Romans 3 (for example) says that no one will be justified by doing Torah "as if by works".

This is indeed a complex matter with no small amount of subtlety. I still think it is very difficult to believe that Paul would write what he does in Romans 2 about justification by works if he really meant to then say "but no one will be justified in the manner I have just described in Romans 2 and now (e.g. in Romans 3) I will tell you how you will indeed be justified".

[Toolman]

I still maintain that this works out to Paul giving us a long story about a "criteria" that no one will, in fact. pass. This makes Paul into a very odd writer indeed - saying things like "God will give eternal life to those who persist in doing God" and "the doers of the law" will be declared righteous, all the while believing that precisely zero people will be in this set. This is really a strange way to make a case and I think we need to give Paul more credit for being a good writer.

Paul is an excellent writer and this is a classic 1st century style of writing. Just because our modern, western style may differ does not in any way take away from Paul's genius at delivering his case in such a manner.

Just because your opinion is that it is poor writing style doesn't mean it is. I see it as excellent way of presenting the Law/Gospel hermaneutic of scripture.

I cannot go into more detail right now, but I do not think that what Paul goes on to say in Romans 3 and 4 in any way makes a case that there be no people who meet the Romans 2 test. I suggest that people misread "works" in chapters 3 and 4 as being "good works" when in fact Paul is referring to works of Torah being specifically done "as if by works and not by faith". If this is what Paul really means he makes statements like:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

then we need not conclude that zero people will meet the criteria of Romans 2. I can still claim that there are 2 ways of doing Torah - "as if by works" and "as if by faith" - and please remember, I am not making this distinction to suit my argument, Paul makes it himself (see the end of Romans 9).

Paul does not make this distinction in Romans 9. You are reading into the text:

Romans 9:30-32 - What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.[

Paul here make a distinction between faith in Christ against works of the Law. Nowhere does he state justification by observing the Law by faith.

There are not 2 ways of observing the Law. One which justifies and another which does not.

Romans 2 says those who do Torah "as if by faith" will be justified, Romans 3 (for example) says that no one will be justified by doing Torah "as if by works".

Nowhere does Paul state that those who observe the Law by faith will be justified but he does explicitly state that no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law. Let's not put words in the apostle's mouth to suit our doctrine.

This is indeed a complex matter with no small amount of subtlety. I still think it is very difficult to believe that Paul would write what he does in Romans 2 about justification by works if he really meant to then say "but no one will be justified in the manner I have just described in Romans 2 and now (e.g. in Romans 3) I will tell you how you will indeed be justified".

But that is exactly what he says:
Romans 3:21-28 - But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Notice here that Paul clearly states "BUT NOW the righteousness of God APART FROM THE LAW (did you get that... apart from the Law) is revealed".

Paul is obviously contrasting his whole build up regarding the Law. How not the hearers but the does of the Law are justified (Romans 2), but none have kept the Law but ALL have transgressed it and are therefore not justified by it but condemned by it (Romans 3) and now God has revealed how the sinner can be justified before God APART FROM THE LAW and that is by simple faith in the Saviour of mankind.

Its the Gospel my friends and it is very offensive to our prideful flesh. It is the stumbling block. It is foolishness to man's work-based mentality.

But it is the power of God to save to the utmost those who trust in Him alone, apart from works.

[drew]

Nowherere in the text leading up to Romans 2 does Paul say he is describing a way of justification that, while theoretically open to all, will in fact never be attained by anyone. Let the reader, if s/he is able, let go of Reformationally informed ideas and simply ask themselves this: Does the following text represent how you, as a writer, would present the idea that there is a "justification by works" pathway available to all persons, but that, in fact, will not be attained by anyone.

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism. 12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

I do think it is both fair and important to underscore how confusing this text is if the real intent is to communicate a path to justification that no one will actually attain. I think is rather self-evident that in verses 1 to 6, Paul is talking about a real judgement that will actually be carried out, not a "here is a theoretical scenario that will never be realized in reality".

Think of how odd it would be to write this in verses 8 and 9, presumably intending to suggest that some will meet this criteria:

8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;

and yet in the very next breath make a statement that you know no one will meet (as you, the writer of this material, would then go on to explain in chapter 3)

10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

I just cannot accept that Paul is this kind of a writer.

[Toolman]

Nowherere in the text leading up to Romans 2 does Paul say he is describing a way of justification that, while theoretically open to all, will in fact never be attained by anyone.

Correct, it is not in the text leading up to Romans 2 but it is in the text FOLLOWING Romans 2 that Paul is quite clear on his conclusion of who has met the requiredments of being a "doer of the law" and who has been "patient in continuing in doing good and seeking for glory, honor, and immortality".

Romans 3:9-20 - For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
As it is written:

“There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
“ Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;

“ The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “ Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “ Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “ There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that EVERY mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

So, here, Paul is explicitly clear on who has met the criteria laid out in Romans 2. Of course, he did not state this prior to Romans 2 because that would not serve his purpose of allowing the Law to drive men to Christ.

The Law cannot justify us before God. Only faith in the Christ and His atoning work can do that.

Call that a "Reformationally" contrived idea. I call it the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I say let go of these so-called "new perspectives" which do not hold up under biblical scrutiny but are simply a return to Rome.

I do think it is both fair and important to underscore how confusing this text is if the real intent is to communicate a path to justification that no one will actually attain.

Not if you are speaking to someone who believes they can be justified by the Law.

In fact it is a very logical argument. You show that it is not the hearers of the Law which are justified but the actual doers who are justified. You show your reader/listener that they are just as guilty as those they judge. Then you show that everyone has fallen short of being justified by the Law and that God clearly states that no flesh shall be justified by the Law.

Then you show them the way they can actually be justified, which is by the person and work of another and simply trusting in Him.

Evangelists still use this technique today (Ray Comfort to name one popular one).

I think is rather self-evident that in verses 1 to 6, Paul is talking about a real judgement that will actually be carried out, not a "here is a theoretical scenario that will never be realized in reality".

Think of how odd it would be to write this in verses 8 and 9, presumably intending to suggest that some will meet this criteria:

8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;

and yet in the very next breath make a statement that you know no one will meet (as you, the writer of this material, would then go on to explain in chapter 3)

10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

I just cannot accept that Paul is this kind of a writer.

Your acceptance of whether Paul is "that kind of a writer" does not in any way have a bearing on the text. The text is clear.

Justification is based upon faith in Christ alone, apart from works. That is actually the kind of writer Paul is.. a Christ glorifying one

[drew]

Romans 9:30-32 - What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.[

Paul here make a distinction between faith in Christ against works of the Law. Nowhere does he state justification by observing the Law by faith.

There are not 2 ways of observing the Law. One which justifies and another which does not.

I am surprised that you would make this argument. I suggest that, although perhaps Paul's writing style is not entirely consistent with 21st century western style, note that he is clear as to what Israel has failed to attain to: the law of righteousness. I think that you are arguing as if verse 31 said:

but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to righteousness

with the rather obvious implication that the way to attain righteousness is through faith, and not by keeping the law in an "as if by faith" manner as I have argued.

But we need to take the text as it is written. Paul writes that Israel has not attained to the law of righteousness. Again, we make Paul to be a bad writer if we have him intending to clearly distinguish faith in Christ from any kind of keeping of the Law. He should then not have mentioned a law of righteousness. But, of course, he does.

He then goes on to say that Israel failed because they were not pursuing the law "as if by faith" but rather as "by works". And I believe, following Wright here, that when Paul refers to pursuing the law "as if by works", he is critiquing not a full-hearted effort to keep the Law, but rather the Israelite idea that they believed themselves to be justified by ethinicity and mere possession of the Law.

I think that other material in Romans supports this take and I may argue to this effect in future posts. I must underscore again, we make Paul out to choose his words unwisely if he refers to the Jewish failure to attain to the law of righteousness as having nothing to do with matters of keeping the law when we writes:

but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law

What is it that Isreal did not achieve? Attainment to the law of righteousness. Why did they fail? Because they did not seek to fulfill the requirements of the law "by faith" but rather in some other way - "as if by works".

I think it is very clear that Paul is indeed distinguishing between 2 ways of pursuing the law. And if we allow keeping the Law "as if by faith" to be a way of keeping of the Law (as I think Paul plainly teaches here), then we do not need to make the exceedingly awkward move of arguing that no one is justified in the manner described in Romans 2.

[Toolman]

but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law

Notice that Paul does not use this language of "ethnicity and possesion of the Law" as how Israel missed the boat but by the "works of the Law", i.e. believing that it was the Law which could justify flesh before God.

They missed it because they did not have faith in Christ, not because they "didn't observe the Law by faith".

What is it that Isreal did not achieve? Attainment to the law of righteousness. Why did they fail? Because they did not seek to fulfill the requirements of the law "by faith" but rather in some other way - "as if by works".

Paul doesn't mention fulfilling the the Law by faith. As far as "law" being used in regards to Christ that is without contestation. The Law of the Spirit, the Law of Christ, etc. are often used "titles" in scripture to represent the Gospel.

And also let me state that the Gospel does not destroy the Law but establishes it that those who have been justified will fulfill the righteous requirement of the Law... love.

But that fulfilling does not justify us before God. Only the blood of the Messiah can do that.

I think it is very clear that Paul is indeed distinguishing between 2 ways of pursuing the law. And if we allow keeping the Law "as if by faith" to be a way of keeping of the Law (as I think Paul plainly teaches here), then we do not need to make the exceedingly awkward move of arguing that no one is justified in the manner described in Romans 2.

I am fine if people want to determine that they are justified before God by keeping the Law. If that is what a man has determined he will stand on then so be it.

But that is not what the text of Romans is teaching and that is quite clear. Paul is showing that no flesh can be justified before God by keeping the Law, because all have sinned and must shut their mouths before Him and acknowledge their guilt and be freely justified by the atoning work of His only begotten Son.

That is Paul's message. The Gospel.

[drew]

It is, of course, possible that when Paul writes the following:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism

that he really means that real people will fall into only one of these categories - those who be condemned, while there will actually be zero persons in the other category - those will be justified by their works.

I still think that this would be an exceedingly confusing way to make the point that you argue that he is making. I think there is a much better way to read other texts in Romans - that there are two ways of keeping the Law (as per Romans 9:30-31), only one of which will not justify.

Despite appearances, this does not force me into a "justification by human effort" position. It is through the Spirit that we are able to do the works that we do when we pursue the Law "as if by faith".

In Romans 8, Paul says there is now no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus. Why? Because as he then writes:

And so he condemned sin in sinful man in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but (live, of course, i.e. "do things" - my insertion of course) according to the Spirit

It is the Spirit that gives us the power to do the things that will indeed justify us at the end.

[Toolman]

It is, of course, possible that when Paul writes the following:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism

that he really means that real people will fall into only one of these categories - those who be condemned, while there will actually be zero persons in the other category - those will be justified by their works.

Well:

Romans 3:19-26 - Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law (Notice no distinction is made here between 2 ways of following the Law but simply the Law. Is Paul such a bad writer? ) is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


Those pesky words like "every mouth", "all the world", "all have sinned" sure seem to indicate to me whom Paul puts in that category of those who will be justified by the Law.

Those pesky "alls" sure seem to point out who is guilty and condemned before God.

I still think that this would be an exceedingly confusing way to make the point that you argue that he is making. I think there is a much better way to read other texts in Romans - that there are two ways of keeping the Law (as per Romans 9:30-31), only one of which will not justify.

Yet, Paul clearly says that the righteousness of God is apart from the Law. Is Paul such a bad writer that he would mislead us this way and really mean, "well there is a righteousness of God that is from the Law but only if you do it by faith".

That type of argument, confusing writing, could apply to either position.

Despite appearances, this does not force me into a "justification by human effort" position. It is through the Spirit that we are able to do the works that we do when we pursue the Law "as if by faith".

Nothing that Rome didn't claim. It is still a position which has no need of a propitiation, for an atoning sacrifice.

Christ's death doesn't actually forgive sin but simply enables us to have the power within us, by His Spirit, to earn our salvation by performance. He enables the performance but nonetheless it is the performance which forgives sin and not the atoning blood of Christ.

In Romans 8, Paul says there is now no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus. Why? Because as he then writes:

And so he condemned sin in sinful man in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but (live, of course, i.e. "do things" - my insertion of course) according to the Spirit

It is the Spirit that gives us the power to do the things that will indeed justify us at the end.

The reformed position NEVER denies that sanctifying work of the Spirit in bringing forth righteous works in the believer. It does deny that those works justify us before God. Only the blood of Christ has that power. Our sin is forgiven because He paid the debt of death owed by us. The cross is a stumbling block and foolishness.