Christus Victor or Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

[Hodos]

Yep, and that distinction creates the obfuscation. Protestants are often quite unsure, or in disagreement over, whether not one is obligated to be righteous , apart from possessing the virtue of faith.

First, the distinction between justification and sanctification is a scriptural distinction. The issue I see is not that we make the distinction. The issue is when one teaches justification by faith but ignores the role of sanctification. The opposite problem is equally damning. Teaching that justification is by sanctification (essentially salvation by works) is also wrong and can damn a person in the truest sense of the word.

You will have to narrow that down. If you are talking about non-confessional, nondenominational groups, or specific Churches with poor catechesis, I would agree. However, if you look at our confessional documents, they are very clear that we are saved by grace through faith, AND it is necessary in the Christian life to obey God’s commands for how we should live. By the way, your own faith tradition has the opposite problem. There are lots people in the RCC who will outright tell you that their salvation is based on their works. I have seen it in these forums. So the issue of catechesis is nothing new, and it is not limited to Protestants. The issue of Sola Fide has not introduced confusion any more than the doctrine of the Trinity introduced confusion. Sola Fide does not teach that we are not to obey God’s law. Where it is taught faithfully, it is beneficial because it is in accord with scripture. Where it is not taught faithfully you have confusion. It comes down to faithful teaching.

 

[fhansen]

First, the distinction between justification and sanctification is a scriptural distinction. The issue I see is not that we make the distinction. The issue is when one teaches justification by faith but ignores the role of sanctification. The opposite problem is equally damning. Teaching that justification is by sanctification (essentially salvation by works) is also wrong and can damn a person in the truest sense of the word.

Both are works of God, not without our cooperation. And in any case He decides what is necessary in order to be saved, how we must work out our salvation, and if the post-conversion works such as those mentioned in Eph 2:10 or those done for the “least of these” in Matt 25 are part of that process, so be it. That’s a much wiser way IMO-and consistent with His workings with man from Eden on.

You will have to narrow that down. If you are talking about non-confessional, nondenominational groups, or specific Churches with poor catechesis, I would agree. However, if you look at our confessional documents, they are very clear that we are saved by grace through faith, AND it is necessary in the Christian life to obey God’s commands for how we should live. By the way, your own faith tradition has the opposite problem. There are lots people in the RCC who will outright tell you that their salvation is based on their works. I have seen it in these forums. So the issue of catechesis is nothing new, and it is not limited to Protestants. The issue of Sola Fide has not introduced confusion any more than the doctrine of the Trinity introduced confusion. Sola Fide does not teach that we are not to obey God’s law. Where it is taught faithfully, it is beneficial because it is in accord with scripture. Where it is not taught faithfully you have confusion. It comes down to faithful teaching.

If being sanctified is unnecessary for salvation, then personal righteousness/obedience of God’s law is unnecessary. This is where the confusion comes into play with SF. What everyone needs to understand, of course, is that we’re saved by grace alone, by God alone. The means by which He accomplishes this is the question at hand.

 

[Hodos]

If being sanctified is unnecessary for salvation, then personal righteousness/obedience of God’s law is unnecessary.

And the confusion between justification and sanctification begins…For by grace you are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

For we are HIS workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that no one may boast.

Notice a few things. Paul specifically rejects that you are saved by works having spent the previous 7 verses speaking about how you were dead in sin and repeatedly states that you are saved by grace. Then he explicitly rejects salvation by works. Lastly, in vs. 10 where he talks about sanctification, who gets the credit? Not you. So where you say, is being sanctified necessary for salvation? No, Paul specifically rejects that right here. Is sanctification a result of justification. Sure. This is why we can say that we are not saved by works, yet works are necessary in the Christian life. That is the doctrine Paul handed down to his Church.

 

[fhansen]

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 7

We’re not merely forgiven, washed, and cleansed, but also made new creations. Now…we’re expected to walk like it, in that grace. It’s all His work, but we’re not passive in it because we can upset the cart at any point along the way, if we want. God covets our participation, our willingness, our “investment” of the talents received.

He could squash us like a bug but instead He respects and values our wills, which is the reason sin/evil/ the rejection of and opposition to His will is even possible to begin with. So He draws man into compliance, as we will. And that compliance, that relationship with Him, is confirmed, solidified, and grown by our actions, by how we live, by how we love, properly understood.

The distinction that Paul is wanting to make with emphasizing faith as he does, is that man’s righteousness does not depend on himself, but rather on God-a sort of God + me vs “me alone”, or grace vs law, distinction. Man cannot be righteous-simply who he was created to be- apart from God. So faith is all about the internal state of man’s being, about relationship with his Creator, a relationship or communion which he was absolutely made for and is absolutely lost, dead, without- and one which Adam more or less cavalierly dismissed. The re-institution of that relationship, via faith, places man back into a state of justice, of right order, by itself and therefore into moral rectitude to the extent that he remains in that state. Again, faith does not replace the need or obligation for man to be authentically righteous in his actions.

 

[Hodos]

We’re not merely forgiven, washed, and cleansed, but also made new creations.

Yeah. Agree. That is what Ephesians 2:10 says. You are made. Are made. Passive voice. This is done to you. You are the recipient of God’s action in sanctification as well as justification. This holds true in Romans 7 as well. Note that Romans 7 comes after Romans 6:22 where sanctification is the result of your justification. It is the fruit of it, not the root.

 

[fhansen]

That’s not the point. It’s all a matter of grace. But grace is always still resistible by man. And, once accepting, he can still turn back away later on. He can walk with God and the righteousness that said relationship entails-or not-which would be to risk experiencing our demise all over again.

So, without fruit, no salvation, as Rom 2:7 and other passages maintain. The Parable of the Talents teaches as much for that matter. Which is why, again, the Church wisely teaches, “At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love.” Love produces fruit by its nature.

 

[Hodos]

So, without fruit, no salvation, as Rom 2:7 and other passages maintain.

That’s an interesting view of Romans 2:7 you are proposing. Unfortunately it is completely out of context if you read more than that verse. Romans 2:7 is NOT saying that you are justified by works. Rather, it is condemning the Jews who have the law, because by their works they are lawbreakers, just as the Gentiles are (Vs 12). Paul again affirms this Romans 3:19-20. In other words, the law condemns you, it doesn’t justify you. You are a sinner. You can’t stop at Romans 2:7, and ignore 2:8 - 3:20. This leads to eternal condemnation for all men as the beginning of Romans 3 demonstrates. The good news is that we are justified by faith in Christ, apart from works (3:21-28).

 

[fhansen]

We’re forgiven for injustices committed and justified apart from anything we can do, other than to accept the offer. From there we’re certainly expected to do, which is what Rom 2:7 is speaking of. Christianity 101, from both the eastern and western ancient churches since day one, only disputed by some sola scriptura adherents with their private interpretations. And this is also why Rom 2:13 can say, “For 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.” Or why Jesus can say to the rich young ruler in Matt 19:

"But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”

Or, in Matt 25, He can tell us that the sheep are separated from the goats based on what we’ve done, or failed to do, for “the least of these”. IOW, we’ll be judged on our love, love being the connecting link between those three passages, the true Christian motivation for any works or obedience.

 

[Gorgias]

Paul specifically rejects that you are saved by works

Then he explicitly rejects salvation by works

Ahh, but (in verse 15) we learn the context: he’s making a distinction with the law and its commandments. So, the “works” here are “works of the law”, which do not save.

Romans 2:7 is NOT saying that you are justified by works.

It’s referencing “eternal life”, so he’s talking about salvation, not justification.

See v10 – what’s at play is the “glory, honor, and peace” of salvation, for those who “do good.”

 

[Hodos]

Ahh, but (in verse 15) we learn the context: he’s making a distinction with the law and its commandments. So, the “works” here are “works of the law”, which do not save.

I have heard this attempt to make a distinction between works and works of the law and it falls completely flat on its face, time and time again. Paul is speaking to both Jews and Gentiles. When the Gentiles are being commended for following the law in Chapter 2, he is not referring to the ceremonial law. Gentiles don’t observe it. He is referring to the moral requirements of the law. This distinction assumes that Christ revoked the law and provided a new law. Christ specifically rejects this saying that he didn’t come to revoke the law, but to fulfill it. And, in Chapter 3, Paul says that the law is still applicable, although not for the purpose of justification.

If you are trying to draw a distinction between works of the law, and works of love, this is a false distinction that is not supported in scripture. It is the OT law that establishes what it means to love one’s neighbor.

It’s referencing “eternal life”, so he’s talking about salvation , not justification .

Another interesting innovation, divorcing salvation from justification. Hadn’t seen that one before. Also false. If you look at the next paragraph Paul is speaking explicitly in judicial terms and referring back to justification. And his conclusion is that since you are a sinner, you are condemned by the law rather than justified by it. You keep trying to say Paul is telling you that you are justified by your works, but you keep missing the fact that Paul is saying that your works miss all of the criteria laid out in vs. 10. He says this explicitly in Romans 3 vs 1-20. His entire point is that because you are a sinner, the law condemns you. Period. Full Stop. End of Story. You are justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Just one suggestion for you. Try reading Romans in one sitting from beginning to end and write an outline of Paul’s argument. I think it would do you good rather than attempting to prooftext from one verse divorced from the rest of the context of the book.

 

[fhansen]

If you are trying to draw a distinction between works of the law, and works of love, this is a false distinction that is not supported in scripture. It is the OT law that establishes what it means to love one’s neighbor.

Yes, but it doesn’t give us the means to actually do it, such that for most people works of the law had been a merely mechanical or legalistic process, and still can be as humans easily tend towards legalism. But God wants much more for us than that even as He’s very patient in realizing it-realizing true justice- in us. Under the New Covenant, where immediate knowledge of/communion with God is the order of the day, the authentic means to obedience is finally available-the right way. And this is why the Catholic Church teaches that the Old Covenant, while now obsolete, was not revoked. It’s simply superseded by a new and better one, one that can actually accomplish what the old could not. Man is still obligated to be righteous-which is why Jesus tells us that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. And this can “easily” be accomplished- but only to the extent that we love, that we do what they failed to do, because love fulfills the law by its nature. Satan would be quite happy and getting his way if the Christian faith is seen to amount to freedom from that obligation. Fortunately most Protestants understand this intuitively-and so live as if their moral behavior does impact their salvation regardless of their formal theology.

Another interesting innovation, divorcing salvation from justification. Hadn’t seen that one before. Also false. If you look at the next paragraph Paul is speaking explicitly in judicial terms and referring back to justification. And his conclusion is that since you are a sinner, you are condemned by the law rather than justified by it. You keep trying to say Paul is telling you that you are justified by your works, but you keep missing the fact that Paul is saying that your works miss all of the criteria laid out in vs. 10. He says this explicitly in Romans 3 vs 1-20. His entire point is that because you are a sinner, the law condemns you. Period. Full Stop. End of Story. You are justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Faith doesn’t justify us as if it, itself, is the essence of justice or righteousness for man, rather God justifies us-makes us just-in response to faith, as a result of faith and the communion with Him that it establishes. And, yes, while justification and salvation are not the same, they are also not separable; if one exists in a justified state they are ipso facto eligible for entrance into heaven.

 

[Hodos]

Yes, but it doesn’t give us the means to actually do it,

This is exactly what we preach, teach and confess. Your argument above however, assumes that you ARE justified by the law. Paul says you aren’t, which is why you must be justified by faith. However, again, the law still stands. Not for the purpose of justification, as Paul has already stated. The law stands to convict us of sin and turn us to Christ, and in our new life in Christ, to act as a guide to show us how we are to love our neighbor. But Paul affirms in Chapter 7 we still struggle with the sinful flesh throughout our lives as believers. At no point as a Christian will you ever be justified by works. You will only ever be justified by faith. Paul affirms this in Romans Chapter 8.

Fortunately most Protestants understand this intuitively-and so live as if their moral behavior does impact their salvation regardless of their formal theology.

No, this would be a completely misunderstood way of understanding justification and salvation. Again, you are making your salvation about you and your works. We are justified by faith. That being said, I am no longer a slave to sin, I am a slave to righteousness. Not because I have achieved righteousness, but because in his grace and by his blood I am declared righteous through faith in Christ. I want to obey Christ, and so that law becomes my guide to show me how I might be conformed to Christ. This is the result of justification, that through the Holy Spirit I am constantly being sanctified through proclamation of both law and gospel, and my faith is strengthened through the administration of the sacraments.

Faith doesn’t justify us as if it, itself, is the essence of justice or righteousness for man, rather God justifies us-makes us just-in response to faith, as a result of faith and the communion with Him that it establishes.

I am not quite certain what you are saying here. Sorry for the confusion. I don’t know what you mean by essence of justice or righteousness. All I know, is that I am not just, or righteous. Christ is both of those things. It is his righteousness that is credited to me through faith.

The bottom line is that our confessions maintain the critical distinction between justification and sanctification (justification being the means by which we are saved, sanctification being the result), and yet holds both of these together. You should be familiar with that concept of making distinctions while holding things together. After all, that is how we understand the Trinity, is it not?

 

[fhansen]

This is exactly what we preach, teach and confess. Your argument above however, assumes that you ARE justified by the law.

No, my argument asserts that we’re justified by love, which fulfills the law. You said this:

It is the OT law that establishes what it means to love one’s neighbor.

I said this:

Yes, but it doesn’t give us the means to actually do it…

Love is justice for man, the full consummation of it, which is why the Greatest Commandments are what they are. And the entire bible is screaming, from Genesis to Revelation, that man needs God, and needs to be obedient to God, and that will never come about in any meaningful and valid way until man loves Him with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. Again, faith is not the replacement for lawfulness nor the definition of righteous for man as if it all centers on and ends with faith, but rather is the means to righteousness because its the means to fellowship with God. In this way we don’t need to revise or reinterpret verses such as Rom 2:7 or 2:13; they stand on their own as written.

No, this would be a completely misunderstood way of understanding justification and salvation.

Not at all, but either way I’d submit that the majority of Protestants are conscious of the fact that what they do counts-that breaking the law is not only wrong but can place their eternal destiny in jeopardy. That’s really the bottom-line.

The difference between the Old and New Covenants is not that man is no longer bound to obedience/righteousness, but that he’s now “under grace” rather than “under the Law”. This means that he’s now united to God and can live by the Spirit rather than by the flesh-and so finally obey with the benefit of having the Spirit, rather than attempting to fulfill the law on his own, apart from God, unchanged and not newly created as it were. “Apart from Me you can do nothing”, is the mantra of the New Covenant.

Forgiveness is a beautiful and critical aspect of it, but it’s never been intended to stay only there. If justice isn’t actually restored to God’s creation by Christ’s sacrificial act which has the purpose of reconciling man with God, if the process of light overcoming darkness hasn’t truly begun, then justice is suddenly being ignored instead via the work of Christ, which is what the doctrine of sola fide effectively insists is happening. We cannot separate justification from man’s actually being made just, or else shades of Isaiah 5:20 should begin ringing in sane people’s minds. Sanctification is not some sort of side-benefit but is essential- and part and parcel of the process from day one of conversion.

continued:

 

[fhansen]

Not because I have achieved righteousness, but because in his grace and by his blood I am declared righteous through faith in Christ. I want to obey Christ, and so that law becomes my guide to show me how I might be conformed to Christ.

This is confused. I’m declared righteous but am not righteous but I want to do the right thing anyway and the law still serves to show me what to do (which I agree with), and presumably I can actually do it through Christ who strengthens me? (That last thought is the meaning of Rom 7:25 BTW). But it doesn’t really matter so long as I have faith? And I might not overcome sin at all, but, oh well, God doesn’t really care about that anymore? Or maybe sin in my life means I really don’t have faith after all? Or maybe I can sin a certain amount but what about if I commit murder? But I wouldn’t do that if I’m a believer even though faith has nothing directly to do with being sinless or effecting sinlessness. Or sinlessness is just some sort of side-benefit except that I still sin and it doesn’t matter how much I sin because the only standard for my justification is faith and all sin is forgiven for believers. Those are all thoughts expressed by many Protestants when conversing with them on other forums.

The real standard in Christianity is love. Such that the Christian Church actually teaches, “At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love.” Again, many Protestants at least live as if this is true. Until their theology aligns with this understanding, however, then their formal beliefs are not conformed to the gospel. Either way, God is not selfish with righteousness; He wants us to possess and participate in it too. He never created man to be a sinner after all and from the larger perspective the story of the Fall of man until now is the story of God patiently molding and perfecting His creation, into something much grander and more beautiful than He began with. We at least need to now be on the path of that “journey to perfection” as the Church puts it, making strides in becoming who we were created to be in the overall sense due to our fellowship with God, made possible through faith.

I am not quite certain what you are saying here. Sorry for the confusion. I don’t know what you mean by essence of justice or righteousness. All I know, is that I am not just, or righteous. Christ is both of those things. It is his righteousness that is credited to me through faith.

Some commentators seem to suggest that faith is righteousness for man, such that the presence of faith makes us just or righteous in the eyes of God, while others maintain that it excuses genuine righteousness or stands in for it. In some manner or another faith must effect something in order for God to be pleased with it. And the idea that strictly faith in the work of Christ somehow justifies us is a shallow or partial understanding of the matter.

almost done:

 

[fhansen]

The bottom line is that our confessions maintain the critical distinction between justification and sanctification (justification being the means by which we are saved, sanctification being the result), and yet holds both of these together. You should be familiar with that concept of making distinctions while holding things together. After all, that is how we understand the Trinity, is it not?

The Trinity is more difficult to understand from a logical standpoint. The other not so; the differences in distinctions are a matter of proper or improper understanding. Bottom line: man will always be obligated to be righteous; no sinners enter heaven as Scripture tells us. And only with God is this possible. That’s the real issue at hand. Man (Adam) thought he could basically do without God. We’re here now to learn otherwise, so that we may come home from our exile into a foreign land where man is enslaved by the sin that separated him from God to begin with, and caused his death.

 

[Hodos]

No, my argument asserts that we’re justified by love,

Which Paul specifically rules out in numerous places.

Yes, but it doesn’t give us the means to actually do it…

Which is precisely why the Savior came. He is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Again, faith is not the replacement for lawfulness

No one said that it is. Paul specifically stated that you are unrighteous, that your mouth should be closed with no defense and are accountable to God because by works of the Law no flesh will be justified in his sight. Your love tainted by sin is insufficient to merit justification under the law before God. That is Paul’s point. You are justified by faith apart from works. Again, no one is saying that works are not a part of the Christian life. They are. We are saying that your works do not result in your justification. You are justified from faith unto faith as Paul says.

In this way we don’t need to revise or reinterpret verses such as Rom 2:7 or 2:13; they stand on their own as written.

No they don’t stand alone. They are part of a logical argument and flow from what came before it, and move the argument to what comes after it. And the point that Paul made is that the Jews who have received God’s law are equally condemned by it, because they are sinners. That is the context for both those verses.

 

[Hodos]

Not at all, but either way I’d submit that the majority of Protestants are conscious of the fact that what they do counts-that breaking the law is not only wrong but can place their eternal destiny in jeopardy.

That was never an argument. I have already stated multiple times that what we do counts, that God’s law has a role. It just happens that the role of the law is not to justify you before God because you are a sinner. Lest you misunderstand, here are paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Augsburg Confession which explain the roles of faith and works. You will note that we believe works are necessary to Christian life.

IV. Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for [2]](http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article4.2) Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. [3]](http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article4.3) This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

VI. Also they teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God, because of God’s will, but that we should not rely on those works to merit justification [2]](http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article6.2) before God. For remission of sins and justification is apprehended by faith, as also the voice of Christ attests: When ye shall have done all these things, say: We are unprofitable servants. Luke 17:10. The same is also taught by [3]](http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article6.3) the Fathers. For Ambrose says: It is ordained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved, freely receiving remission of sins, without works, by faith alone.

Again, we maintain the scriptural distinction made between justification and sanctification, yet hold the two together.

 

[Hodos]

The difference between the Old and New Covenants is not that man is no longer bound to obedience/righteousness, but that he’s now “under grace” rather than “under the Law”.

I agree with this wholeheartedly so long as you maintain that you are not justified by your new obedience, but through faith. The new obedience again is described as the result of justification, not the cause of your justification.

Forgiveness is a beautiful and critical aspect of it, but it’s never been intended to stay only there.

No one said that was the case. Christ has promised to return and redeem all things as we see in Romans 8:18-35. Until then Christ continues to intercede on our behalf. You seem to labor under the idea that saying that we continue to require forgiveness and justification by faith precludes that we should be obedient to God’s commands. No one is making that argument. Rather, we recognize as Paul does in Chapter 7 that sin still lives in our flesh, we continue to need Christ’s forgiveness, we are called to obedience, and we look with hope to the day our Savior will return and all of creation will be put aright.

This is confused.

I think you are confused. You ALREADY recognize the truth of this. Do you not avail yourself of the sacrament of reconciliation? Again, no one is saying that sin is not a big deal. On the contrary, its a huge deal. You are dead in sin. It is Christ who defeated sin. Recognizing the fact that we sin, and require ongoing forgiveness and intercession by our Savior is not making light of sin. It is proclaiming what the apostle Paul has already told us. Otherwise, what is the point of Confession and Absolution?

Some commentators

When you are addressing those commentators, feel free to address their points. I have no need to defend poorly worded statements of either strangers or strawmen.

The Trinity is more difficult to understand from a logical standpoint. The other not so;

You say that, but I keep seeing confusion of categories where scriptural distinctions are collapsed upon themselves resulting in error.

 

[Gorgias]

I have heard this attempt to make a distinction between works and works of the law and it falls completely flat on its face, time and time again. Paul is speaking to both Jews and Gentiles.

Yes, but he speaks to them in terms of particular experiences.

When the Gentiles are being commended for following the law in Chapter 2, he is not referring to the ceremonial law. Gentiles don’t observe it.

That’s a nice attempt, but it would make his statement in v12 about “All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it” meaningless. After all, aren’t all of us under the requirements of moral law? So, you have to pick a law that some are under and others are not – you know, like the Mosaic Law?

And, in Chapter 3, Paul says that the law is still applicable, although not for the purpose of justification.

sigh… so, do we need any more proof that this means “Mosaic Law”?!?

If you are trying to draw a distinction between works of the law, and works of love, this is a false distinction that is not supported in scripture.

Except that… you just completely demonstrated that this is precisely the distinction here!

Another interesting innovation, divorcing salvation from justification. Hadn’t seen that one before.

I find that hard to believe

You keep trying to say Paul is telling you that you are justified by your works

No, I’m not. Justification is by grace alone. Our process of sanctification – which leads to salvation – includes our active acceptance of God’s gift, through our acts (whose merit belongs to Jesus, and which he shares with us).

I think it would do you good rather than attempting to prooftext from one verse divorced from the rest of the context of the book.

I might make a similar suggestion to you; but, I would ask that you build your theology from Jesus’ statements in the Gospel.

 

[Hodos]

Yes, but he speaks to them in terms of particular experiences.

Not sure what you even mean by this. Paul’s argument is a general argument about both groups, not particular individuals.

That’s a nice attempt, but it would make his statement in v12 about “All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it”

Yeah, those who sin outside the law will perish nonetheless. Those who are under the law will be judged by it. The result being both groups perish.

After all, aren’t all of us under the requirements of moral law?

Yes, this is why Paul later says that when the Gentiles do by nature (notice he isn’t speaking of the ceremonial laws such as circumcision or the temple sacrifices) the things of the law, they are a law unto themselves. In other words, though they don’t have the revelation of the law that the Jews have received, they prove that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts. This is why both groups are without excuse before God.

sigh… so, do we need any more proof that this means “Mosaic Law”?!?

Again, quite the opposite. Because Paul never states that the Gentiles are subject to the ceremonial requirements of the law, In fact, in this very same letter Paul addresses some of these requirements (Chapter 14) affirming that the Gentiles are not to judge the Jews for following the dietary restrictions of the Sinai covenant. Paul is making a more broad use when saying that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Except that… you just completely demonstrated that this is precisely the distinction here!

Nope. I demonstrated that you are drawing a false distinction by saying that the Old Testament law is not a law of love. It is in the OT law that we are told specifically to love God with your whole heart, mind, soul, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. The OT was always meant to be followed in love and demonstrates for us what it means to love one’s neighbor. And it is this law that Christ upholds and uses to correct the teachings of his contemporaries.

I find that hard to believe

No, its quite novel.

No, I’m not.

Well that response was to a different user. Are you saying that you are operating under multiple user names?

Justification is by grace alone.

Glad you have finally come around. I particularly appreciate that you used the Sola Gratia construction.

I might make a similar suggestion to you; but, I would ask that you build your theology from Jesus’ statements in the Gospel.

Done!

All that being said, I wish you a Happy Easter. He is Risen!