How to get to heaven

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcdurel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No it doesn’t Ryan. It says they escaped the defilement (pollution) of the world (that’s external) "by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." That describes the mere religious man to a tee.

But these particular men are described as “false teachers” that rise up from among the saints who even deny the doctrine of redemption through the shed blood of Christ handed down by the Apostles (1 Pet. 2:1). They’re “springs without water, and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved” (vs. 17). And Peter describes their true nature vividly in vs. 22: Dogs that return to their own vomit, and pigs after washing that return to wallowing in the mire. Their true nature eventually comes through. Yet, sadly, many still follow them.
It specifically says the false teachers were ransomed by Christ and then become false teachers who brought destruction on themselves.

There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves. (2 Pet 2:1)

What does it mean to be ransomed by Christ?
What does it mean to be destroyed after being ransomed?
 
It specifically says the false teachers were ransomed by Christ and then become false teachers who brought destruction on themselves.

There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves. (2 Pet 2:1)

What does it mean to be ransomed by Christ?
What does it mean to be destroyed after being ransomed?
What does it mean to “deny?” One is not ransomed if he denies the One who bought him. These false teachers deny the doctrine of redemption, even denying the Master Himself who accomplished the work of redemption on their behalf. The work of Christ’s redemption is not applied until one actually believes. These are unbelievers who, though externally religious, have never been redeemed, much less spiritually regenerated. They have knowledge of the Lord only (religious - even water baptized), but have never personally believed unto salvation, have never experienced regeneration.

Jesus tells us of the prodigal son who, as a son, returns to his father. Peter tells us of the prodigal pig which, after washing (externally), according to his true nature, returns to wallowing in the mire - like a dog, according to its true nature, returns to its own vomit.
 
Gal 3:24 ôste o nomos paidagôgos êmôn gegonen eis christon ina ek pisteôs dikaiôthômen
Gal 3:24Therefore the Law has become our tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.”“O nomos” is “the Law” (referring directly to the Mosaic Law, including the 10 Commandments). The “o” is the definite article.

Now compare this to the following verse:Rom 3:28 logizometha a=gar tsb=oun tsb=pistei dikaiousthai a=pistei anthrôpon chôris ergôn nomou
Rom 3:28
"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law"“Ergon” is the Greek word for “works,” “labor” (it’s not a definite article). “Nomou” is the Greek word for “of law.” Translated “works of law.” NO DEFINITE ARTICLE. And with no definite article it means the principle of law. It’s not restricted to the Mosaic Law, but means ANY law principle. IOW, “apart from works” - period. It’s what Biblical soteriology is all about. It’s all about the exercise of DIVINE GRACE through faith in Christ.

The verse you cite, Rom. 3:28, the Greek, “ergon nomou” does not have the definite article.Rom 3:28 “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (ergon nomou).Same for all the other verses you cite. Sadly, most of the English translations get it wrong by inserting “the” where there’s no definite article and translate it theologically, not literally.

The Apostolic teaching maintains that a man is justified BY FAITH “apart from works of law,” i.e., any law principle, which means WORKS, any works. Strictly “by grace.” But this is repulsive to you, isn’t it?
No it is not repulsive to me. I actually agree with most of what you are saying. Faith is the root of justification, and that faith excludes “works of law.” But Paul does not teach that faith excluded other kinds of work. So what I disagree with is when you say “any works”.

“Works of the law” refer to any legal system that makes God our debtor (including the Mosaic law). They do not refer to good works done in grace with faith in Christ. Works of law require payment, but grace is a free gift from God. Therefore, faith must be behind every good work in order for it to be a work of grace. If not, it is a work of debt, and we cannot obligate God to do anything for us.

calling to mind your work of faith and labor of love and endurance in hope of our Lord Jesus Christ, before our God and Father (1 Thes 1:3)

Paul does not exclude work of faith.
Nowhere does Paul teach that men are justified by “the law of Christ.” The justified by faith are “under” the law of Christ, which calls for the brethren to love one another. But they’re not saved nor justified by it.
Then what law is Paul talking about here?

For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. (Rom 2:3)
You Catholics always take James completely out of context. We’ve been through this too many times before to go all over it again.
If I remember correctly, James was always avoided instead of getting to the bottom of what he is saying.

See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

Paul uses the same workd for justification in regard to Abraham.

Indeed, if Abraham was justified on the basis of his works, he has reason to boast; but this was not so in the sight of God.(Rom 2:4)

The difference is what sort of “works” they are talking about.
For justification/salvation you are.That’s like saying “There’s more to a gift than you realize, you have to work for it too.”
Here’s the Pauline principle found throughout his Epistles:Rom 11:6 “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”
Eternal life is a free gift from God. I’m not arguing against that. I agree we cannot obligate God to pay us for our works; otherwise, we are in a system of law, not a system of grace. We are in a Father/child covenant relationship with God, and He will reward us for being faithful. That is a big difference from thinking we are in a debtor/creditor relationship with Him.

because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the spirit will reap eternal life from the spirit. Let us not grow tired of doing good, for in due time we shall reap our harvest, if we do not give up. (Gal 6:8-9)

The earnings referred to here are from God’s grace. It is a free gift, not an obligation. Our relationship with God is Father/son and daughter, not employer/employee.
 
What does it mean to “deny?”
It means something like refusing to accept him or saying he is not true.
One is not ransomed if he denies the One who bought him. These false teachers deny the doctrine of redemption, even denying the Master Himself who accomplished the work of redemption on their behalf. The work of Christ’s redemption is not applied until one actually believes. These are unbelievers who, though externally religious, have never been redeemed, much less spiritually regenerated. They have knowledge of the Lord only (religious - even water baptized), but have never personally believed unto salvation, have never experienced regeneration.
Deal with the text please. It says that the Jesus ransomed them. What does that mean?
 
Based on the character of the father there is no way the son would have ever been cut off from his father’s love.
Yes and no. The father always loved the son, but what good was that reality while the son had separated himself from the father? It was of no practical significance. He was, as Scripture reveals through the father’s lips, “dead”.
At his lowest point the son knew he could go back to his father and be received.
Yes, he had to choose to return to the father in order to “be received”.
And when he did go back he was received with infinite grace, far beyond his expectation.
Correct, the “infinite grace” that the father had to offer, wanted to offer, required that he go back.
The father/son relationship never changed, never diminished, was never in jeopardy.
This is where you are completely at odds with the actual parable. While the son was away the “father/son” relationship was a relationship in name only. That is because a true relationship requires the desire of BOTH participants, and the son wanted nothing to do with the father. The father/son relationship was almost entirely diminished. You are correct, however, that all that remained of it was the father’s love for the son, and that is a no small thing.
The son had only an earthly inheritance which he squandered, but the true, born again, believer (adopted by the Father) has a heavenly inheritance which is “reserved” there for him, and “will not fade away” (1 Pet. 1:3-5).
This is you reading your theology into the parable. Nowhere in the parable is there the idea that if the son had not repented he would have received an inheritance that would not have faded away. The Father is always waiting for repentance but we must do the repenting.
Does such grace (unmerited favor), demonstrated by the father toward his son, feel repulsive to you, Phil?
Not at all! It is comforting…why would you think it would feel repulsive to me? Under no conditions are we worthy of such love by the father. The fact that he has established such minimal conditions (faith, love, repentance, forgiveness) in order to inherit his kingdom and enjoy the true, complete fulfillment of every desire for all eternity is hardly grounds for repulsion. Does it repulse you that God, in his sovereignty, established conditions to inherit his kingdom? :hmmm:
 
Where does Paul say to the believer who has been washed, sanctified and justified (reckoned righteous) in the name of Christ, that he can be made unrighteous. Be specific, please.
He says it in verses 9. If they become decieved and revert to those behaviors they will be unjust. He says the same thing here.

**but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again? (Gal 4:9)

For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery. (Gal 5:1)**
 
Is this really happening?! I provided a brief analysis of Gal 5 for the thread and it was ignored…here it is again MD if you care to address it…

This letter was specifically written to “believers” who were stumbling in their walk and in so doing were, in Paul’s estimation, placing their salvation into jeopardy. No doubt you disagree, and you will likely first claim that the Galatians Paul is writing to were not actually believers. Can that position really be maintained? I will simply present what Paul says in his letter regarding their salvific status:
3:2Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Conclusion: Pauls rhetorical way of saying that they had received the Spirit by hearing with faith: aka they were "saved(received the Spirit) believers (heard with faith)
3:27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Conclusion: they had “put on Christ” - they had received Him into themselves, they were joined to him, united with him. They are members of the body of Christ.
So they were saved believers, justified by faith and, therefore (according to your “will not be judged” verses) exempt from judgement. And yet, as you point out, they were “deceived and were seeking the principle of law rather than GRACE:” And what does Paul say to these folks??
5:1For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Conclusions: they had been “set free” from sin by grace through faith, and had abandoned attempts to be justified by the law (do not submit AGAIN) and were being misled into resubmitting to the law.
5:2-5Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; **you have fallen away from grace. **
Conclusions:
Paul is still speaking to those who were “set free” by Christ and he says that if they accept circumcision, then Christ will be no advantage to them (ie, they will not be saved since salvation is impossible apart from Christ).
They were members of Christ’s body, otherwise they could not be “severed from Christ”. To be severed from Christ means you had to have been joined to Christ at some point. This point is further confirmed in Pauls statement that they had “fallen away from grace” Fallen in biblical contexts always refers to a movement from a state of grace to one apart from grace. Adam and Eve “fell”, for example, when they sinned.

So, what are we left with? We are left with the reality that saved believers can “fall from grace”, be severed from Christ and lose all the benefit of Christ. Some of those benefits that can be lost are: not coming “under condemnation”, not being judged, and passing from death to life. This reality is directly at odds with several of your theological positions presented on this thread.
Blessings! __________________
 
No it is not repulsive to me. I actually agree with most of what you are saying. Faith is the root of justification, and that faith excludes “works of law.” But Paul does not teach that faith excluded other kinds of work. So what I disagree with is when you say “any works”.

“Works of the law” refer to any legal system that makes God our debtor (including the Mosaic law). They do not refer to good works done in grace with faith in Christ.
So, then you’re saying “works done in grace” lead one to Divine justification?
Works of law require payment, but grace is a free gift from God.
I certainly see where salvation is a free of God (Eph. 2:8-9), and justification (Rom. 3:24), and eternal life (Rom. 6:23), but could you show me the Scripture that states “grace” is a free gift of God? I know, according to the Scriptures, God Himself is the One who saves BY grace THROUGH faith, but where do you find the teaching, or even the concept, of grace being a “gift” of God. According to the Scriptures it’s the means by which He saves (unmerited favor) those who believe in Christ, but it’s the salvation itself that’s stated to be the gift. “Grace” and “gift” are complementary. Whereas “grace” and “works” are an oxymoron (Rom. 11:6).
Therefore, faith must be behind every good work in order for it to be a work of grace.
I know that the saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) are “created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph. 2:10), but I don’t see the phrase “work of grace” used anywhere in Scripture. I know that God by an act of grace saves the believer in Christ, and that that salvation is through faith, gifted, and “not as a result of works” (which makes it an act of GRACE), but “works of grace” I cannot find in Scripture.

So tell me, Ryan. What is the purpose of these “works of grace?” How do they contribute to one’s salvation, and can one be saved without them?
calling to mind your work of faith and labor of love and endurance in hope of our Lord Jesus Christ, before our God and Father (1 Thes 1:3)
Paul does not exclude work of faith.
Paul, of course, is addressing the saved here. In his soteriology he does exclude works FOR salvation: “…not as a result of works.”
We are in a Father/child covenant relationship with God,
Can you show where this Father/child “covenant” is stated in Scripture. I’ll need the actual words of this “covenant.”
and He will reward us for being faithful.
Faithful to what, and what is the “reward?”
because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the spirit will reap eternal life from the spirit. Let us not grow tired of doing good, for in due time we shall reap our harvest, if we do not give up. (Gal 6:8-9) The earnings referred to here are from God’s grace.
I don’t see the word grace in this passage at all.
It is a free gift, not an obligation.
What is it you’re saying is the “free gift?”
Our relationship with God is Father/son and daughter, not employer/employee.
And how did you enter into that relationship, Ryan? How fragile it it?
 
Is this really happening?! I provided a brief analysis of Gal 5 for the thread and it was ignored…here it is again MD if you care to address it…

So, what are we left with? We are left with the reality that saved believers can “fall from grace”, be severed from Christ and lose all the benefit of Christ. Some of those benefits that can be lost are: not coming “under condemnation”, not being judged, and passing from death to life. This reality is directly at odds with several of your theological positions presented on this threadI already addressed your interpretation of “fall from grace” in another thread. But you dismissed it. I’ll let you be content to live in your own “reality,” Phil.

Have you ever read Luther’s commentary on the Book of Galatians, Phil? What commentaries have you read on that Book?
 
I already addressed your interpretation of “fall from grace” in another thread. But you dismissed it. I’ll let you be content to live in your own “reality,” Phil. Have you ever read Luther’s commentary on the Book of Galatians, Phil? What commentaries have you read on that Book?
You commented on it in another thread? This year? Gotta link by any chance?
Why didnt you say that in the first place? Instead of injecting this…

MD post 67 said:
Secondly, I didn’t respond to your post because I felt that you were not actually challenging me, but rather the words of Christ Himself in Jn. 3:14-18 & 5:24. Your post seemed to be more of an expression of your own disbelief in the words of Christ concerning Himself and the one who believes in Him. Your problem lies with Christ’s words, not mine.

I have not read Luther’s commentary at all. At least not that Im aware of. In fact I dont recall reading any specific commentary on the book of Galatians except brief commentaries from various apologetics books and comments within the translation I happen to be reading (usually NAB). Why do you ask? Do the words of Scripture not stand for themselves? 😉
 
You commented on it in another thread? This year? Gotta link by any chance?It was on this thread. It was short but to the point. Here it is:As for the whole Galatians thing, Phil, Galatia was a region and in it were several churches. Some had “fallen from grace” in that they adopted a false “gospel” of works. They listened to the false teachings of the Judaizers which called for merit on their part. The introduction of error, Paul explains, is like leaven. It begins to permeate the whole loaf and you end up with something completely different than what you started out with (Gal. 5:8-9). Works distorts and eventually destroys the gospel of God’s grace; apostasy takes hold, and Christ is of no benefit to anyone. Paul’s letter was written to try to circumvent such apostasy in that region (read Gal. 1:6-9). Today that region is almost all Muslim, a works religion, and Christ benefits no one.The point being, to “fall from grace” does not mean for an individual to lose one’s salvation, but rather for churches to lose the true gospel message of God’s grace toward us through Jesus Christ alone. When apostasy sets in (permeates) completely, a church is then “severed from Christ.” Christ (and God’s grace through faith in Him) is gone and, consequently, He is of no benefit to anyone. The true gospel has been silenced and salvation nonexistent.

It begins with the introduction of error (leaven), which, like leaven, then permeates and distorts all sound doctrine. In the case of the Galatian churches it was the introduction of a false, works based, “gospel.” Paul’s warning concerning apostasy to those churches is still to be heeded to this day (Gal. 1:6-10; cf. 2 Cor. 11:4).
I have not read Luther’s commentary at all. At least not that Im aware of. In fact I dont recall reading any specific commentary on the book of Galatians except brief commentaries from various apologetics books and comments within the translation I happen to be reading (usually NAB). Why do you ask? Do the words of Scripture not stand for themselves?
 
So, then you’re saying “works done in grace” lead one to Divine justification?I certainly see where salvation is a free of God (Eph. 2:8-9), and justification (Rom. 3:24), and eternal life (Rom. 6:23), but could you show me the Scripture that states “grace” is a free gift of God? I know, according to the Scriptures, God Himself is the One who saves BY grace THROUGH faith, but where do you find the teaching, or even the concept, of grace being a “gift” of God. According to the Scriptures it’s the means by which He saves (unmerited favor) those who believe in Christ, but it’s the salvation itself that’s stated to be the gift. “Grace” and “gift” are complementary. Whereas “grace” and “works” are an oxymoron (Rom. 11:6).I know that the saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) are “created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph. 2:10), but I don’t see the phrase “work of grace” used anywhere in Scripture. I know that God by an act of grace saves the believer in Christ, and that that salvation is through faith, gifted, and “not as a result of works” (which makes it an act of GRACE), but “works of grace” I cannot find in Scripture.

So tell me, Ryan. What is the purpose of these “works of grace?” How do they contribute to one’s salvation, and can one be saved without them?Paul, of course, is addressing the saved here. In his soteriology he does exclude works FOR salvation: "…not as a result of works."Can you show where this Father/child “covenant” is stated in Scripture. I’ll need the actual words of this "covenant."Faithful to what, and what is the "reward?"I don’t see the word grace in this passage at all.What is it you’re saying is the "free gift?"And how did you enter into that relationship, Ryan? How fragile it it?
I’ve answered most all of your questions to the best of my ability and I don’t mind answering these questions either. Would you be kind enough to answering this one question I asked first?
What law is Paul talking about here?

For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. (Rom 2:3)
 
It was on this thread. It was short but to the point. Here it is:As for the whole Galatians thing, Phil, Galatia was a region and in it were several churches. Some had “fallen from grace” in that they adopted a false “gospel” of works. They listened to the false teachings of the Judaizers which called for merit on their part. The introduction of error, Paul explains, is like leaven. It begins to permeate the whole loaf and you end up with something completely different than what you started out with (Gal. 5:8-9). Works distorts and eventually destroys the gospel of God’s grace; apostasy takes hold, and Christ is of no benefit to anyone. Paul’s letter was written to try to circumvent such apostasy in that region (read Gal. 1:6-9). Today that region is almost all Muslim, a works religion, and Christ benefits no one.
Thank you! I thought you meant another thread…
The point being, to “fall from grace” does not mean for an individual to lose one’s salvation, but rather for churches to lose the true gospel message of God’s grace toward us through Jesus Christ alone. When apostasy sets in (permeates) completely, a church is then “severed from Christ.” Christ (and God’s grace through faith in Him) is gone and, consequently, He is of no benefit to anyone. The true gospel has been silenced and salvation nonexistent.
While this explanation has some merit it simply doesnt warrant the terms “fall from grace” and “severed from Christ” to refer to the churches as an entity distinct from the individuals who were preaching a false gospel. It does not harmonize at all with the other condemnations that he specifically identifies with individuals:

Gal 5:2-3 I testify again*** to every man*** who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

He is talking to individuals, MD, not some generic church or churches. Your interpretation would have us believe htat he is, in using the term “to every man” actually speaking to “the church”. It really requires a little leaven to arrive at such an interpretation, IMHO. It is an interpretation that must be forced upon the text because it simply isnt there.
Would you ever consider reading Luther’s commentary on that Epistle?
Sure - if it isnt too long.
 
I’ve answered most all of your questions to the best of my ability and I don’t mind answering these questions either. Would you be kind enough to answering this one question I asked first?

What law is Paul talking about here?

For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. (Rom 2:13)
He’s talking about the Mosaic Law in 2:13, which includes the 10 Commandments (the Decalogue). Verse 13 specifically refers to Jews who were under the Law. But what Paul is saying in that verse doesn’t enhance your argument for works - of any sort - as a Divine means of justification. That’s not at all what Paul is teaching there. He’s making a statement but his issue is with SIN and the SINNER (both Jews and Gentiles). How can a sinner (under law or not under law) be justified before God?Rom 2:12-13 "For all who sinned without law (anomôs) will also perish without law (anomôs), and all who sinned under law (Gr. “in law,” *en nomô) will be judged by law (dia nomou); for {it is} not the hearers of the Law (tau nomau, definite article) {who} are just before God, but the doers of the Law (tau nomau) will be justified.*Paul is making a statement, but he is in no way stating here that justification for sinners (all men are) comes through law obedience, of any kind, either the principle of law (works), or the Mosaic Law itself.

In chapters one and two Paul is building his case that ALL (Gentiles without law, and Jews under the Law) are sinners before God; both are charged to be “under sin,” as stated in the following chapter:“for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin” (Rom. 3:9b)The Divine indictment is found in Rom. 3:10-18 - read it.

Romans 2:13 is NOT Paul’s gospel message, Ryan. It’s “BAD NEWS.” Whereas the gospel of Christ is (good news), and begins in chapter three (you must read on). Paul’s gospel has to do with faith in Christ and Divine justification gifted * to the sinner by faith* alone through Christ’s redemptive work alone (Rom. 3:24). The doctrinal statement Paul delivers by letter to the church at Rome is that there is a Divine justification gifted by God that is completely "APART FROM (the principle of) law (Rom. 3:21), available through faith alone to ALL who have been charged to be under sin (i.e., sinners).

The doctrinal issue in Romans chapters one through five is, how are SINNERS to be justified before God? The answer Paul provides is that it’s Divinely gifted by faith alone in Christ alone.

You cannot possibly understand Paul’s letter to the church at Rome by stopping at 2:13. In fact you distort it. Paul didn’t stop there, so neither should you.

The intent of the Law was never to justify anyone (never could). Paul’s teaching on this is crystal clear:Rom 3:20 “…because by the works of law (ergôn nomou, no definite article - any law/merit) no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through law (gar nomou, no definite article) {comes} the knowledge of sin” (i.e., the knowledge that one is truly a sinner via transgression of Commandments)Law only testifies to the fact that you are a sinner. ALL are sinners. NONE are righteous before God. It doesn’t matter how many “good works” one might accomplish in his life. No man can be justified before God on the principle of law/works.

Here is what Paul was leading to in chapters one and two:Rom 3:21-24 “But now apart from law (no definite article) {the} righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law (tau nomau) and the Prophets, even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all sinned and (continually) *fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;”*He elaborates on this justification by faith alone doctrine in chapters four and five even using Abraham, who was born before the Law, and David who was born under the Law. Both blessed by being reckoned righteousness by God “apart from works” (Rom. 4:6). In respect to Abraham Paul could not have been referring to works of “the Law,” since Abraham lived over 400 years prior to “the Law.”

Paul’s teaching to the church at Rome concerning justification by faith alone in Christ alone is very clear, indeed. It’s what Christianity is all about. I do find it ironic that Paul’s greatest teaching on justification by faith is found in his letter to the Roman church - the second being his letter to the Galatians (that region now being mostly all Muslim - a works religion). Herein lies the true tradition concerning Divine justification, preserved in theopneustos Holy Writ for all subsequent generations.
 
Thank you! I thought you meant another thread…
[/INDENT]
While this explanation has some merit it simply doesnt warrant the terms “fall from grace” and “severed from Christ” to refer to the churches as an entity distinct from the individuals who were preaching a false gospel. It does not harmonize at all with the other condemnations that he specifically identifies with individuals:

Gal 5:2-3 I testify again*** to every man*** who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
I don’t know what translation you’re using Phil, but here’s how it should read:

Point oneGal 5:3 "And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.Point two:Gal 5:4 "You have been severed from Christ (Who was?), you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."The gospel (good news) that men can be justified, given a new standing of righteousness before God by grace through faith in Christ, was preached in Galatia, believed, and churches were planted in that region.

But then along came the legalists and instead of believing on Christ some were "seeking to be justified by law (works). By seeking to be justified by law they were severed from Christ (He and His redemptive work were of no benefit to them), they had fallen from grace (the means by which God saves men through faith in Christ).

Those who were “seeking to be justified by law” (works) had never entered salvation since it’s by grace through faith in Christ…a gift of God, not as a result of works." Now the peril was that they were spreading a false doctrine within the churches in that region. The danger being that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (Gal. 5:9). Paul’s fear was complete apostasy.

Your confusion lies with your uniquely Catholic doctrine of one entering a “state of grace” at the time of water baptism. But that’s not where Paul is coming from. In fact, based on all his writings he knew of no such doctrine. It’s not Pauline. It’s not Biblical. It’s uniquely Catholic. So it is wrong to force that idea into the text and then interpret the text by it.
 
He’s talking about the Mosaic Law in 2:13, which includes the 10 Commandments (the Decalogue). Verse 13 specifically refers to Jews who were under the Law. But what Paul is saying in that verse doesn’t enhance your argument for works - of any sort - as a Divine means of justification. That’s not at all what Paul is teaching there. He’s making a statement but his issue is with SIN and the SINNER (both Jews and Gentiles). How can a sinner (under law or not under law) be justified before God?Rom 2:12-13 "For all who sinned without law (anomôs) will also perish without law (anomôs), and all who sinned under law (Gr. “in law,” en nomô) will be judged by law (dia nomou); for {it is} not the hearers of the Law (tau nomau, definite article) {who} are just before God, but the doers of the Law (tau nomau) will be justified.Paul is making a statement, but he is in no way stating here that justification for sinners (all men are) comes through law obedience, of any kind, either the principle of law (works), or the Mosaic Law itself.

In chapters one and two Paul is building his case that ALL (Gentiles without law, and Jews under the Law) are sinners before God; both are charged to be “under sin,” as stated in the following chapter:“for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin” (Rom. 3:9b)The Divine indictment is found in Rom. 3:10-18 - read it.

Romans 2:13 is NOT Paul’s gospel message, Ryan. It’s “BAD NEWS.” Whereas the gospel of Christ is (good news), and begins in chapter three (you must read on). Paul’s gospel has to do with faith in Christ and Divine justification gifted * to the sinner by faith* alone through Christ’s redemptive work alone (Rom. 3:24). The doctrinal statement Paul delivers by letter to the church at Rome is that there is a Divine justification gifted by God that is completely "APART FROM (the principle of) law (Rom. 3:21), available through faith alone to ALL who have been charged to be under sin (i.e., sinners).

The doctrinal issue in Romans chapters one through five is, how are SINNERS to be justified before God? The answer Paul provides is that it’s Divinely gifted by faith alone in Christ alone.

You cannot possibly understand Paul’s letter to the church at Rome by stopping at 2:13. In fact you distort it. Paul didn’t stop there, so neither should you.
You are 100% correct about justification coming by faith in Christ, and I’m not stopping at Rom 2:13. Initial justification takes place apart from any observance of the Law whatever. I will not discount or ignore Rom 2:13 however. Justification at the Last Judgment comes about after initial justification. Justification at the Last Judgment takes place apart from the ceremonial works of the Law, but not apart from observing the moral commandments of the Law which Christ fulfilled.

**By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. (Rom 2:5-8)

For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. (Rom 2:13)

Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?” He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Mt 19:16-17)**

Circumcision means nothing, and uncircumcision means nothing; what matters is keeping God’s commandments. (1 Cor 7:19)

See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)
 
The intent of the Law was never to justify anyone (never could). Paul’s teaching on this is crystal clear:Rom 3:20 “…because by the works of law (ergôn nomou, no definite article - any law/merit) no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through law (gar nomou, no definite article) {comes} the knowledge of sin” (i.e., the knowledge that one is truly a sinner via transgression of Commandments)Law only testifies to the fact that you are a sinner. ALL are sinners. NONE are righteous before God. It doesn’t matter how many “good works” one might accomplish in his life. No man can be justified before God on the principle of law/works.

Here is what Paul was leading to in chapters one and two:Rom 3:21-24 "But now apart from law (no definite article) {the} righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law (tau nomau) and the Prophets, even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all sinned and (continually) fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;"He elaborates on this justification by faith alone doctrine in chapters four and five even using Abraham, who was born before the Law, and David who was born under the Law. Both blessed by being reckoned righteousness by God “apart from works” (Rom. 4:6). In respect to Abraham Paul could not have been referring to works of “the Law,” since Abraham lived over 400 years prior to “the Law.”

Paul’s teaching to the church at Rome concerning justification by faith alone in Christ alone is very clear, indeed. It’s what Christianity is all about. I do find it ironic that Paul’s greatest teaching on justification by faith is found in his letter to the Roman church - the second being his letter to the Galatians (that region now being mostly all Muslim - a works religion). Herein lies the true tradition concerning Divine justification, preserved in theopneustos Holy Writ for all subsequent generations.
I know you don’t believe in initial and final justification but that is largely what it comes down to. Faith comes first. By our own efforts and works we can never merit initial justification. But no where in Scripture does it say that man is finally justified or saved by “faith alone”

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.” See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:21-24)

Faith comes first. Paul is emphasizing in Rom 4 that works must be done in faith, not outside of faith. If they are done outside of faith, we are in a system of debt (And it is impossible for God to owe us). If they are done in faith (as James requires), we are in a system of grace (God rewards us).

Paul accepts the works performed under God’s grace.

**eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works (Rom 2:7)

But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek. (Rom 2:7)

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (Rom 6:16)**
 
I know you don’t believe in initial and final justification
Your knowledge is correct. “Initial” justification is found nowhere in Scripture. That’s strictly a Catholic invention.
but that is largely what it comes down to.
What it comes down to is belief vs. unbelief in God’s Word.
Faith comes first. By our own efforts and works we can never merit initial justification. But no where in Scripture does it say that man is finally justified or saved by “faith alone”
Eph 2:8-9For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Rom 3:22-24 "…even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;“It’s LAW that came first. The purpose of the Law, according to the Scriptures was to:”…become our tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith" (Gal. 3:24).The word “initial” is never inserted and both salvation and justification (the latter being a part of the former) are revealed to be Divine gifts based on faith alone.

What it comes down to is belief or unbelief. Unbelief inserts the word “initial” and then hopes in works.
 
  • The thread is about how to get to Heaven (aka inheriting the kingdom of God) - not simply about being born again/being saved.
  • There is no Scripture that speaks of going to Heaven based on a moment of faith alone.
  • There are very clear Scriptures which speak of the final judgment separating those bound to inherit the kingdom( Heaven) from those bound for Hell by the good deeds they did in faith:
Matt 25:34-36 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger **and you **welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’
  • There are very clear Scriptures that warn “saved” believers that sinful patterns of behavior jeopardize their inheritance in the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9-10, Eph 5:5, Gal 5:20 and others)
  • And there are very clear Scriptures that place conditions on receiving complete forgiveness by God (Matt 6:14)
Its not that complicated really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top