Reconciling Romans 2:13 with the rest of New Testament

[Johan]

I know the Evangelical/Protestant answer to this question. I was just wondering how Catholics see it?

I am not entirely sure of what you refer to as the “Evangelical/Protestant answer”, but I thought I should chime in anyway. As I see it, there is a slight tone of sarcasm in Paul’s remark. Apparently, there are/were Jews who believed that they were righteous merely by possessing and listening to the Torah, akin to people we today might call “Sunday Christians”. Paul points out the obvious: if you intend to be righteous through the Law you actually need to keep it. That said, he later asserts that no one will be declared righteous through the Law. He even claims to be released from the Law (Rom. 7:6).

 

[lanman87]

Do you have any examples of an early Church Father who says that water baptism is
not necessary for salvation?

I’m not going to take the time to look up and examine the teaching of all the church fathers on baptism. It would be an interesting and informative experience to be sure but I have a life outside of discussing doctrine on message boards.

However, there is a former Catholic who is now a member of the Presbyterian Church of America who post a six part response to Called for Communions article The Church Father on Baptismal Regeneration

Here is a link to Part 1 if you are interested.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Which occurs in the rite of Baptism. If that appeal does not occur in the rite of Baptism because the individual does not have faith in the action of God, then it will not be done.

My point is that this “appeal to God” can occur apart from baptism. It is normative for this to happen before baptism and then baptism to occur because of this “appeal to God” The person is saved when they “appeal to God” not when they are baptized.

My first answer to this is:

That’s not what Scripture says.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The person is saved when they appeal to God AND are baptized.

I’d like to repeat it and break it down so:

My point is that this “appeal to God” can occur apart from baptism.

I think you’re separating the different parts of the ritual. You seem to be separating the “appeal to God” (confession) from the “pouring of water” (baptism). Maybe I’m wrong.

But we don’t. When we say “Baptism”, we don’t mean the simple pouring of water. The Sacrament of Baptism includes both.

It is normative for this to happen before baptism and then baptism to occur because of this “appeal to God” The person is saved when they “appeal to God” not when they are baptized.

The appeal to God is a part of the rite of Baptism.

Technically, however, the pouring of the water is the “appeal to God” which triggers and signifies the washing of the water in the soul. That is why it is called the “efficatious” sacramental sign. Appeals to God are not restricted to words.

Exodus 7:17 Thus saith the Lord, In this thou shalt know that I am the Lord: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.

Exodus 14:21 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

2 Kings 5:14 Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

with the numerous text that say we are righteous by faith, apart from the law? (I’ve listed a couple)

Such as Romans 3: 21-23 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

Galatians 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law , for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Was Paul contradicting himself or is there a reason he says you are justified by doing the law then turns around and says we are justified by apart from the law?

I haven’t read through all the posts to know what everyone else has answered but this is my understanding:

Paul is talking about the OT Mosaic law. In order for that law to justify or save you have to keep the whole law. IMHO he is saying no one is justified before God by the law because no one is capable of keeping the whole law.

That is not the same as faith and works. (if that is what you are implying?)

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Do you have any examples of an early Church Father who says that water baptism is
not necessary for salvation?

I’m not going to take the time to look up and examine the teaching of all the church fathers on baptism. It would be an interesting and informative experience to be sure but I have a life outside of discussing doctrine on message boards.

However, there is a former Catholic who is now a member of the Presbyterian Church of America who post a six part response to Called for Communions article The Church Father on Baptismal Regeneration

Here is a link to Part 1 if you are interested.

Well, I started reading it and got to this part. I stopped at this point because it is a recurring objection.

“Notably, Barnabas has believers trusting in the cross unto rebirth, being converted and brought to life by the preaching of the Word, believing unto everlasting life, and then going down into the water, whereas Called to Communion takes him out of context and would have believers trust in the water itself unto rebirth.”

Why do Protestants say that? Do you really believe that the Catholic Church teaches that the water has power of its own to wash away sin or to regenerate and bring about new life?

I take it you believe that God worked through Aaron’s rod to produce miracles and that God worked through St. Paul’s handkerchiefs to produce healings. Is it only water that you believe hinders God’s power?

 

[De_Maria]

lanman87:

I know the Evangelical/Protestant answer to this question. I was just wondering how Catholics see it?

I am not entirely sure of what you refer to as the “Evangelical/Protestant answer”, but I thought I should chime in anyway. As I see it, there is a slight tone of sarcasm in Paul’s remark. Apparently, there are/were Jews who believed that they were righteous merely by possessing and listening to the Torah, akin to people we today might call “Sunday Christians”. Paul points out the obvious: if you intend to be righteous through the Law you actually need to keep it. That said, he later asserts that no one will be declared righteous through the Law. He even claims to be released from the Law (Rom. 7:6).

Not exactly.

Romans 7:6But now we are delivered from the law,
that being dead wherein we were held;
that we should serve in newness of spirit,
and not in the oldness of the letter.

Basically, he’s saying that if you don’t commit any sins, the Law does not
affect you because you are not committing any sins.

Let me take you elsewhere:

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

There is no law against serving in the newness of the Spirit.

 

[fhansen]

The different understandings point to one simple fact; Sola Scriptura is deficient as a doctrine- while the ancient churches east and west have always held baptism to be God’s will in His plan of salvation. That more or less settles any confusion one way or the other over the matter that any may have by reading Scripture without the benefit of the historical legacy of the church that received the gospel at the beginning.

 

[De_Maria]

Then what does this mean?

Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God,
but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Keep in mind that Scripture warns us that:
2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Then we need to ask ourselves, why does he say:

but the doers of the law shall be justified.

in one instance.

But,

no one is justified before God by the law

in another.

I say it is because,

We are justified by God when we keep the Law of Moses. And if we continue doing so until we die, God will Judge our works in the Final Judgment.

But, those who keep the Law of Moses are further justified by God
in the Sacraments. If we present ourselves to the Church, expressing our faith in God.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Then what does this mean?

Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God,
but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Those who keep the whole and entire law without flaw. Verse 12:

For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law

Keep in mind that Scripture warns us that:… in which are some things hard to be understood,

Haydock commentary:

in which are some things hard to understand, especially by unlearned, ignorant people, unstable, inconstant, not well grounded in faith, and which they wrest, [2] as they do also the other scriptures, by their private interpretations, to their own perdition.

But make it your serious endeavour to increase in grace by God’s assistance, in the true knowledge of our Lord God and Saviour, Jesus Christ

So we are not to be privately interpreting scripture. There will be verses that are difficult to understand but we follow what the Catholic church teaches about those scriptures.

but the doers of the law shall be justified.

in one instance.

But,

no one is justified before God by the law

in another.

As I said earlier from what I understand is he is saying that in order to be justified by the Mosaic law they need to keep the whole entire law, but no one can because we are all sinners.

We are justified by God when we keep the Law of Moses. And if we continue doing so until we die, God will Judge our works in the Final Judgment.

But, those who keep the Law of Moses are further justified by God
in the Sacraments. If we present ourselves to the Church, expressing our faith in God.

I am not sure what you mean unless you are saying we have to keep both the Mosaic law and follow the sacraments of the Catholic church. ??

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Then what does this mean?

Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God,
but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Those who keep the whole and entire law without flaw. Verse 12:

For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law

Actually, that’s a comparison of Jew and Gentile.

Gentiles sin without the Law and perish without the Law.
Jews sin in the Law and are judged by the Law.

Haydock commentary:

in which are some things hard to understand, especially by unlearned, ignorant people, unstable, inconstant, not well grounded in faith, and which they wrest, [2] as they do also the other scriptures, by their private interpretations, to their own perdition.

But make it your serious endeavour to increase in grace by God’s assistance, in the true knowledge of our Lord God and Saviour, Jesus Christ

So we are not to be privately interpreting scripture. There will be verses that are difficult to understand but we follow what the Catholic church teaches about those scriptures.

Haydock’s commentary may be well and good, but it doesn’t resolve the confusion in St. Paul’s teaching. Nor have you.

Do you believe in justification by faith alone? That isn’t Catholic Teaching.
Or do you believe in justification by faith and works. That is Catholic Teaching,
but you seem to be denying it.

As I said earlier from what I understand is he is saying that in order to be justified by the Mosaic law they need to keep the whole entire law, but no one can because we are all sinners.

Romans 2:13 does not say that we can’t keep the Law.

I am not sure what you mean unless you are saying we have to keep both the Mosaic law and follow the sacraments of the Catholic church. ??

Yes. In order to be justified in the Sacraments, we must keep the Commandments. We must be in a state of grace.

 

[lanman87]

I think you’re separating the different parts of the ritual. You seem to be separating the “appeal to God” (confession) from the “pouring of water” (baptism). Maybe I’m wrong.

But it is separate. If two men go camping in the woods, one of them a Christian and the other not a Christian, then the Christian shares the Gospel with the non-Christian and the Non-Christian comes to faith in Christ and “converted” then that person is “saved” at that moment. He has made his appeal to God. He doesn’t have to wait on baptism to have his sins washed away. If a bear comes out of the woods and eats them both then they both will be glorified in Heaven.

Ephesians 1:13 says “13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,”. This would be exactly what happened to man in the woods. He would have heard the gospel (the word of truth), believed in Christ, and then be sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.

At that point the man had received the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Been baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ, been made a new creation in Christ, been adopted as a child of God, and been given a new life in Christ by the Spirit.

Why do Protestants say that? Do you really believe that the Catholic Church teaches that the water has power of its own to wash away sin or to regenerate and bring about new life?

I believe the Catholic church teaches that water in necessary to wash away sin, that you can appeal to God all day long in prayer and repentance, but your sins aren’t washed away until you experience the water.

I take it you believe that God worked through Aaron’s rod to produce miracles and that God worked through St. Paul’s handkerchiefs to produce healings. Is it only water that you believe hinders God’s power?

I believe it is the Catholic teaching that hinders God’s power, regulating it to acting through a ritual instead of a change brought on by the Holy Spirit in the life of individuals.

 

[Johan]

Basically, he’s saying that if you don’t commit any sins, the Law does not
affect you because you are not committing any sins.

Well, that is not what the text says at all. Paul does not claim that he or anyone else is no longer committing sins, yet he speaks of himself and his readers as having been released from the law. So that is not the basis of the discussion in this chapter. But let us instead take a closer look at what the verse does say.

But now we have been released from the Law

The underlying verb καταργέω ( katargeō ) means “to invalidate” or “to abolish” (BDAG) but also, in the passive voice, “be released”. Paul is comparing his release from the Law to that of woman whose husband has died (v. 2). He actually turns this statement around in Gal. 5:4 where he instead writes:

You have been severed [κατηργήθητε] from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law …

So those who belong to Christ have been separated from the Law, and vice versa. Paul continues:

having died to that by which we were bound

This is a repetition of Rom. 7:4, where he writes that those who have been united with Christ have “died to the Law”. He adds that they had previously been “bound” or “imprisoned” by the Law, which mirrors Gal 3:23 (“we were kept in custody under the law”).

so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

The “newness” (καινότης, a word that elsewhere only appears in Rom. 6:4) refers to our new life with and in Christ. This new life is characterized by walking κατὰ πνεῦμα (“by [the] Spirit”, Rom. 8:4) and serving God by being led by the Spirit (Rom. 5:18) rather than being subject to the letter of the Law. Using a quite audacious metaphor, Paul returns to the theme of the “ministry of death” that consisted in “letters ingraved on stone” (2 Cor. 3:7). This is of course a reference to the tablets of stone that contained the Decalogue.

So all in all, Paul is saying that we are no longer bound by the Law in general, and the Decalogue in particular, but that does not mean that we are left without a moral compass. We are law-less but not lawless. Those who are led by the Spirit are no longer under the Law, but the works that the Spirit produces are of the kind that “against such things there is no law” (Gal. 5:23).

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Do you believe in justification by faith alone? That isn’t Catholic Teaching.
Or do you believe in justification by faith and works. That is Catholic Teaching,
but you seem to be denying it.

First, I am not denying anything. I made a couple of comments trying to understand your question, which I don’t quite understand what you are asking.

I do believe in faith and works as the Church teaches but the works we are to be doing are not the keeping of the entire Mosaic law, which is what it sounds like you are saying.
??
Good article on the Mosaic law.

The Law of God | Catholic Answers Magazine

Yes. In order to be justified in the Sacraments, we must keep the Commandments. We must be in a state of grace.

I agree we must be in a state of grace but again we don’t attempt to keep the entire Mosaic law. That law also included ceremonial rules which we no longer follow.

We follow the Ten Commandments because they are one, part of the natural law and two, part of the teachings of Christ.

From the article linked:

The Old Law includes certain precepts of natural law. All of the Ten Commandments, for example, are either direct expressions of natural law or, in one case (that of the Sabbath commandment), a particular application of a natural law principle. Because the natural law is binding for all time on all people and never changes, those natural law precepts of the Old Law are also binding on non-Jews. This is why they get quoted in the New Testament as obligatory for Christians and which is why we continue to quote them today.

God bless

 

[De_Maria]

But it is separate. If two men go camping in the woods, one of them a Christian and the other not a Christian, then the Christian shares the Gospel with the non-Christian and the Non-Christian comes to faith in Christ and “converted” then that person is “saved” at that moment. He has made his appeal to God. He doesn’t have to wait on baptism to have his sins washed away. If a bear comes out of the woods and eats them both then they both will be glorified in Heaven.

I know thats what you believe. Here’s what we believe.

If two men go camping in the woods, one of them a Christian and the other not a Christian, then the Christian shares the Gospel with the non-Christian and the Non-Christian comes to faith in Christ and “converted” then that person is a “Catholic” at that moment. He has made an appeal to God. If a bear comes out of the woods and eats them both then they both will be JUDGED BY GOD. Whether they go to heaven or not is solely God’s discretion. No man can declare himself saved or anyone else saved.

Now, if the men are not killed by the bear and the convert continues in his faith, he must ask for Baptism. In which case, he must begin a new life, and keep the commandments of God. At that point, when he approaches the font of grace, God will look into his heart and see his faith. If he is faithful, God will credit this as righteousness and pour into him the grace of the Holy Spirit which will wash away his sins. Now, if the bear eats him, he will go straight to heaven.

The other man, should he be eaten, must await the Judgment of God.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Ephesians 1:13 says “13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,”. This would be exactly what happened to man in the woods. He would have heard the gospel (the word of truth), believed in Christ, and then be sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.

St. Paul is assuming that this individual has undergone Baptism. Because that is when one is sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

At that point the man had received the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Been baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ, been made a new creation in Christ, been adopted as a child of God, and been given a new life in Christ by the Spirit.

This happens in the Sacrament of Baptism.

I believe the Catholic church teaches that water in necessary to wash away sin, that you can appeal to God all day long in prayer and repentance, but your sins aren’t washed away until you experience the water.

Because Christ said so. Yes.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I believe it is the Catholic teaching that hinders God’s power, regulating it to acting through a ritual instead of a change brought on by the Holy Spirit in the life of individuals.

Again, because Christ said so.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

[De_Maria]

Well, that is not what the text says at all. Paul does not claim that he or anyone else is no longer committing sins, yet he speaks of himself and his readers as having been released from the law.

Because they serve in the newness of the Spirit. What does it mean to serve in the newness of the Spirit?

So that is not the basis of the discussion in this chapter. But let us instead take a closer look at what the verse does say.
But now we have been released from the Law

The underlying verb καταργέω ( katargeō ) means “to invalidate” or “to abolish” (BDAG) but also, in the passive voice, “be released”. Paul is comparing his release from the Law to that of woman whose husband has died (v. 2). He actually turns this statement around in Gal. 5:4 where he instead writes:

You have been severed [κατηργήθητε] from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law …

So those who belong to Christ have been separated from the Law, and vice versa. Paul continues:

having died to that by which we were bound

This is a repetition of Rom. 7:4, where he writes that those who have been united with Christ have “died to the Law”. He adds that they had previously been “bound” or “imprisoned” by the Law, which mirrors Gal 3:23 (“we were kept in custody under the law”).

so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

The “newness” (καινότης, a word that elsewhere only appears in Rom. 6:4)

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

refers to our new life with and in Christ. This new life is characterized by walking κατὰ πνεῦμα (“by [the] Spirit”, Rom. 8:4) and serving God by being led by the Spirit (Rom. 5:18) rather than being subject to the letter of the Law…Those who are led by the Spirit are no longer under the Law, but the works that the Spirit produces are of the kind that “against such things there is no law” (Gal. 5:23).

I go back to what you said initially:

Well, that is not what the text says at all. Paul does not claim that he or anyone else is no longer committing sins,

What does it mean to “walk in the newness of the Spirit”?

You answered that question in your last sentence:

Those who are led by the Spirit are no longer under the Law, but the works that the Spirit produces are of the kind that “against such things there is no law”

The reason they are no longer under the Law is because they are no longer transgressing the Law.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Therefore, as I said,
Basically, he’s saying that if you don’t commit any sins, the Law does not
affect you because you are not committing any sins.

 

[lanman87]

St. Paul is assuming that this individual has undergone Baptism. Because that is when one is sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.

This happens in the Sacrament of Baptism.

I also assume they have been baptized. However, he says they were sealed with the Holy Spirit when they believed, not when they were baptized. Baptism isn’t alluded to at all in this text.

Paul could have said “you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, believe in him and were baptized, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” But he didn’t.

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

This doesn’t make baptism a requirement for salvation. Actually, it is the opposite. First you make disciples (share the gospel and see them converted), then you baptize (those whom have become disciples) and then teach them to follow Christ. This is the example all through scripture of what happened as people were made disciples of Christ.

If a bear comes out of the woods and eats them both then they both will be JUDGED BY GOD.

That goes without saying. And you are right about that God will judge them based on if they are truly “in Christ” or not. God knows who is truly one of His and who is not. If they truly have faith then they will have been given the gift of eternal life.

 

[De_Maria]

First, I am not denying anything. I made a couple of comments trying to understand your question, which I don’t quite understand what you are asking.

Ok.

I do believe in faith and works as the Church teaches but the works we are to be doing are not the keeping of the entire Mosaic law, which is what it sounds like you are saying.
??

No. Only the Ten Commandments. But, that is part of the confusion with understanding St. Paul. Sometimes he refers to the Law as though it is the entire Law and sometimes as though it is only the Ten Commandments.

Good article on the Mosaic law.
The Law of God | Catholic Answers

I agree we must be in a state of grace but again we don’t attempt to keep the entire Mosaic law. That law also included ceremonial rules which we no longer follow.

Agreed.

We follow the Ten Commandments

The Mosaic Law.

because they are one, part of the natural law and two, part of the teachings of Christ.

From the article linked:

The Old Law includes certain precepts of natural law. All of the Ten Commandments, for example, are either direct expressions of natural law or, in one case (that of the Sabbath commandment), a particular application of a natural law principle. Because the natural law is binding for all time on all people and never changes, those natural law precepts of the Old Law are also binding on non-Jews. This is why they get quoted in the New Testament as obligatory for Christians and which is why we continue to quote them today.

God bless

Based on these words of yours, I think we agree.

I agree we must be in a state of grace but again we don’t attempt to keep the entire Mosaic law. That law also included ceremonial rules which we no longer follow.

God bless you too.

 

[De_Maria]

I also assume they have been baptized. However, he says they were sealed with the Holy Spirit when they believed, not when they were baptized. Baptism isn’t alluded to at all in this text.

Yes, I think it is an allusion to Mark 16:16

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; …

Paul could have said “you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, believe in him and were baptized, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” But he didn’t.

St. Paul could have said many things and didn’t. But let’s look at another text.

Acts 19:1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?

Now, he asked them, “have you received the Holy Spirit when you believed?” Since they believed, if you are correct, they should have received the Holy Spirit by the mere action of believing. But their response was:

And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

So, the mere action of believing does not produce the Holy Spirit. What does?

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized?

If Baptism is not the apparatus for receiving the Holy Spirit, why ask this question? What would you ask? Wouldn’t you ask, “Well, didn’t you make an appeal to God for your salvation?” I’m just guessing. But since you don’t believe that Baptism brings about salvation, you wouldn’t ask about Baptism, would you?

But St. Paul does.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

This doesn’t make baptism a requirement for salvation. Actually, it is the opposite. First you make disciples (share the gospel and see them converted), then you baptize (those whom have become disciples) and then teach them to follow Christ. This is the example all through scripture of what happened as people were made disciples of Christ.

On the contrary, teaching them to follow Christ is first and foremost. Everything else follows.

That goes without saying.

Well, not really. Most Protestants with whom I’ve spoken, say this:

John MacArthur declares: “Believers will not be judged for sin at the judgment seat of Christ. Every sin of every believer was judged at the Cross, when God ‘made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him’ (II. Cor. 5:21) ….’ [Judgment’s] purpose … is not judicial; it is that every believer may be recompensed for his deeds in the body.”

I believe he’s one of the people you’ve referenced in this thread. So, I assume you concur with his teaching.

And you are right about that God will judge them based on if they are truly “in Christ” or not. God knows who is truly one of His and who is not. If they truly have faith then they will have been given the gift of eternal life.

A revokable gift, if they don’t follow through with their faith.

1 Timothy 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: