Romans bible study

[Nita]

Why did Christ tell the RYM and the Lawyer that the path to eternal life was the keeping of the Law? Was it to prepare them(ie post Crucifixion/Pentecost) to join their faith in Him as the Messiah with the “need to keep the moral law…for the life of grace to be present for salvation.”? I think this is what CD implicitly stated when he said “they already had faith in him” - Sorry if Im being dense…I just want to understand why Christ would point someone to the Mosaic law in understanding salvation…

Well, in heaven there is no sinning - which means every part of our being (soul and glorified body) will manifest itself only in accordance to God’s mind and will. When we try to live in accordance with His will here on earth (revealed in Ten/or Two Commandments), we are on the “path” - already starting to live the way we will be living in eternal life.

Regarding the rich young man. I don’t see that parable as a condemnation of him. That is, the passage doesn’t say that he could not enter the kingdom of heaven. He appears to have tried to keep God’s law. Jesus just says that it is “hard” for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Purgatory enters my mind as the “hardship” that might present itself.) The greatest commandment is love God above everything else. Until our minds and hearts truly manifest that, we will not be able to enter heaven. But, that doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll be in hell.

I think Our Lord spoke to the young man as He did, (“sell…, give… follow…”) so he would recognize worldly things had too big a hold on his mind and heart. Again, experience!! Had Jesus just said to him “You value worldly wealth too much; more than willingness to accept and fulfill a personal request from God”, the man would probably have denied it - proclaiming He loved God more than anything. Not lying, but really thinking that he did!
(God often has to reveal us to ourselves He knows us better than we do; and, He knows how we learn things. I’m speaking from experience!!!)
It was this very concrete, personal call, that woke the man up to his inordinate attachment to wealth. Because he went away “sad” (as opposed to self righteous or arrogant), I like to think he realized his fault, and with effort became “poor in spirit” if not in actual worldly wealth!

Nita

My apologies if this strays too far from Romans.

 

[SyCarl]

Many Protestants believe that we are so depraved that God only covers our sins up by declaring us righteous (imputing Christ’s righteousness to us). The Catholic (and Scriptural view), however, is that God is powerful enough to blot out our sins and remove them. The view that God just declares us righteous by “covering us up,” denigrates the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives, who continues the work of Christ through His work of justification and sanctification (infusing His grace into souls and changing the inner person).

scripturecatholic.com/justification.html#justification-III

The question of imputed versus infused righteousness depends upon what you mean by righteousness.

In regeneration you could say that we are infused with righteousness in the sense that we are given a new nature through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. By it we are freed from our slavery to sin and become able to truly love God. We are also able to want and try to be holy because we love God. So if you mean by righteousness that we are renewed and able to pursue righteousness, then yes we are made righteous.

Part of justification is the forgiveness of sins. If by righteousness you mean that we have no actual sin imputed to us and are not guilty, then again, you could say that we are made righteous.

However, if by righteousness you mean the perfection that is required by God’s standards, then no we are not made righteous. God requires total perfection and we do not achieve that in this life although we strive for it through sanctification. The author of Hebrews tells us that if we are truly cleansed and made perfect then we would no longer be conscious of sin.

For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? (Hebrews 10:1-2 NASB)

While this passage is talking about Old Testament sacrifices, it still tells us how we would be if we had been completely cleansed. Even though we have a new nature, our old sinful nature remains in us and we are capable of sinning. Therefore we cannot be called completely righteous. However, because Jesus was perfect and died to redeem us, God chooses to accept us as righteous.

That we are not made completely righteous is not a new concept. Augustine set it out in his anti-Pelagian writings.

Therefore the first commandment about righteousness, which bids us love the Lord with all our heart, and soul, and mind (the next to which is, that we love our neighbour as ourselves), we shall completely fulfil in that life when we shall see face to face. But even now this commandment is enjoined upon us, that we may be reminded what we ought by faith to require, and what we should in our hope look forward to, and, “forgetting the things which are behind, reach forth to the things which are before.” And thus, as it appears to me, that man has made a far advance, even in the present life, in the righteousness which is to be perfected hereafter, who has discovered by this very advance how very far removed he is from the completion of righteousness.

Forasmuch, however, as an inferior righteousness may be said to be competent to this life, whereby the just man lives by faith, although absent from the Lord, and, therefore, walking by faith and not yet by sight,—it may be without absurdity said, no doubt, in respect of it, that it is free from sin; for it ought not to be attributed to it as a fault, that it is not as yet sufficient for so great a love to God as is due to the final, complete, and perfect condition thereof….And do they prove this to be wrong which is written, “In Thy sight shall no man living be justified?” and this: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us?” and, “There is no man that sinneth not;” and again, “There is not on the earth a righteous man, who doeth good and sinneth not” (for both these statements are expressed in a general future sense,—“sinneth not,” “will not sin,”—not in the past time, “has not sinned”)?—and all other places of this purport contained in the Holy Scripture? Since, however, these passages cannot possibly be false, it plainly follows, to my mind, that whatever be the quality or extent of the righteousness which we may definitely ascribe to the present life, there is not a man living in it who is absolutely free from all sin; and that it is necessary for every one to give, that it may be given to him; and to forgive, that it may be forgiven him; and whatever righteousness he has, not to presume that he has it of himself, but from the grace of God, who justifies him, and still to go on hungering and thirsting for righteousness from Him who is the living bread, and with whom is the fountain of life; who works in His saints, whilst labouring amidst temptation in this life, their justification in such manner that He may still have somewhat to impart to them liberally when they ask, and something mercifully to forgive them when they confess.-Augustine (On the Spirit and the Letter, Chapters 64-65)
newadvent.org/fathers/1502.htm

As Augustine says, the best we can achieve in this life is an inferior righteousness, not the perfect state we will ultimately receive. Therefore, the only way that we be viewed as completely righteous by God is by imputation.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

With respect to the rich young ruler I think that Jesus was pointing out our own inability to keep the Law. Remember that in Romans 10:2-3 Paul speaks of the Jews.

The rich young ruler comes to Jesus asking what he good things he must do to obtain eternal life. Jesus then tells him to keep the commandments. When asked what commandements He enumerates several of them which the young ruler then claims to have kept, continuing his effort to establish himself on his own. Jesus then tells him what he really must do to keep the commandments by selling his possessions and following Him.
The rich young ruler leaves because he doesn’t really keep the greatest commandment to love God more than his riches. However it is important that Jesus points to more than just the commandments by telling the rich young ruler that he must follow Him. That is what the Jews were not prepared to do; give up everything and put their faith and trust in Jesus and not in themselves. their riches and the letter of the Law.

I think this is a incorrect understanding. Jesus was not pointing out inability, and it is wrong to imagine God gives impossible commands (and worse yet punishes for not doing the impossible). Jesus said “ONE thing you lack,” indicating the RYM was pretty close, and Mark says “Jesus loved” the RYM. If the RYM had an unbelieving heart or was a liar, then Jesus would have pointed that out, just as He exposes the Pharisees and such and how He knows man’s thoughts.

 

[SyCarl]

I think this is a incorrect understanding. Jesus was not pointing out inability, and it is wrong to imagine God gives impossible commands (and worse yet punishes for not doing the impossible). Jesus said “ONE thing you lack,” indicating the RYM was pretty close, and Mark says “Jesus loved” the RYM. If the RYM had an unbelieving heart or was a liar, then Jesus would have pointed that out, just as He exposes the Pharisees and such and how He knows man’s thoughts.

He asked in expectation that he could do something on his own. He thought he was obeying the law but Jesus showed that he was still lacking. However, as part of this story it should be noted that the disciples then ask, then who can be saved. Jesus then says that what is impossible with men is possible with God. This to me indicates He was dealing with inabilty to save ourselves unless we are prepared to give up everything and follow Him.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Catholic Dude could you touch on this I know from reading some of you stuff that protestants and Catholics view credited as righteousness two very different ways

Yes, Catholics and Protestants read this very differently.

Lets say there was a stain in the carpet representing our sins.

Protestants say the “Righteousness of Christ” acts like an expensive oriental rug which comes over and covers the stain, that is how Protestants understand the imputed alien (external) righteousness of Christ. Protestants believe when God looks at the carpet where the stain is, He sees the oriental rug and counts/reckons/imputes the CARPET to be spotless (imputes spotlessness to the actually stained carpet).

Catholics believe grace acts like detergent which removes the stain from the carpet, and when God looks at the carpet He counts/reckons/imputes the carpet to be spotless (because it in fact is).

I suggest people read this great apologetics article on this issue which really helped me
:
pugiofidei.com/logizomai.htm

(read it again, if you have only read it once)

Rm 4:25
who was handed over for our transgressions and was raised for our justification. I have used this verse in response to those who say It was finished on the cross. We know Jesus said it was finished but what did Jesus mean especially when he was raised for our justification

anyone can look further into that here

Very good point. If justification is about imputing Christ’s life of perfect obedience, then why is Paul saying “RAISED for our justification”? That doesn’t fit with the Protestant notion of justification. Check out these passages:
Rom 5: 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
Paul is very adamant about connecting justification with a restoration of life, and this does not sit well with the legal understanding of justification which Protestants have.
1 Tim 3: 16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body,
was vindicated [Gk: justified] by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.
Here Paul says Jesus was “justified by the Spirit” which is in reference to the life giving Resurrection! Justification for Paul is about restoring life to the dead. In our case it is spiritual death, for Jesus it was physical. Christ arose glorified and “life-giving” (1 Cor 15:45) for all those who are united to Him.

 

[mikeledes]

Regarding imputational justification and Augustine, Protestant Alistair McGrath states the following:

Man’s righteousness, effected in justification, is regarded by Augustine as inherent rather than imputed, to use the vocabulary of the sixteenth century. A concept of ‘imputed righteousness’, in the later Protestant sense of the term, would be quite redundant within Augustine’s doctrine of justification, in that man is made righteous in justification. The righteousness which man thus receives, although originating from God, is nevertheless located within man, and can be said to be his, part of his being and intrinsic to his person

This is quoted by Calvinist Dr. Sam Storms. Dr. Storms also stated:

This radical and fundamental distinction between justification as a status obtained by initial faith and the subsequent sanctification or transformation of one’s nature through grace was a true theological novelty on the part of the reformers.

That’s quite surprising coming from a Protestant/Calvinist.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Catholic_Dude]

He asked in expectation that he could do something on his own.

I don’t want to turn this into a Rich Young Ruler thread, so I’ll only mention it this last time.

The issue there was not about the RYM going it alone.

He thought he was obeying the law but Jesus showed that he was still lacking.

He was obeying the law, that’s why it says Jesus “loved him” after he responded “all of these I have kept,” but Jesus asked for even more: sell all and follow me.

However, as part of this story it should be noted that the disciples then ask, then who can be saved. Jesus then says that what is impossible with men is possible with God. This to me indicates He was dealing with inability to save ourselves unless we are prepared to give up everything and follow Him.

They asked “who can be saved?” in response to Jesus’ comment regarding the difficulty of being rich and entering the kingdom. The “impossible for men, possible for God” comment means if you do give up everything to follow Him, God will get you through.

 

[Nita]

Romans 3:24 "they are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.’

The following statement is part of the Navarre Bible commentary on this passage:

This new kind of life, whose motor is grace, requires frree and active cooperation on man’s part.

The phrase “motor is grace” struck me; it’s a phrase that sticks in the mind and gives a sense of the dynamism (not sure if that’s a correct word) of grace.

Nita

 

[mikeledes]

The following link is a good explanation of Catholic justification and how it differs from Protestantr justification (Infusion vs. Imputation).

cin.org/users/james/files/justcath.htm

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The following link is a good explanation of Catholic justification and how it differs from Protestantr justification (Infusion vs. Imputation).

cin.org/users/james/files/justcath.htm

God Bless,
Michael

There are some many good points, but also I think he downplayed the differences between Protestants and Catholics, which can be misleading. Also, Akin is a fan of quoting Protestant scholars like EP Sanders (and James Dunn), yet Sanders is part of the “New Perspective on Paul” movement and he teaches things unacceptable to classical Protestantism (eg Sanders/Dunn and other New Perspective scholars virtually deny imputation).

Also, there appears to be formatting problems with that article because a few (important) sentences are cut short without being finished.

 

[mikeledes]

I noticed Romans 4 hasn’t been posted yet. I’m assuming we’re still on this chapter:

1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”
9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,
12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.
13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,
15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all
17 (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.”
19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb.
20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God,
21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform.
22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him,
24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,
25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

 

[Odell]

I noticed Romans 4 hasn’t been posted yet. I’m assuming we’re still on this chapter:

  ** 7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
  And whose sins are covered;
   8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”**

20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God,
21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform.
22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him,
24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,
25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

What was it that he was able to perform? And if I am reading this right because of what he was able to do it was accounted to him as righteousness

 

[SyCarl]

What was it that he was able to perform? And if I am reading this right because of what he was able to do it was accounted to him as righteousness

It appears that what is being said is that Abraham believed that God was able to perform what He (God) had promised, that is that Abraham would have descendants through Sarah. Because Abraham believed God it was counted to him as righteousness. It doesn’t have anything with Abraham being able to perform or do anything.

 

[D_M]

Hi,

Paul goes in depth here on the point of the righteousness we have by faith apart from works.

A person cannot be justified by works alone any more than they can be justified by faith alone, and so Paul writes that Abraham was not justified simply for what he did by himself (because then he has done something, but not with God’s help… and I think this would called a sin since every good action is done with God’s grace) but rather only what he did which was done in faith from which he was righteous. Our relationship with God is not as a hired servant wherein we earn the sacrifice that was offered for us on the cross (as though we were labourers that were deserving to be paid), but rather as a free gift that we cannot earn.

God justifies by the blood of Jesus those who have not done something to earn or deserve it, but who will repent their iniquities, change their ways and believe in Him.

And in order to change their ways, it is in fact necessary that people stop doing evil works and then do good works instead, in contradiction to Luther’s theology.

He then goes into the issue again of gentile salvation when he asks ‘is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcise, or also upon the uncircumised?’

Then he brings up the example of Abraham in that he was righteous not after, but before he had received circumcision in the flesh. Thus revealing a purpose in making Abraham the father of all, jews and gentiles, who are reckoned righteous by their faith as Abraham was.

Therefore since his fatherhood applied to both those under the law and those who were not under it, but was universally applied to all who were righteous by faith, than the promise of inheriting the world, as Paul writes, is not from the law applied only to the jews but rather through faith found universally by jew and gentile. If the law was necessary, than holding faith in God when one didn’t have the law was nullified, but since it was not necessary it was therefore not nullified.

Then he makes a very controversial statement from a jewish perspective: ‘For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression’

It almost seems to attack the traditions handed down through Moses, which jews accused Paul of doing when he was in Jerusalem as recorded in the acts of the apostles, but this was not Paul’s intent in writing this. What he means is what is understood in faith is that sin is only a sin for a purpose who knows it and whose conscience is bound by it… in order for a person to commit a sin it is necessary for that person to first know that the action was wrong, which means that the law brought God’s wrath upon those who violated it and knew they were disobeying Him, but not upon those who violated it and did not know they were disobeying Him. His essential point here relates back to what he means when he says that the law of Moses is not itself necessary for salvation or for the promise, since in itself it does not provide such a benefit in that a person who does not have righteous faith that violates the law is condemned by it, but rather what is necessary is righteousness through faith.

He recites scripture in calling Abraham the father of many nations… not just one nation… but many nations, which supports his point of the universal salvation and promise to all who have faith.

Paul then talks about how righteous Abraham’s faith was in that he believed God even when it was contrary to common sense, contrary to how the world works and simply put: contrary to what he could have seen. He trusted in God regardless, and was fully convinced that these impossible promises were going to be fulfilled.

He remembers God as the one who can do all things, that gives life to the dead and calls into existence things which don’t exist. Or as Gabriel told Mary at the annunciation ‘All things are possible with God’

This is great message which really says more than we immediately grasp perhaps in that all things really are possible with God… it’s not some trick, but it really means what it means… and we must become like Abraham did in trusting in the true God who sent His Son to us for our salvation in every circumstance, and we shall inherit the world.

(You can say this too if you like: )

Lord, help us be like abraham our father in faith and trust in you in all things and in all circumstances with the fullness of our hearts. Amen.

Verses of Potential Interest:

Abraham believed the Lord and it was reckoned to him as righteousness:

James 2:23-24 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered:

Psalms 32:1-2 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.

Circumcision as a sign:

Genesis 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

God who gives life to the death and calls into existence things which do not exist:

John 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.

Abraham advanced in age:

Genesis 18:11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.

God Bless,

 

[Nita]

** 5 **But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

This verse is a beautiful description of the initial righteousness which we receive in the Sacrament of Baptism. No works are required, only faith. (In the case of an infant, it is the faith of the parents.)

6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”

And this verse speaks to me of the Sacrament of Confession.
Again, good works are not a requisite (for entering the confessional). What Our Lord asks is that we come desiring forgiveness and have faith in His promise that He will forgive us through the priest if we repent and confess. (John 20:22-23)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I hope the discussion is still going on, its been great. I’ve had an irregular schedule lately, and it has kept me from getting back into things. Hopefully others are still interested.

 

[Odell]

I hope the discussion is still going on, its been great. I’ve had an irregular schedule lately, and it has kept me from getting back into things. Hopefully others are still interested.

I hope it does not die either. I am learning a lot

 

[Nita]

I hope the discussion is still going on, its been great. I’ve had an irregular schedule lately, and it has kept me from getting back into things. Hopefully others are still interested.

I am still interested.
At first I thought the chapters weren’t being posted weekly, but after checking, I discovered we are on target. Four weeks, fourth chapter. Maybe a week is too long to stay on one chapter. Perhaps if a day or two goes by with NO activity, the next chapter could be posted. Just an idea.

Nita

 

[smkw]

I hope it does not die either. I am learning a lot

Please, keep it going. I’m not contributing since I don’t feel very qualified, but reading it all.
Great info, guys!

 

[Pax]

Hi,

…
…

God justifies by the blood of Jesus those who have not done something to earn or deserve it, but who will repent their iniquities, change their ways and believe in Him.

…
…

The point that Jesus redemptive work on the cross is the unearned source of salvation is crucial. No one earns salvation.

The faith and works that are necessary for our salvation flow from the work of Jesus on the cross and are the result of grace.

Abraham’s faith is reckoned to him as righteouness in an anticipatory fashion in relationship to Jesus salvific work on the cross. The promise to Abraham is of descendents even though he and Sarah were beyond child bearing age. The impossibility of these descendents is made clear by Paul in his comments about Abraham and Sarah, yet God promises them descendents and Abraham believes.

Abraham’s faith is reckoned as righteousness, but his faith is completed in his works. Abraham, by faith, had marital relations with Sarah and thus fathered Isaac. If Abraham had not completed his faith in the promise, then he would not have had the descendents and the promise would have been void. Likewise, this would have represented disobedience to the promise, and his faith would have been dead and incomplete. Such faith would not have been reckoned as righteousness.

It is crucial to see these things from this perspective to understand that Paul is not saying that we are saved by “faith alone.” Paul makes it clear that Abraham is not justified by “circumcision” or works of the law. Paul makes it clear that Abraham is saved by his “relationship” with God and his obedience of faith. Abraham has a completed faith through his works(i.e.marital relations in this case) rather than a faith that is an acceptance and mental ascent alone.