Follow
Late last week, we observed that Jason Stellman, a former Presbyterian minister turned Roman Catholic, succumbed to Roman arguments on the meaning of Romans 2:13, which says “the doers of the law shall be justified.” Stellman expressed in his conversion testimony that he had to rethink his exegesis in light of Roman Catholic arguments, and could no longer justify the exegetical gymnastics he used to perform in order to force Romans 2:13 to fit into his “faith alone” paradigm. After conversations with Roman apologists, Stellman could no longer deny the plain meaning of the passage, and agreed that justification cannot be by faith alone. In that post, we agreed to provide an exegesis that shows that Romans 2:13 is much simpler to expound than Stellman realizes. The sheep of Christ must not be led astray by Stellman’s inability to see what the passage states so plainly.
To understand Romans 2:13, let us go all the way back to Moses, and the rampant idolatry of the Israelites: “They provoked Him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they Him to anger” (Deuteronomy 32:16). Because of their idolatry, Moses prophesied, God would one day stir the Jews to jealousy by a foolish nation:
They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. (Deuteronomy 32:21)
Paul cites this very verse when providing the backdrop to his letter to the Gentiles in Rome (Romans 10:19). When Paul says “the Gentiles … have attained to righteousness … But Israel … hath not attained to the law of righteousness,” that’s the Jealousy Narrative in full force. In fact, Paul explains that his explicit purpose in writing to the Gentiles is to stir the Jews to jealousy (Romans 11:12-14).
This was Jesus’ approach as well. In one of the most dramatic displays of the Jealousy Narrative, Jesus reads from Isaiah in the synagogue, and concludes by saying “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” Those who heard Him bore witness to Him and marveled “at the gracious words” He spoke (Luke 4:21-22). Everything seemed to be progressing nicely. Then He dropped the Jealousy bomb: there was no shortage of Jewish widows in Elijah’s day, but Elijah went to help the Gentile widow of Sidon instead. There was no shortage of Jewish lepers in Elisha’s day, but Elisha went to help the Gentile, Naaman the Syrian, instead (Luke 4:25-27). Jesus got the response He was looking for, and His audience erupted in a jealous rage. Those who heard Him “were filled with wrath” and tried to drive Him out of town and throw him off a cliff (Luke 4:28-29). He had made them jealous by showing that God’s blessings—to which the Jews believed they were entitled—had been lavished on the Gentiles.
Jesus did this repeatedly. When He healed the ten lepers, the only one who returned to thank him was a Samaritan, not a Jew, and Jesus made a point of it: “There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger.” (Luke 17:12-19).
When He taught the Parable of the Good Samaritan, the point was that the Samaritan knew better how to obey the law to “love thy neighbour” than the priest and the Levite did (Luke 10:30-37).
When He taught the Parable of the two sons (Matthew 21:28-31), the purpose was to show that “the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before” the chief priests and the elders. The publicans and harlots “did the will of his father,” but the elders and priests did not.
When he encountered a believing Roman Centurion (Luke 7:4-9), He marveled, “I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.”
When Simon the Pharisee had Jesus in his home for dinner, Jesus made a point of proving that the harlot obeyed the law to love God more than Simon did (Luke 7:40-50).
We see this theme repeatedly in Jesus’ teachings. The sinners, tax collectors, harlots, Samaritans and Gentiles—even the Roman occupiers—are better than the Jews at everything: glorifying God, loving God, loving their neighbor, repenting, obeying the law, and importantly, believing in Jesus. This is the fulfillment of Moses’ prophesy that God would stir the Jews to jealousy with “a foolish nation” who “are not a people.” It’s the Jealousy Narrative in full force, and it had a very specific purpose: to make the Jews jealous that they may be saved.
There are many other passages where the Jealousy Narrative pertains. The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15), the Parable of the Laborers (Matthew 20), the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:10-14), Jesus’ visit with Zacchaeus (Luke 19), the Parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), as well as Paul’s final words in a dispute with the Jews: “Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it” (Acts 28:28). Note, from Luke 15, that the father uses the elder son’s jealousy as a starting point to implore him to join the feast. That is the purpose of the Jealousy Narrative. We encourage our readers to read these and many other such passages to understand just how prevalent the Jealousy Narrative is in the Bible.
But notice what Jesus says about the Samaritan leper, the Roman Centurion, the harlots and the tax collectors. Although the Samaritan leper was glorifying God, Jesus says, “Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole” (Luke 17:19). The Roman Centurion was known for his love for God’s people, but Jesus highlights his faith (Luke 7:9). Jesus likened the harlots and tax collectors to the first son who “did the will of his father” (Matthew 21:29-31). But when He explained the Parable, He observed that John the Baptist came preaching, and “the publicans and the harlots believed him” (Matthew 21:32). Jesus said of the harlot at the Pharisee’s house, “she loved much” (Luke 7:47), but then he turned to her and said, “Thy faith hath saved thee” (Luke 7:50). On all these occasions, the objects of Jesus’ teaching lessons were performing works in accordance with the law, and in fact were excelling the Jews in their obedience, but He does not point to the Law as the cause of their healing or their salvation. He points to faith. This is the Man from Whom Paul learned his gospel, and it is Jesus who explained the Jealousy Narrative to him in the first place (Galatians 1:11-12). We should not be surprised that Paul takes the same approach in Romans. It is not insignificant that Paul starts his letter by saying “your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world” (Romans 1:8) and ends it by saying “your obedience is come abroad unto all men” (Romans 16:19). The believing Gentiles are obedient—indeed, more obedient than the Jews.
Now let us look at Romans 2 again, and notice that Paul is simply picking up where Jesus left off. As we noted above, it is Paul’s express purpose to stir the Jews to jealousy. So, following the example of Jesus, and borrowing from Ezekiel 16:43-52, he starts by pointing to the idolatry and sexual deviance of the pagans (Romans 1:18-32) and then says the Jews are just as bad: “…thou art inexcusable, O man, … for thou that judgest doest the same things” (Romans 2:1). But it gets worse. Paul doubles down and says the Gentiles who have “the law written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15) are actually better at doing the law than the Jews are, just as Jesus had been showing through His parables and personal encounters. The Gentiles are doing “the things contained in the law” (Romans 2:14), and the Jews are not (Romans 2:1-3). This makes the Jews jealous.
But Paul is not finished. He just unloaded the Jealousy Narrative on his fellow Jews, and he reloads for round two. Starting in Romans 2:17-23, he says the Jews rest on the law, but dishonor God by breaking it constantly, and follows it up with a claim that the Gentiles are better at keeping the law than the Jews are. The uncircumcision (Gentiles) not only “keep the righteousness of the law,” but will also judge the circumcision (Jews) because they transgress the law (Romans 2:26-27).
What has Paul done? He has stirred the Jews to jealousy by doing exactly what Jesus did throughout His ministry: he is stating explicitly that believing Gentiles* are better at obeying the law than unbelieving Jews. These unbelieving Jews are “the hearers of the Law,” but the believing Gentiles are “the doers of the Law,” just as Jesus had portrayed them in the Gospel accounts. When Paul says “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified,” he is simply saying that it is the believing Gentiles who will be justified, not the unbelieving Jews. This is simply the parable of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee writ large. It is the tax collector, not the pharisee, who “went down to his house justified” (Luke 18:14). All that remains after Romans 2 is to identify the instrumental means of their justification—faith or works?
We note, significantly, that Paul did not say “the doers of the law will be justified by doing the law.” In fact he denies that explicitly in the next chapter: “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified … Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:20-28). Taken together, the message of Romans 2 and 3 is that the doers of the law will be justified by faith, apart from the works of the law. This is justification by faith alone, but speaks powerfully to the transformative effects of regeneration: He “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Titus 2:14).
Jason Stellman explained in his conversion testimony that if Paul was writing from a Protestant perspective, he would never say “the doers of the law shall be justified.” But we object. That is exactly what Paul would say if he was trying to make the Jews jealous. Missing this, Stellman concludes that Paul must have been writing from a Roman Catholic perspective. Regrettably, Stellman stumbled into the Roman trap, and forced Romans 2:13 to say something it does not: “the doers of the law will be justified by doing the law.” It is not we, but Jason Stellman and his Roman apologists, who are engaging in exegetical gymnastics to make the passage fit their paradigm. If he had read the passage from God’s perspective—from the perspective of the Jealousy Narrative which God Himself imposes on it—Jason would have seen that what he now boldly professes as his own testimony is what Paul wrote of the unbelieving Jews:
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; (Romans 9:30-32).
God’s paradigm is, and always has been, justification by faith alone. No gymnastics required.
_________________________________________________
* We say “believing Gentiles” because that is who Jesus pointed to when He wanted to make the Jews jealous. Paul is speaking of uncircumcised people whose hearts are circumcised (Romans 2:29), and who have the law written on their hearts (Romans 2:15). These are terms used to describe people who have been regenerated, which is to say, “born again” (John 3:3-7) believers. For more on this, see Ezekiel 36:26-27, Jeremiah 31:31-33, Hebrews 10:16, among others.
Wow! This actually had a similar impact to when I became Reformed and the Bible suddenly starting making much more sense! It really helped me see just how prevalent the jealousy motif runs throughout the Bible. Great article!
Thanks, Carlos,
It was transformational for me, as well. I’ll be expanding on this more this week and next, because the Jealousy Narrative that God introduces in Deuteronomy 32:21 is so helpful when talking about James 2 and Romans 2. Both James and Paul appeal to Ezekiel 33:31-32 (“and they hear thy words, but they will not do them … for they hear thy words, but they do them not.”), but Paul uses Ezekiel to pursue Justification by Faith, and James uses him to pursue Justification by Works. More on this later.
Doesn’t the Jealousy Narrative light up the Word when you see Jesus say, “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matthew 21:43)? That other nation is the Gentiles, and “bringing forth the fruits thereof” is obedience to the law. We are not surprised, then, when the chief priests and Pharisees heard this, they “sought to lay hands on him” (Matthew 21:46).
That’s the Jealousy Narrative.
More on this later. Glad you enjoyed it.
Tim
Tim, one of the best articles i have ever read.
Tim, Actually,you forgot to give the full quote of Jesus to the woman, “Your sins are forgiven because you have loved much” then ” Go in in peace, your faith has saved thee”.
Sure looks like a case of Faith working in love.
Jim,
Thanks for your note. Jesus asked Simon, of the two debtors in the parable, which one will love the creditor the most? Simon answered, “I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most” (Luke 7:42). Jesus confirmed that Simon had answered correctly: “Thou hast rightly judged” (Luke 7:43). The debtor’s response of love is in direct proportion to the magnitude of the forgiven debt.
In this transaction, it is clear that the woman’s love does not precede the forgiveness but rather follows it. She loved much because she was forgiven much. Your reading of it puts the love before the forgiveness and attempts to make the love the cause of the forgiveness, that is, “faith working in love” resulted in forgiveness of the debt. But that is not the order Jesus establishes in the story. He says she loved much because she was forgiven much. He does not say she was forgiven much because she loved much.
When we read Jesus’ words in their context, it is clear that when He says, “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little” (Luke 7:47), the meaning is “it is clear that she must have been forgiven a great debt as evidenced by the measure of the outpouring of her love in response.” Her love is contrasted with Simon’s, for in this parable it is he, Simon, who “loveth little.” Just as Jesus had elsewhere said, “They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick” (Luke 5:31), He was not saying that the Pharisees were “healthy.” He was making the point that they did not realize how sick they really were. Here He was not saying Simon had little for which to be forgiven, but rather that Simon’s “little love” is evidence that he does not realize how sinful he is.
We must not miss the point of the story: the prostitute was better at obeying the Law (“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God…”) than a pharisee was. That is the Jealousy Narrative at work.
Thanks, as always, for writing,
Tim
Excellent
Jim, “your faith has saved you” ” To as many as receive Him he has given the right to be called children of God. ” No love mentioned there.
Tim,
A question arose on Jason’s blog that you should be able to answer.
It goes like this; why do former Protestant/now Catholic converts have such gratitude and affection for their former denomination, friends and family members still there? With the exception of former Mormons and Witnesses, they never start a ministry to pull people out of the former denomination. Tim Staples, Scott Hahn, Dave Anders, etc. etc. are examples.
Then we have the opposite. Look at the Bill Websters, Richard Bennetts, Mike Gendrons, Rob Zins, and you. Look at the anger of Tim S., Walt, Bob, etc.
What is especially troublesome is the attitude for family still Catholic. ( I am still reeling over the fact you teach your kids their grandmother worships bread ).
Everybody sees what I see. I don’t think I have ever asked a Protestant like you why this is. Can you explain this?
Jim,
It’s a good question, but I have yet to see Tim S., Walt or Bob get “angry.” Their responses to you and their defense of their respective positions have been methodical and reasonable. Characterizing them as “angry” may make it easy to dismiss their arguments, but they are hardly emotional. Of those who are formerly Roman Catholic, none of us is “angry” at Rome, and none of us has been “hurt” by Rome. We simply disagree with Roman doctrines and we believe Roman Catholicism is a false religion. We are not “angry.”
The reason we who have left Rome will not grant an inch to Rome’s gospel is precisely for this reason. When someone leaves Protestantism for Rome, they believe they have left the partial truth for the whole truth, and therefore express appreciation for their forebears who brought them a part of the way, and then enter Rome thanking their new church for bringing them the rest of the way.
Those who leave Romanism for Christianity have an altogether different experience. We leave error to find the truth, understanding that we have been translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light and life. Looking back longingly and affectionately across the Tiber does not occur to us. It would be like coveting the burial plots of the deceased. The living do not seek their abode with the dead, and are not grateful to them for whitewashing the tombs to make them more appealing.
Do not mistake my candor for anger. I am not angry at you, or at Rome.
By the way, I tell my children that their grandmother worships bread because their grandmother worships bread. Again, that is candor, not anger.
Thanks for writing.
Tim
Thanks Tim,
Oh, I didn’t mean Walt, Bob and Tim to have the passing emotion of anger. Perhaps “seething hatred” would have been more appropriate.
When a person leaves Protestantism and becomes a Christian, he does indeed complete his Faith.
Okay Tim, glad to hear your mom is persevering as a Christian and hasn’t succumbed to Protestantism even to win her grandchildren’s affection. She must be a saint, Huh?.
Jim, you wrote:
“Oh, I didn’t mean Walt, Bob and Tim to have the passing emotion of anger. Perhaps “seething hatred” would have been more appropriate.”
There is something called “righteous anger” and that could rightfully be applied toward what Rome has done to millions and billions of souls. As the one true Antichrist religion, it did promote some anger in the reformers enough to have the courage to put their lives on the line to openly protest against Rome. I would say do hold biblical righteous anger against Romish doctrine as it took my dear father to everlasting torment unless he repented on his death bed. My mother was so abused by our local Roman Catholic church that it was an aide to her leaving that crazy cult following, and in the end I believe reaching out to Christ alone for her salvation.
Tim wrote:
“The reason we who have left Rome will not grant an inch to Rome’s gospel is precisely for this reason. ”
It is here where we must follow Scripture. We must withdraw from false gospel who hate Christ, and put themselves in the place of Christ,
“If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” 1Cor16
Jim,
I think why most who publicly acknowledge they are now full-time Roman Catholics rather than part-time Roman Catholics (yet, label themselves Protestants) is because the Roman Catholic church puts them in lights and parades them on ETWN to tell their story. Men enjoy the lime light, and so when they transition (not convert) from a non-public Romish doctrine to a much more public Romish doctrine it really gives them a billion supporters all putting them on a pedestal.
There are not many men (nor women) willing to stand for the truth in small numbers, and certainly far less are willing to stand for true biblical doctrine as preached by the reformers who left Rome. While billions love Rome in ignorance worldwide (just watch what people do when the new Pope enters any public forum…it is so sad to see), very few are willing to stand alone or in small numbers to testify against Rome.
95%+ of the evangelical and mainstream churches are in lock stock and barrel practicing Romish doctrines, and so are largely Romish in their hearts and minds already. They are not Protestants by definition as you claim above, but are really Roman Catholics without taking on the mass or Pope as the head of the Church. They tolerate all things Rome, and as the Pope continues to show himself like a rock star on the global scene you will find him gain more and more followers who like to rock and roll in the visible Church.
Don’t feel like you have not persuaded the “Protestants” to follow your doctrine as a Romish adherent…you have. You just have not yet grabbed the other world religions to follow you yet. The Papal rock star is grabbing the Anglican’s (never been Protestant nor reformed) and the Orthodox (never been Protestant nor reformed) next. You are winning more to publicly testify they are full Romish…not part Romish.
“Romish” Walt? Like “brownish” or “yellowish”? Not quite brown or yellow but just kind of leaning that way, huh?
No, the Catholic Church isn’t just a little bit based in Rome. It is 100% Roman. Not just 5 or 6 % Romish.
Thanks for trying though Walt.
Jim,
Your statements are confusing. Your anger is showing. Why are you always filled with such hatred toward people as a Catholic? Is it your heart is in need of regeneration?
Psalms 139 demonstrates how the reformers defended themselves against Rome who hated Christ.
19 Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
20 For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.
21 Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
Amen.
The law Paul referenced in ROM. 2:13 is not the OT code. The law was changed by adding a word because of the sin ofJesus’ murder. Heb. 7:12 Paul is referencing the addition and it is that word of law that you must have the faith to obey before God will declare you or anyone else righteous.
Theodore,
Thank you for writing. I apologize that it took me a couple days to get back to you. Regarding your comment that “The law Paul referenced in ROM. 2:13 is not the OT code. The law was changed…”
Where your statement can be falsified is in the fact that Paul says the same thing twice in Chapter 2. First, he says in Romans 2:1-16 that the Jews “doest the same” as the sinners in Romans 1, but the Gentiles “which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law.” In other words, the Jews violate the Law, but the Gentiles obey it.
Now again in Romans 2:17-29, he says that the Jew “restest in the law” but does not obey it, but the uncircumcised Gentiles “keep the righteousness of the law.” He keeps on coming back to the fact that the Jews do not obey the Law, but the Gentiles do.
In Romans 1 he describes they who are “haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents.” Not loving God and not obeying parents are both violations of the Mosaic Law. This is what the Jews do that “doest the same” (Romans 2:3) as the sinners in Romans 1, for “we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things” (Romans 2:2). We know this from the Mosaic Law, and Paul is saying that the Gentiles are better at obeying it than the Jews.
Now look at Romans 2:21-23, where he is repeating the charge:
Note again that he is citing the Mosaic Law. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not makest unto thyself any graven images or bow down to them and serve them. And note again that Paul is saying that the Gentiles are better at obeying it than the Jews.
There is no evidence that Paul has at any point in this narrative stopped talking about the Old Testament (Mosaic) Law. He keeps on citing it over and over and over again. Therefore there is no merit to your statement that at Romans 2:13 Paul pauses briefly to refer to a new law, “which is not the OT code” but “is referencing the addition.”
He goes on in chapter 3 and explains that even though the Gentiles are better at obeying the Law (Romans 2), it still does not justify them: for “by the deeds of the [Mosaic] law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” Rather they are “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 3:20-24).
Thus, while the Gentiles are better at obeying the Law (to make the Jews jealous), they are, nonetheless justified by faith apart from works of the law. The doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13), but not by doing the law (Romans 3:28). Or to put it simply, they are justified by faith alone, but they live a spirit-filled life of obedience, which obedience is not the ground of their justification.
Thanks for writing.
Tim
Tim,
I hope you realize Romans is not a case of Jew vs Gentile. No, it is Jewish convert vs Gentile convert.
As for the Law written on the heart ( conscience ) of all men, when it comes to the Gentile converts keeping the Law, this is done by grace, The pagan gentiles never kept the Law. Not unless you are a pelagian and think they could have under their natural steam.
You really ought to click onto Nick’s Catholic blog and imbibe the knowledge there. He covers this in detail.
Jim,
Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans in order to make the Jews jealous. He makes the jealous by making the case that God had treated Jews as unbelieving gentiles, and treated gentiles as believing sons of Abraham. This is what God said he would do from the beginning as a punishment for the Jews’ idolatry:
In fact, Paul quotes this very verse as the basis for his epistle (see Romans 10:19).
When you say, “As for the Law written on the heart (conscience) of all men,” you are assuming that the law written on man’s heart is his conscience. But that is not how the Scriptures use the concept of the law being written on the heart.
That all mankind is without excuse by the testimony of creation, I do not deny. Romans 1 says as much. By the testimony of creation, man’s conscience is sufficiently informed for him to understand “by the things that are made” (Romans 1:20), “that they which commit such things are worthy of death” (Romans 1:32). In other words, Romans 1 is where Paul makes the case that all men have a conscience and know better than to behave as they do.
But the law being written on the heart is not the conscience. It is the law being written on the heart—a covenantal blessing reserved for the regenerate alone. See, for example, Ezekiel 11:19-20, “and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in my statutes,” and Ezekiel 36:27, “and I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.”
Romans 2:14-15 is about gentiles who have been given a new heart, a heart of flesh that they may walk in God’s statutes, and in whom the Holy Spirit now dwells. The fact that they “shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” is evidence that the law in the heart is not the conscience. The good works of the gentiles provide evidence of regeneration, something to which their conscience also testifies. It is these who are justified, but as Paul makes clear in the next chapter, they will not be justified by their obedience to the law (Romans 3:28). They are justified by faith alone.
Thanks,
Tim
Yes, the law written on the hearts is the one spoken of by Ezekial and Jeremiah. Romans 5:5 is the fulfillment of these prophecies.
Protestants think Paul was railing against Pelagian works in Romans. He wasn’t. Only against the Judaizers who said Gentile converts had to keep the Torah law. Paul himself remained an observant Jew the rest of his life.
Paul was not opposed to works being part of justification. He was only against Greek converts being forced to live like the Jewish Christians.
No. The cross, the sin of murdering the Lord, ceases to be recognized as the sin of murder by your doctrne. Murder is an offense of the written code and you are asserting that that sin is a direct benefit for you. No way is that assersion going to fly.
The law was changed AFTER the ascension of Jesus Christ is this not a fact? So then what was done to the law to change it and why was it necessary to change it before the Acts 2 message was stated?
Tim, this post answered every question I had. Dave Anders was telling me the same thing, that the law in Romans 2:13 was different than the Mosaic law and therefore he says we fulfill it by the Spirit. He says this is confirmed in Romans 8 1-11 when Paul like in Romans 2 uses a different term for law. So they are saying as Paul goes back and forth thru Romans he is switching between the Mosaic law that doesnt justify and this Daikaiousinae teou which does. Anders saidvit was this discoverybthat led him to Romanism. We can see why they love Wright and the New Perspective on Paul. Get in by grace and stay in by works. K
Theodore, the rereference in the change in the law in Hebrews 7:12 is in relationship to the previous verse. The levitical law was temporary, administered by Priests who were weak and die, who could not save themselves. Itvrequired perfection which could not save. But the c change was now a new Priest, the power of and endless life, one who saves to the uttermost those who draw near by faith. In fact Hebrews 10:8 thru 14 said one sacrifice sanctified and perfected us. For He forever lives to make intercesion for us. He remembers our sin no more. We were saved unto good works, not by them. Nothing coming from ourselves Ephesians 2:8. Grace thru faith. Romans 10:9,10 the eschatalogical reality of confessing and believing.
“Do not THINK I’ve come to abolish the law.”, but that is actually what you do think isn’t it?
I am fully aware of what the text states, but I don’t twist it to make it state otherwise as you do.
Kevin,
Were yu or were you not dumped from Green Baggins? Beggars All? kenneth’s?
Jim, as I told you I was not dumped on Green Baggins. I mostly post here. Tim has been so accepting and I love his teaching. I have confidence in his teaching because he goes to the utmost effort to exegete the exact intention of the psssage. Only one other guy for me took this kind of preparation, and that is John MaCarthur. And even though they have different positions on some things, they both approach scripture with a seriouness not seen in many. Why dont you really consider Tim’s teaching Jim? Why do you so easily dismiss a man who has given his life to searching the scriptures? It would seem to me Jim you would really consider a man who was steeped in the same idolatry you are now. I dont buy your flipancy Jim, and I dont believe your sold on Roman Catholicism. You cant be. Its interesting the amount of Catholics who were Protestants and followed Stellman to Rome for the fuller worship and the one incarnational secret he came up with, they all commented today on his post how hard it was to be a Catholic, but then they say but we know where we are supposed to be. But inreality Jim who can bear up under that system. The complexity and guilt. Debbie said she was so unhappy. Then she said because she didnt feel like she was living the life she was supposed to. Always this burden to live up to a standard to be accepted by God. But Paul says in 2 Cor. 11:3 like the devil deceived Eve dont be pulled from the simplicity of simple devotion to Christ. Paul says for us to rejoice and again rejoice. Why? Because His mercy makes up for where we fail each day. And there lay the peace beyond all understanding that scripture gives. And Roman Catholicism robs people of that joy. Thats why I hate it. But I love it’s people. K
Kevin,
” Roman Catholicism robs people of that joy. Thats why I hate it. But I love it’s people. K”
You love its people? Do you love its people when you try to give offense and hurt feeling by saying they receive Communion at a trough?
Please, don’t love us so much.
Tim,
I am very thankful for your blog posts on justification by faith alone. Would you be able to post more on this topic of hard to understand verses that people read wrong and twist into a works message? Finally, would you and your church please pray for the salvation of me and my family and our health and safety until we are saved?
Thankyou
Thank you, Sandy.
I asked some questions but you replied with a simple, “thank you.” Was that a polite way of saying no to my questions?
I’m sure you put up with a lot of snarky and offensive comments and mine are never meant to be. Regardless of the fact that I am some how offensive to you, I will continue to read here as I am thankful for something to lead me toward Christ. I am here because I genuinely want to know Christ or be known by him. I also am curious as to the end times and differing beliefs. I never make comments on here that are snarky, disrespectful, or insincere. However, I get the feeling that I must have come off that way to deserve silence. If I have come off offensive I apologize. Either way have a good day. You don’t have to post this but if you do that is fine. I am thankful to have some other way to view things and so grateful for your writings.