Humility And Calvinism?

[Studyman]

Sound familiar?

Biblical N.T. Facts !

Judaizers believed that Christians should follow the Mosaic Law, including circumcision, Jewish holidays, and dietary restrictions.

I have asked many self-proclaimed "ministers of righteousness" to define for me what a "Judaizer" is, as the word doesn't exist in Scriptures. And I have yet to receive an answer from any of them. I will ask you as well and see what your answer is.

Is it men, who like Abraham, Caleb, Zacharias, Simeon and Paul, and others who have, as Paul teaches in Romans 6,

"but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God",

or as Jesus who;

Phil. 2: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

or as Peter who said;

1 Pet. 1: 13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: 15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

Or Paul;

Rom. 2: 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

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

Or are the Pharisees examples of "Judaizer" in your religion?

Who the Jesus "of the Bible" said;

Mark 7: 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Matt,. 15: 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

and again;

Matt. 23: 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

It seems that if you are going to use the word "Judaizer", which doesn't exist in Scriptures, and accuse others of being one, you should be able to show me which of the two groups in the Holy Scriptures it describes.

 

[civic]

I have asked many self-proclaimed "ministers of righteousness" to define for me what a "Judaizer" is, as the word doesn't exist in Scriptures. And I have yet to receive an answer from any of them. I will ask you as well and see what your answer is.

Is it men, who like Abraham, Caleb, Zacharias, Simeon and Paul, and others who have, as Paul teaches in Romans 6,

"but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God",

or as Jesus who;

Phil. 2: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

or as Peter who said;

1 Pet. 1: 13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: 15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

Or Paul;

Rom. 2: 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

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

Or are the Pharisees examples of "Judaizer" in your religion?

Who the Jesus "of the Bible" said;

Mark 7: 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Matt,. 15: 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

and again;

Matt. 23: 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

It seems that if you are going to use the word "Judaizer", which doesn't exist in Scriptures, and accuse others of being one, you should be able to show me which of the two groups in the Holy Scriptures it describes.

You sure don’t know your Bible .

The word Judaizercomes from a Greek verb meaning “to live according to Jewish customs.” The word appears in Galatians 2:14 where Paul describes how he confronted Peter for forcing Gentile Christians to “Judaize.”

Acts 15 exposes your false beliefs of the Judaizers.

hope this helps !!!

 

[TibiasDad]

You sure don’t know your Bible .

The word Judaizercomes from a Greek verb meaning “to live according to Jewish customs.” The word appears in Galatians 2:14 where Paul describes how he confronted Peter for forcing Gentile Christians to “Judaize.”

Acts 15 exposes your false beliefs of the Judaizers.

hope this helps !!!

Yep, Ἰουδαΐζω !

Doug

 

[civic]

Yep, Ἰουδαΐζω !

Doug

Now watch him deny it since it’s not in his favorite translation in English. Young’s literal translation is correct as is Berean , both give us the literal meaning of the Greek word - Judaize.

Strong's Concordance
Ioudaizó: to Judaize
Original Word: Ἰουδαΐζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: Ioudaizó
Phonetic Spelling: (ee-oo-dah-id'-zo)
Definition: to Judaize
Usage: I live as a Jew (in religion, ceremonially).

 

[Studyman]

You sure don’t know your Bible .

The word Judaizercomes from a Greek verb meaning “to live according to Jewish customs.” The word appears in Galatians 2:14 where Paul describes how he confronted Peter for forcing Gentile Christians to “Judaize.”

That's what I thought. So then, the men who adopted the traditions and philosophies of the religious sect of the Pharisees, like Saul and Gamaliel, who "Full well rejected the commandment of God, that ye may keep their own tradition. And also who went about to establish their own righteousness, refusing to submit to the Righteousness of God, are "Judaizers".

While faithful believers of God, like Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, and Paul, "Who yielded themselves servants to obey God", just as the Jesus "of the Bible" did, are not Judaizers.

So which one was Peter being, that caused Paul to rebuke him?

The obedient servant of God, like Jesus and the Faithful, or did he fall back into the Beggarly Elements of this world and "turn again" to the religious tradition of the Pharisees that transgressed God's Laws?

Don't tell me, you are going to isolate Paul's words in Gal. 2, and take it out of context to promote your religion that obedience to God is wicked, and evil and a false gospel, while promoting the religious doctrines and traditions of self-proclaimed "ministers of righteousness", is holy. As long as they promote the doctrines and philosophies of the religious sect you have adopted, and not the JW's, or the Calvinist, or the LDS, or the Catholics, etc., etc., etc.

Acts 15 exposes your false beliefs of the Judaizers.

But you are contradicting your own religion Civic.

Paul and the Apostles kept the New converts who had "Turned to God" away from the Pharisees who "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that they may keep their own tradition", and instead instructed them to obey God's Law.

Here it is in your own Bible.

Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles "are turned to God":

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, (God's Law) and from fornication, (God's Law) and from things strangled, (God's Law) and from blood. (God's Law) 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

And what does Moses teach? God's Law, Yes?

So how is it that Paul and Peter, and me because I believe what is written, are Judaizers because they promoted God's Law, and Moses, like Jesus did, while the "circumcision", made with hands, are now suddenly become true believers?

hope this helps !!!

It does Civic,

It shows me further, how far you will go to accomplish your mission to convince as many as you can that "Obedience to God is a false gospel".

 

[synergy]

That's what I thought. So then, the men who adopted the traditions and philosophies of the religious sect of the Pharisees, like Saul and Gamaliel, who "Full well rejected the commandment of God, that ye may keep their own tradition. And also who went about to establish their own righteousness, refusing to submit to the Righteousness of God, are "Judaizers".

While faithful believers of God, like Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, and Paul, "Who yielded themselves servants to obey God", just as the Jesus "of the Bible" did, are not Judaizers.

So which one was Peter being, that caused Paul to rebuke him?

The obedient servant of God, like Jesus and the Faithful, or did he fall back into the Beggarly Elements of this world and "turn again" to the religious tradition of the Pharisees that transgressed God's Laws?

Don't tell me, you are going to isolate Paul's words in Gal. 2, and take it out of context to promote your religion that obedience to God is wicked, and evil and a false gospel, while promoting the religious doctrines and traditions of self-proclaimed "ministers of righteousness", is holy. As long as they promote the doctrines and philosophies of the religious sect you have adopted, and not the JW's, or the Calvinist, or the LDS, or the Catholics, etc., etc., etc.



But you are contradicting your own religion Civic.

Paul and the Apostles kept the New converts who had "Turned to God" away from the Pharisees who "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that they may keep their own tradition", and instead instructed them to obey God's Law.

Here it is in your own Bible.

Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles "are turned to God":

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, (God's Law) and from fornication, (God's Law) and from things strangled, (God's Law) and from blood. (God's Law) 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

And what does Moses teach? God's Law, Yes?

So how is it that Paul and Peter, and me because I believe what is written, are Judaizers because they promoted God's Law, and Moses, like Jesus did, while the "circumcision", made with hands, are now suddenly become true believers?



It does Civic,

It shows me further, how far you will go to accomplish your mission to convince as many as you can that "Obedience to God is a false gospel".

Apologies for cutting into your conversation but an excellent judaizing example is when Jesus and His Disciples were accused of breaking the Sabbath Commandment. Jesus' accusers were judaizing by focusing on the letter of the law and not on the Spirit of the law.

 

[Studyman]

Now watch him deny it since it’s not in his favorite translation in English. Young’s literal translation is correct as is Berean , both give us the literal meaning of the Greek word - Judaize.

Strong's Concordance
Ioudaizó: to Judaize
Original Word: Ἰουδαΐζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: Ioudaizó
Phonetic Spelling: (ee-oo-dah-id'-zo)
Definition: to Judaize
Usage: I live as a Jew (in religion, ceremonially).

But again, your mouth and heart deceive you. Did I deny anything? I simply asked for a definition of who qualified as a "Judaizer" in your religion. Jesus, or the Pharisees?

And you answered me, the Pharisees.

Do you know that this Greek Word was only used 1 time in the entire New Testament, Gal. 2:14.

The word Jew, and Jewish was used 276 times in the NT. One time it meant "Ioudaizó", to Judaize.

It’s crazy how you isolate this one passage to support an erroneous doctrine like "The false gospel is obedience to the law".

But I appreciate you answering me. Most mainstream preachers of this world that I asked, didn't. And it certainly does separate the doctrines and traditions of the "children of the devil", the Jews who ran the Temple in Jerusalem, from the faithful Jews like Jesus and Zacharias, and Caleb, and Abraham, and Paul, and David and all those other men of Faith who "Walked in the Spirit" AKA "The Way of the Lord", and not in the fleshy religious traditions of men.

Thanks for the answer.

It did help.

 

[civic]

Apologies for cutting into your conversation but an excellent judaizing example is when Jesus and His Disciples were accused of breaking the Sabbath Commandment. Jesus' accusers were judaizing by focusing on the letter of the law and not on the Spirit of the law.

Spot on

 

[Studyman]

Apologies for cutting into your conversation but an excellent judaizing example is when Jesus and His Disciples were accused of breaking the Sabbath Commandment. Jesus' accusers were judaizing by focusing on the letter of the law and not on the Spirit of the law.

I appreciate that understanding. But the "Letter of the Law" never forbids men to take a walk in fellowship with God, nor does it forbid them to pick a blackberry or apple or ear of corn to eat along the way. Just as it was never against the letter of God's Law to help someone in need on God's Sabbaths.

These were some of the "Commandments of men" Jesus said the Pharisees taught for doctrines. Jesus points out the hypocrisy in their tradition first by scriptures, then by their own works. It was the perfect rebuke and made these children of the devil so mad, they sought how they might kill Him.

It was Judaizing though, as you correctly point out, because it was promoting a Tradition of the rebellious, disobedient Jews, who were the children of the devil, and not from the mouth of God.

That was a great post bringing up the "Spirit of the Law". Very important and still has not passed, as Jesus Himself said.

 

[synergy]

I appreciate that understanding. But the "Letter of the Law" never forbids men to take a walk in fellowship with God, nor does it forbid them to pick a blackberry or apple or ear of corn to eat along the way. Just as it was never against the letter of God's Law to help someone in need on God's Sabbaths.

These were some of the "Commandments of men" Jesus said the Pharisees taught for doctrines. Jesus points out the hypocrisy in their tradition first by scriptures, then by their own works. It was the perfect rebuke and made these children of the devil so mad, they sought how they might kill Him.

It was Judaizing though, as you correctly point out, because it was promoting a Tradition of the rebellious, disobedient Jews, who were the children of the devil, and not from the mouth of God.

That was a great post bringing up the "Spirit of the Law". Very important and still has not passed, as Jesus Himself said.

Permit me to say a few things about the Law. I think you would agree that Paul was not antinomian by any stretch of the imagination. Romans 7 proves it. In there you will see that Paul does not seek to abolish nor denigrate the Law at all. In fact, he said a lot of excellent things about the Law in Romans 7, going as far as declaring that "the Law is spiritual" - but notice the "but" in one of his passages:

(Rom 7:14) "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin."

We still have a problem in spite of all the wonderful things that the Law did for the Jews. We are still "sold under sin" and there is absolutely nothing that the Law can do about that. It's only by believing in Jesus can we be redeemed from being "sold under sin". It's only by believing in Christ can one be made righteous, not by the Law (Rom 3:20, 10:4). Also, the Law-Giver, Jesus Christ, who is greater than the Law, has the ability to abrogate ordinances like circumcision (Eph 2:15) as declared by the Apostles in the Jerusalem Council.

 

[civic]

Permit me to say a few things about the Law. I think you would agree that Paul was not antinomian by any stretch of the imagination. Romans 7 proves it. In there you will see that Paul does not seek to abolish nor denigrate the Law at all. In fact, he said a lot of excellent things about the Law in Romans 7, going as far as declaring that "the Law is spiritual" - but notice the "but" in one of his passages:

(Rom 7:14) "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin."

We still have a problem in spite of all the wonderful things that the Law did for the Jews. We are still "sold under sin" and there is absolutely nothing that the Law can do about that. It's only by believing in Jesus can we be redeemed from being "sold under sin". It's only by believing in Christ can one be made righteous, not by the Law (Rom 3:20, 10:4). Also, the Law-Giver, Jesus Christ, who is greater than the Law, has the ability to abrogate ordinances like circumcision (Eph 2:15) as declared by the Apostles in the Jerusalem Council.

Amen

 

[Studyman]

Permit me to say a few things about the Law. I think you would agree that Paul was not antinomian by any stretch of the imagination. Romans 7 proves it. In there you will see that Paul does not seek to abolish nor denigrate the Law at all. In fact, he said a lot of excellent things about the Law in Romans 7, going as far as declaring that "the Law is spiritual" - but notice the "but" in one of his passages:

(Rom 7:14) "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin."

This is certainly all true. And it would be for all men, Yes? Because all men find themselves in the same place. Including Abraham, and Caleb, and Zacharias, etc. I think about the wisdom beyond comprehension that since the beginning of man, we all are brought into the same place, by the choices we make.

We still have a problem in spite of all the wonderful things that the Law did for the Jews. We are still "sold under sin" and there is absolutely nothing that the Law can do about that.

This is so true, I am sold under sin, held captive by the death sin, AKA, transgression of God's Law brought to me. I can keep God's Law perfectly right now, BUT I am still in prison, held captive by the sins I committed because God's Law wasn't created to take away Sins, only show us what Sin is.

It's only by believing in Jesus can we be redeemed from being "sold under sin". It's only by believing in Christ can one be made righteous, not by the Law (Rom 3:20, 10:4).

While I believe and agree with you that the Lord's Christ is the only path for a pardon out of the sentence of death I am sold under, I am careful concerning the ways this world's religions wrest Paul's teaching. Paul said in Romans 2:

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

So when Paul says, concerning the Jews who had the Oracles of God, but didn't believe them what he said in Rom. 3:20, I was careful to study to find out why Paul would say one thing in one chapter, and it seemed, another thing in the next chapter, which appear to be opposite doctrines. This world's religions just choose one sentence and ignores the other. But because I don't believe God's Inspired Words contradict itself, I spent a great deal of time in study and prayer to understand God's message here. Please take just a little time and consider what I found.

Since the only scriptures available to Paul was the Law and Prophets, and Paul said he believed "ALL" that was written in them, I searched the Holy Scriptures for clues. And I came upon exactly what Paul was speaking to in Isaiah 1. Here you have the Pharisees, Jews who had been given the Oracles of God, but didn't believe them, just as the Jews Paul was addressing in Romans 2 and 3 did.

These men, Professed to know God, but like the Pharisees, "in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate" (Titus 1:16)

Is. 1: 2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. 3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the *** his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider. 4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel (The Rock) unto anger, they are gone away backward.

So these men were exactly the same as the Jews in Romans 1-3.

So what did these Jews do?

Is. 1: 10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. 12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?

You see, the Jews rejected God's Laws, His Judgments and His Commandments, they were rebellious and disobedient, YET every week they appeared before HIM, offering the Blood if an innocent, righteous being, for the remission of their sins, "AS Per the Law".

But God never sanctioned such behavior. No rebellious, sinful disobedient Flesh is justified by the "works of the Law". A man can't live his life in disobedience and rebellion against God, then once a week, don't work on the Sabbath, or offer the Blood of an unblemished sacrifice, and expect to be justified.

Here is what God said in the examples HE had written for out admonition;

13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. 14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

No Flesh is justified by "works of the Law".

16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. (All these are God's Law that Israel rebelled against, just as the Pharisees rebelled against)

18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

Why did God say if they be willing and obedient they shall eat the good of the Land?

Because as Paul said, "13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified."

Not by "Works of the Law" rebellious men offer for justification of their willful rebellion against God, but those who trust God to guide them, AKA, Have faith in God, as Paul also teaches.

2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: To be "Learned of the Father". 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Sorry so long, but it's important to consider "Every Word" of God when understanding Paul.

Also, the Law-Giver, Jesus Christ, who is greater than the Law, has the ability to abrogate ordinances like circumcision (Eph 2:15) as declared by the Apostles in the Jerusalem Council.

I know that "many" who come in Christ's Name teach it was God and His Laws that created the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile. But when God's Words is considered, no such teaching exists.

Please consider what is actually written.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are "called" Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

These repentant Gentiles were not called "The uncircumcision" by God, according to Paul. Rather, by the "Circumcision" made with hands. It was they. the Pharisees and rebellious Jews who taught "That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

This wall of separation was never taught by God, as Leviticus 19 and Is. 56:1-7 clearly teaches. But by the children of the devil who had corrupted the Priesthood and turned God's word into a religious business.

Sorry so long, and Thank you for the reply, I look forward to your thoughts.

 

[TibiasDad]

That's what I thought. So then, the men who adopted the traditions and philosophies of the religious sect of the Pharisees, like Saul and Gamaliel, who "Full well rejected the commandment of God, that ye may keep their own tradition. And also who went about to establish their own righteousness, refusing to submit to the Righteousness of God, are "Judaizers".

While faithful believers of God, like Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, and Paul, "Who yielded themselves servants to obey God", just as the Jesus "of the Bible" did, are not Judaizers.

Saul and Paul are the same person. Paul was not a Judaizer nor was Saul, though Saul, prior to the Damascus Road event, would have advocated for and kept all the Jewish dietary practices. Saul nor Gamaliel
“"Full well rejected the commandment of God, that ye may keep their own tradition.”

So which one was Peter being, that caused Paul to rebuke him?

Peter was being a hypocritical Christian for eating with Gentiles and not condemning their “food” and then reversing himself when “those from James” came from Jerusalem. Paul called him on the carpet for that and rightly so!

But again, your mouth and heart deceive you. Did I deny anything? I simply asked for a definition of who qualified as a "Judaizer" in your religion. Jesus, or the Pharisees?

No, you said the word wasn’t in the Bible!
Civic showed you your error.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

God's Law wasn't created to take away Sins, only show us what Sin is.

Which is precisely what I have been saying all along! So why all the grief?

Doug

 

[synergy]

This is certainly all true. And it would be for all men, Yes? Because all men find themselves in the same place. Including Abraham, and Caleb, and Zacharias, etc. I think about the wisdom beyond comprehension that since the beginning of man, we all are brought into the same place, by the choices we make.


This is so true, I am sold under sin, held captive by the death sin, AKA, transgression of God's Law brought to me. I can keep God's Law perfectly right now, BUT I am still in prison, held captive by the sins I committed because God's Law wasn't created to take away Sins, only show us what Sin is.

While I believe and agree with you that the Lord's Christ is the only path for a pardon out of the sentence of death I am sold under, I am careful concerning the ways this world's religions wrest Paul's teaching. Paul said in Romans 2:

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

So when Paul says, concerning the Jews who had the Oracles of God, but didn't believe them what he said in Rom. 3:20, I was careful to study to find out why Paul would say one thing in one chapter, and it seemed, another thing in the next chapter, which appear to be opposite doctrines. This world's religions just choose one sentence and ignores the other. But because I don't believe God's Inspired Words contradict itself, I spent a great deal of time in study and prayer to understand God's message here. Please take just a little time and consider what I found.

Thank you for your comments. I am pausing at the point where you talk about the apparent contradiction between Rom 2:13 and Rom 3:20. At first glance, Rom 2:13 and Rom 3:20 do look contradictory.

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

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: Rom. 3:20.

What's happening is that those 2 passages are referring to two totally different target groups.

The target group of your first passage is pagan Gentiles who knew nothing about the true God and yet performed lawful deeds against all odds. Christ will take that into consideration when God will judge the secrets of men. God's fairness brilliantly shines through here.

The target group of your second passage is referring to Jews who had all the privileges of knowing God and yet fell into legalism. There is no excuse for them.

I'll read through the rest of your comments and comment on them when I get some time hopefully later on tonight.

 

[synergy]

I know that "many" who come in Christ's Name teach it was God and His Laws that created the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile. But when God's Words is considered, no such teaching exists.

Please consider what is actually written.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are "called" Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

These repentant Gentiles were not called "The uncircumcision" by God, according to Paul. Rather, by the "Circumcision" made with hands. It was they. the Pharisees and rebellious Jews who taught "That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

This wall of separation was never taught by God, as Leviticus 19 and Is. 56:1-7 clearly teaches. But by the children of the devil who had corrupted the Priesthood and turned God's word into a religious business.

Sorry so long, and Thank you for the reply, I look forward to your thoughts.

I agree that there was no wall of separation. To me it's more like a hill that was scalable as understood in Rom 2:13-16. God still made it possible for Gentiles to do the things of the law by nature, and they will be acknowledged by God for doing that. In fact, God used the Greek language to propagate the Gospel throughout the entire Roman Empire.

13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

 

[TibiasDad]

Thank you for your comments. I am pausing at the point where you talk about the apparent contradiction between Rom 2:13 and Rom 3:20. At first glance, Rom 2:13 and Rom 3:20 do look contradictory.

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

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: Rom. 3:20.

What's happening is that those 2 passages are referring to two totally different target groups.

The target group of your first passage is pagan Gentiles who knew nothing about the true God and yet performed lawful deeds against all odds. Christ will take that into consideration when God will judge the secrets of men. God's fairness brilliantly shines through here.

The target group of your second passage is referring to Jews who had all the privileges of knowing God and yet fell into legalism. There is no excuse for them.

I'll read through the rest of your comments and comment on them when I get some time hopefully later on tonight.

While I don’t have an issue with your thinking here, Synergy, but I think it’s better to approach it from a principled point of view.

The principle in ROM 2 is that whether by the written code or by natural instinct of heart, we all know that certain things are wrong. If we don’t murder, then we haven’t done anything wrong regardless of whether we have the law in writing or if we knew it is wrong to kill as a matter of conscience.

There is also the principle that to do good is to be good, so if (a hypothetical proposition) one without the written law actually does or doesn’t do the things in the written law, he would be righteous.

Thus Paul’s statement that being a hearer of the word (that is having been raised and taught under the written code) is not a determining factor in being justified, but whether we actually do what is right.

In ROM 3, the principle shifts to the purpose of the law.

19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

Here we see another universal type statement for there is no one that will not be held accountable by the law- regardless of whether we had the law or not.


20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

Why will no one be declared righteous by the works of the law? Because that’s not the purpose of the law; the purpose of the law was to make us conscious of our sin.


Paul repeats and expands this thought in ROM 7:13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

I see universal principles being expressed in both ROM 2-3: Whoever obeys the law will be declared righteous- regardless of their exposure to the written law. And The whole world will be held accountable for their actions because the law’s purpose was to expose our sinful nature that causes us to rebel against the commandments of the law.

Doug

 

[synergy]

While I don’t have an issue with your thinking here, Synergy, but I think it’s better to approach it from a principled point of view.

The principle in ROM 2 is that whether by the written code or by natural instinct of heart, we all know that certain things are wrong. If we don’t murder, then we haven’t done anything wrong regardless of whether we have the law in writing or if we knew it is wrong to kill as a matter of conscience.

There is also the principle that to do good is to be good, so if (a hypothetical proposition) one without the written law actually does or doesn’t do the things in the written law, he would be righteous.

Thus Paul’s statement that being a hearer of the word (that is having been raised and taught under the written code) is not a determining factor in being justified, but whether we actually do what is right.

In ROM 3, the principle shifts to the purpose of the law.

19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

Here we see another universal type statement for there is no one that will not be held accountable by the law- regardless of whether we had the law or not.


20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

Why will no one be declared righteous by the works of the law? Because that’s not the purpose of the law; the purpose of the law was to make us conscious of our sin.


Paul repeats and expands this thought in ROM 7:13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

I see universal principles being expressed in both ROM 2-3: Whoever obeys the law will be declared righteous- regardless of their exposure to the written law. And The whole world will be held accountable for their actions because the law’s purpose was to expose our sinful nature that causes us to rebel against the commandments of the law.

Doug

That's fine. I personally like to emphasis and be clear about which target group Paul is speaking of. Rom 2:13 speaks about ancient Gentiles who lived before the Gospel, Rom 3:10 speaks about Pharisaic Jews, and Rom 7 speaks about our Christian present circumstances.

 

[civic]

That's fine. I personally like to emphasis and be clear about which target group Paul is speaking of. Rom 2:13 speaks about ancient Gentiles who lived before the Gospel, Rom 3:10 speaks about Pharisaic Jews, and Rom 7 speaks about our Christian present circumstances.

And I see Roman’s 7 as him trying to please God under the law which was impossible hence his struggle

 

[Studyman]

Thank you for your comments. I am pausing at the point where you talk about the apparent contradiction between Rom 2:13 and Rom 3:20. At first glance, Rom 2:13 and Rom 3:20 do look contradictory.

Remember, I am replying to religious men who have transformed themselves into apostles of Christ and are promoting the religious philosophy that "obedience to God is a false gospel", and that "God's Laws only bring death" to them who would be a "doer" of them. And they also imply in their religion that God lied to Abraham's children who trusted Him concerning His Laws, and they preach that HIS Laws are a Yoke of bondage that God placed on the necks of men who believed and trusted Him, Laws impossible to obey, and then HE slaughtered them when they "couldn't possibly" obey them, so Jesus had to come and save men from God and His Laws.

That is what is being taught, (without the lipstick) in the synagogues and in the streets by "many" who call Jesus Lord, Lord in the garden God placed me in, since before I was even born.

I have been warned by God and by His Son, and by the Prophets God sent, and by Paul and Peter, to "Beware" of these men and the Philosophies and "traditions of men" they promote, and to "Take Heed" of their teaching, and to "test the spirits", and "prove all things" that are being promoted by the religions of this world they have adopted and are now promoting. To do this, I follow Paul's instruction.

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


And these men, who preach to the world that obedience to God is a false gospel, use Rom, 3:20 as justification for their religious traditions which transgress God's judgments and commandments. While not even acknowledging Rom. 2:13, because it "IS" contradictory in their religion, just as it was contradictory to me, being brought up with their religious influence.

That is why I set about to let God, through HIS Word, show me what Paul was teaching, because I know that Paul believed "all things" that was written in the Law and Prophets, and quoted them throughout his letters.

So they "looked" contradictory because of the religious influence I was raised in, but after some study, as you can see in Isaiah 1, they are not contradictory at all. In fact, Paul is simply pointing out the Prophesy concerning these children of the devil, and how they would use some "Works of the Law" to justify their own religion which "Full well rejected God's Commandments, that they might keep their own religious traditions.

This is a biblical Truth that is really important to understand. The mainstream religions of this world, "who profess to know God" in Christ's and Paul's Time, lived in iniquity. They rejected God's Judgments and created their own. They rejected God's Righteousness, and created their own. They rejected God's Commandments, and created their own. This is simply undeniable Biblical Fact.

Yet every week, they would gather in their manmade shrines of worship, and offer to God the Blood of a righteous, innocent "unblemished life", As per the Law, to justify their full well rejection of God's Law, in order to keep their doctrines, traditions and philosophies of men.

Paul is telling them, by "works of the Law" shall no man, who "works iniquity" be justified. Even if they call Jesus Lord, Lord.

I'll address the rest of your thoughtful reply in another post.