Event vrs Process Justification

#1. "He has lost Christ" - you seem to reject OSAS.

#2. You seem to make justification a matter of "mental exercise" and not simply an event of the Romans 2 type with the circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit when you say that it is the understanding of the person that determines how real the Justification is -

#3. In Romans 3:28 and Romans 5:1 we see justification event "past". But in Romans 2 and James 2 we see a future justification "by works and not by faith alone". One in which "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints" (Daniel 7) on that future day when "We must ALL stand before the judgment seat of Christ" 2Cor 6.

So which justification are you talking about?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Actually the argument boils down to:

1. We are saved to good works.
or
2. We are saved by good words.

I go for #1. Jesus Saves!

 

Me too

 

What ?!! you are willing to allow yourself to LOOK at Romans 2!!??

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

I can't believe I found someone that will read this text of scripture and is ALSO interested in seeing where they have botched the context.

Hopefully you will be focused on the actual text --

Coming up!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Romans 2 is filled with the "contrast" language showing the failing case and how it is contrasted with the successful case.

Yet many who choose a "sifting and snippet" approach to scripture - turn a blind eye to the contrasting language in Romans 2 - hoping to see only "condemnation for Jews".

Still - there are Christians today that have faithfully shown a deep appreciation for all of God's word - and all of Romans 2.

Romans 2 actually deals with the impartiality of God wrt to Jews and Gentiles, those who have the bible and those who do not. (this means it addresses everyone - the saved and the unsaved) all come from either the group that has the bible or the group that does not. All come from either the Jews or the non-Jews. This is a globally applicable chapter. And it starts with the call to repentance (and there for confession and forgiveness).

Now from Romans 1 to 2:3 we have had introduced the subject of God's infallible judgment and contrasted it to man's faulty judgment

Lets pay special attention to the details of the starting Context that PAUL gives in his letter to the Romans and SEE how "choice" plays out in this IMPARTIAL system where the IMPARTIAL God calls ALL to repentance.

.

Vs 4 shows us that the mercy - kindness - grace leads us to repent. This chapter starts with the Gospel basics of God's offer to grant repentance and that all need to repent.

Note: The Context for Romans 2 is STARTING with judgment, AND of the mercy of God that leads to repentance.

Let's continue letting the scripture speak for itself;

Paul is adamant that there is a future judgment “according to deeds”. Paul here identifies the “impartial” basis of God’s judgment. Instead of His simply “arbitrarily selecting” some to favor and others to ignore – ALL are judged according to deeds IN the context of the “call to repentance” of vs 4.

He speaks of this again in 2Cor 5 talking about future judgment and judged based on deeds “whether they be good or evil”.

Notice that in these first 6 verses we have an Arminian-style motivation - not to engage in man's faulty judgment of others. And there is no sense or expectation that this sin is not to stop or just to continue because we are totally depraved. Rather the argument is to stop.

Romans 2 - if this chapter is only about the failing case, only about the wrath of God - then we will not find success, mercy, reward but only condemnation, wrath, punishment. Let's now let the text reveal which way it will go.

Here is the “succeeding case” explicitly listed by Paul. And it is in the context of God - leading to repentance. We also have the people of God - persevering, doing good and seeking glory and honor. What is the result? The text says immortality and eternal life.

Some have supposed that a “judgment” that is impartial as Paul points to in vs 6 and 11 must “only have failing cases”. But Paul shows in vs 7 that such is not the case. The “Good News” does not require God to arbitrarily be “partial to the FEW of Matt 7” as some have supposed. Rather it allows for God to be “impartial” and to SAVE mankind on that basis!

The “Failing case”: Clearly a contrast is being introduced "but to those who are selfish" - contrasted with what? Those who repent, seek eternal glory and honor and persevere. Persevere in what?

You must be on the right path to be approved in perseveringly staying on the right path. It is obvious I know, but worth noting.

So God has now contrasted the good and the wicked, those who persevere on the right path and those who are not even on it.

We already know that in the judgment there are two classes - those that receive immortality and those that do not. If it is not clear to us by now that this chapter is dealing with both classes - we need to engage in some remedial reading comprehension.

At this point Paul seems to ask that we "be not deceived" into thinking that some can do evil but find "preferred treatment" because God will “favor the few over the many”. He does not let us suppose that others are lost for doing evil while the “favored” ones do evil and go to heaven. Rather Paul argues that God has called all to repentance and all must comply - there will be no preferred treatment based on status (or magic phrase) allowing some of the rebels in.

But basic to Paul’s solution is the affirmation that God is NOT partial when it comes to the Gospel – when it comes to Salvation. That means that He is NOT favoring the “few” of Matt 7 over the “many” so that He can save the “Few”. Rather – impartiality demands that ALL be given the same salvation-sequence. ALL have the Holy Spirit convicting of sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:8) and ALL have the Drawing of God (John 12:32) and ALL have the Lord Jesus Christ standing at the door and knocking – and ALL have the SAME promise of the New Covenant that “changes the TREE itself” Matt 7 and writes the Law of God on the heart (Heb 8).

Rather than simply “favoring some over others” the system defined above is “impartial” as God HIMSELF is “Impartial”. This Gospel truth was a huge problem for the Jews and is a big problem for Calvinism.

 

No Partiality – for Christians –

God shows no partiality between unsaved people. (Unsaved Jews vs Unsaved Gentiles)
Acts 10:34
[ Gentiles Hear Good News ] Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality,

God shows no partiality in determining who goes to heaven – who is justified.

Many are reading that section of Romans 2:1-11 above for the first time – with eyes open to details.

Notice the "text" perhaps for the first time – as it speaks about our IMPARTIAL God whose process of judging in the matter of salvation (and IN the context of the call to repentance (Rom 2:4)) "results" in some saved and some lost JUST as He describes IN Romans 2...

Let "the text" speak.

#1. Romans 2 provides BOTH successful and failing cases for BOTH Jews and Gentiles.

#2. Romans 2 SAYS they are ALL judged based on DEEDS and the RESULT of that impartial judgment is that SOME fail and some succeed.

This is devastating to Calvinism.

#3. Romans 3 is IN the GOSPEL CONTEXT of the kindness and goodness of God - and the call to repentance.

This means that WITHIN the Gospel scenario there IS impartial JUDGMENT that results in SOME having eternal life and some not.

#4. Paul declares that the JUDGMENT is "according to my gospel". The judgment he speaks of is part of the Gospe.

#5. The Judgment results in "JUSTIFICATION" according to the text. It does not simply happen in a Gospel VOID where ALL those judged are condemned because of course - ALL are sinners.

#6. The DEEDS mentioned are the same FRUITs of MAtt 7 that Christ shows as "determining" outcoming.

#7 The ENTIRE thing is said to occur in an impartial manner and is GUARANTEED to be impartial because GOD HIMSELF is impartial when it comes to salvation according to Rom 2:11

The "obvious" point in both Romans 2 and Matt 7 is that it is NOT a scenario where God "arbitrarily selects out from among the doomed a few to FAVOR".

Both texts are going out of their way to START within the context of the Gospel and to SHOW that in that context of the goodness of God as our Father - and the call to repentance and forgiveness - WE HAVE a judgment of "deeds" where some fail and some pass.

It is NOT the more "general" case of Romans 3 where ALL are condemned WITHOUT the need for a "future judgment" since ALL have sinned.

Why treat ALL in this way?

ANSWER: Because "God is not partial"??


How then does Calvinism accept this chapter?

ANSWER: It does not.

 

Interesting that there are two different systems – one to address those who HAVE scripture and one to address those who do not. But BOTH having the potential outcome of loss or salvation. To this point Paul presents BOTH failing cases AND successful cases.

Paul appears to be in harmony with Christ here as Christ said that those who knew there master's will and did it not receive many lashes but those that did not know the master's will and yet did deeds worthy of punishment - receive few

Notice that Christ does not assume everyone goes to hell (both those who KNEW the Bible and those who did not) anymore than Paul would make such an absurd statement in Romans 2. Rather the chapter is in context with the call for repentance as noted at the start.

Having shown us both the group that in the future obtain immortality and the group that in the future suffer the wrath after the future judgment of God - Paul now sums it up - the justification that is future will be for the doers and not for those who are proven to be merely hearers. The test is the same Matt 7 indicator “NOT everyone who SAYS Lord Lord – but he who DOES” for the good tree produces good fruit.

This is not a fact that Paul then goes on to deny in the rest of the book of Romans. Rather he continues to strongly endorse it (note particularly Romans 6). John McAarthur did an excellent series on this point - titled "the power over sin".

Paul now continues with the succeeding case! Yes that is right! His argument works and he gives a very simple proving case.

There actually were Gentiles that really did not have the Law of God! That is very important to understand. And there were those who did instinctively the things of the Law showing it was written on their heart!! Wow! So that means Paul really was right!

Even more interesting is the fact that this terminology regarding "the Law written on the heart" is new covenant terminology. Heb 8, 2Cor 3!!! Yes indeed we have the succeeding case as well as the failing case made in this non-myopic chapter of God's infallible word.

wow! Apparently the infallible word is telling us that it is gospel - good news that a future judgment, where the Gentiles are shown to be doers of the Law and not merely hearers only, is coming. A future Christ centered judgment!! What a Christ-centered gospel Paul has in this chapter!!

2Cor 5:10

 

Notice the contrast between those that repent and persevere in doing good, and those that cause God's name to be blasphemed! It is a contrast based on what they “practice” relative to the Ten Commandments from which Paul quotes.

This is not a chapter claiming that all Jews cause God to be blasphemed. It is not a chapter declaring that all Jews have not repented. (Paul and the Apostles are Jews) It is not a chapter declaring that no Jews are saved in the judgment.

Rather it points to both the rebellion blasphemer on the one hand and the persevering and repentant on the other.

 

I went through the chapter in detail and pointed out all the inconvenient facts of Romans 2 -- that do not fit your preferences.

I suppose you call that exposure to the text of Romans 2 "a lot of work" --

And that is instructive.

Except for all the SUCCEEDING CASES for Israel explicitly LISTED IN THE CHAPTER.

You know - from those "inconvenient details" I highlighted IN THE CHAPTER!??

See - what reading will get you?

But notice that "once again" your response fails to exegete EVEN ONE verse of the much to be avoided chapter - Romans 2!!

How "tragic".

That means that I get to post Romans 2 all day long and all you can do is expose the fact that your view does not allow you to see the chapter and respond to its details.

This is going to be a field day sir.

You "pretend" that all the SUCCEEDING cases I pointed out in Romans 2 "did not exist".

Your model is to ignore the text - toss out an assumed point (that is unproven in the least) and then add a little "Ranting" as if that will make a nice brew called "proof" and can be packaged as "exegesis".

It can not.

And at this point - your avoidance of the texts posted is "glaring".


In Christ,

Bob

 

You START by making this bold assertion (on your own behalf) regarding Romans 2 "as if" you actually had any interest at all in exegeting the chapter, or paying close attention to its details.

Only to run and flee from the chapter once I take you up on that and SHOW the salvific success cases God places IN the chapter of Romans 2.

And then you want to complain that these inconvenient details were brought up!??

What is up with that?

 

Well - #1 it is VERSE BY VERSE and it exposes the VERY inconvenient DETAILS you so hope to hide from.

#2. It is OBVIOUS that in your every response so far you have YET to address even ONE of those inconvenient details IN THE TEXT of scripture.

#3. You ask that "my denomination's document" not be quoted (as IF any such thing is being posted) and then REFUSE to look at GOD's WORD when it comes to Romans 2.

Your own antics have been so blatanly transparent that I need do nothing but focus on the TEXT of Romans 2 and your textless stories are "debunked" as you continue to run and hide from the text of Romans 2 and points EXPLICITLY highlighted!

This could not be any more obvious.

I am surprised you would continually ask that I point out your antics.

Why not give in and actually LOOK at the text of scripture and RESPOND to the points raised?

Is this concept so foreign to your method of Bible study?

EVen more facinating is that AS almost the ENTIRE TEXT of Romans 2 is presented your own antics must force you to "pretend" that you have not yet seen the Bible posted as you say "you will have to eventually use the Bible".

I just can't imagine such antics would need to be employed to defend OSAS! I thought it had a little more substance to it than that!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

BTW - in case your next "antic" is to try and talk "past" the incovenient texts of scripture that have been highlighted as the points against OSAS were exposed in Romans 2 -- that will simply envite the same UNANSWERED points to be REPOSTED!

So please - try the rather innovative approach of actuallly RESPONDING to the texts you so need to hide from. The unanswered points listed - REMAIN!

In Christ,

Bob