Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16

[Lance Muir]

Well written brother John! Isn't it ironic that the very one who practically spits venom at the mention of a theologian or the hint of being informed by one should be so literally in bondage to a system of her own constructing then, call it 'what the Bible teaches'? ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 21, 2004 01:22 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 2:12-16 John responds in BLUE In a message dated 8/20/2004 5:54:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, I am a little surprised at your bias.   It is, in fact, the only thing you have going for you in this discussion in this particular post.  Check it out .....   jt: I wouldn't call it MY bias John. I didn't write the Bible. Bias is not a bad thing, Judy, it is a normal thing.  But when it is used to ignore the plain teaching of a particular passage, well, it troublesome.  We all fight Demon Bias.   John: ... exegete is exegete.  Paul uses "law" in this text 10 times.   Eight times he omits the definite article "the" and twice he includes it.   The point of the passage is that "salvation" is possible for one who has not heard anything about law or The Law.  To argue that this Gentile is knowingly subject to the "perfect law of liberty" is to make the passage pointless. jt: To put your meaning into this text one would need to negate or change a lot of other passages. This means there is "another" way to be saved. Some must be born again, die to the old flesh nature, and walk in the perfect law of liberty; where others can just be "good folk" and nice neighbors.  I don't see this concept anywhere else in the entire Bible - do you John? I am guessing that you believe that I am not studied in scripture or you would not think that I am giving an interpretation that conflicts with scripture.  I noticed that you did not give any references but, oh well.   As far as "another way?"   This Gentile has not HEARD the Word of the New Law.    So, of course, repentance and confession and conviction are out but is he necessarily lost?  Not according to Paul in v 15-16.   And how is he saved  -- through Jesus Christ.   So NOTHING IS DIFFERENT except that he is not a hearer, only a doer.  Why you reject this biblical teaching is beyond me.  John: Pointless?   This exegetical obervation is pointless?   The general application of "law" verses the specfic application is point less  -- not to me.   This is an observation about the written Word of God.   At last look, you and I consider the written word to be of great importance.    jt: I'm not aware of this differentiation. Of course you are  -- I just told you.  John ....?of Christ does BY NATURE what is required in God's law, Obviously, this is not true.   But you reject the very scripture that gives us this broader point of view.    And God's law is conviction, love and Spirit.   That is what the biblical message says. What you are doing is putting one scripture against another instead of allowing one to add to you understanding of another.   No good.     jt: Jesus didn't come to patch up the old.  He came to introduce something entirely new. Maybe I am confused, but isn't this my point?   John: Let me put this observation into context.  In the Roman letter, especially the first 7 chapters, Paul is saying over and over again that man is a sinner and God saves him in spite of himself. jt: Not without his knowledge and consent.  God does not sneak in the back way, nor does he manipulate or coerce; this man (like the rest of us) is a sinner who has come to Christ, partaken of the divine nature, and who is in the process of "being saved" .. This is the only way he could be doing by NATURE what is in God's law. Here you have injected your bias.   And I understand what you are trying to protect, in terms of biblcial teaching.  But  you have reasoned your way to the conclusion "This is the only way he could be doing by NATURE what is in God's law."  One more thing  --  if the New Law is love, and it is called this in scripture, a benevolent Mongolian could practice care and concern by nature, having never heard a good old fashioned gospel sermon.   So, what is his destiny, Judy.   There he is in outer Mongolia, having never heard the gospel and he dies.   Hell bound because we -- you and I - never got around to preaching the gospel to him?   He is lost with your theory  -- he MIGHT be saved through Christ with my understanding.    John: The Gentile in Romans 2:12-16 has an avenue of justification available to him  --  doing by nature the things of law.  jt: This is an impossibility for an unregenerate soul who is outside the Covenants of grace and is by nature a "child of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3).  The law Paul refers to here is God's Law. Absolutely not true (IMO).   How do I know  -- because Paul just said so.   We are told not to add to or take from but you add "born again" to "Gentile" and "God's [law]" to all "law" references in this text and "divine nature"  to "nature."  .   Why?  Because, if taken at face value, this passage  says something that you do not believe.   John: Impossible?   All things are possible --  especially when scripture says so.  And Rom 2:12-16 clear makes that statement.  jt: I believe you are reading into the text meaning that is not there.  God is not doubleminded and He will not violate His own Word - actually it is impossible for Him to lie.  It would be nice to think that everyone makes it, that God would lower his standard for some but this is living in religious fantasy.  It is not reality.  God has set the standard and it is the "royal law"  Incidentally this law is the same as the Old Covenant law.  If you compare the Sermon on the Mount with the Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mt. Sinai you will find that Moses was given the letter and we have the Spirit of the same law. There are so many assumptions in this paragraph.  Who says God is double minded?  Who suggests that He lies?  The new law and the old are the same (  Incidentally this law [ the "royal law"] is the same as the Old Covenant law.) ignoring the fact that Paul contrasts the Law of Works (Old Law) and the law of Faith (the new) [Ro 3:27]. John: In a practical sense, most will fail in this regard, or at least a good number of individuals will fail.   On the day of judgment, this man has no excuse.   He cannot say, "But no one told me about Christ."  In certain parts of the world, today, he could say this.   God will only point to his personal choices and hold him accountable for his actions through Christ.   jt: There is no excuse anyway John Romans 1:21,22 strips away that delusion. If they choose to seek Him God will make sure someone comes to them with the truth as he did with Cornelius in the book of Acts.  If not He will CAUSE them to believe the lie because they refused to love the truth. (2 Thess 2:11) So you beleive that all who die without having heard the gospel would never have responded to the gospel, anyway, since none of them were seeking God?   Incredible.  Millions of people die each and every day without having heard the gospel and every single one of them is a non-repsondent  ---- Calvanism plain and simple mixed with a lot of Finney.     John: None of this logic counters Ro 2:12-16.   Why not allow this text to amend your belief?   jt: Romans 2:12-16 in balance and context is Paul writing to the Church at Rome whose faith has been spoken of over the entire world and who he says has like faith with him.  Why do you make it so difficult to accept that the gentile in this text  is born again and part of the New Creation in Christ; A gentile who does by nature the things that are in the law because  he's been made a "partaker of the divine nature?". Because none of those words are used in the text.  None.  You have ADDED them to the text because of your theological bias.   In the end, you might be right  --- but you have added to the text, nonetheless.  John: In Christ, my sins, my inactivity, my failure is covered.   This Gentile stands before God on judgment day with nothing available to him but the state of affairs of his heart.   jt: Better make sure they are right.  All judgment in heaven and on earth has been given to the Son and we have a picture of this in the gospels. Many will come to Him and say "Lord, Lord, didn't I do this and that - and he will reply "I never did know you" depart from me.... He is the one who determines who is one of His sheep and who is a goat.  His sheep are the ones who hear His Voice... they don't follow the other voices. Please don't be carried away with these doctrines John....  Only the Truth makes us free. There is actually nothing in your wording above that I can disagree with except your concern for me.    And I appreciate it, Judy.   "Truth" is not a body of teaching, rather, it is Jesus Christ.  John: So the guy who has never heard the gospel is lost?   I do not pretend to establish my belief with this question BUT, it is a consideration.   jt: Yes. This is what the scriptures teach "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God should shine unto them (2 Cor 4:3,4).   John: I am saying that the truth of this passage presents the Gentile having not heard the "law" with no excuse.   It is not that he will say "I have done this and that."   Rather, God will say to him (assuming he is lost) "Judy and John and Jonathan and BillT and Lance and, well, the larger community of believers I see as an extension of who I am, they failed you  -- they did not get to you with the preaching of the gospel, but, my firend, you did not rise to any level of kindness or consideration of others.   You lived for and unto yourself  -- never practicing the kindness that you saw in some who lived in your world.  You are without excuse.  See ya."   jt: Look at the text again John. Jesus didn't say "you didn't practice kindness or "You lived for yourself". You are right  -- but what is available, in terms of activity, to one who is doing by nature, the things of a law he has never heard?   If the law is love, he can practive kindness.  On the other hand, if the "law " is Mosacial, well, how is he going to come up with blood sacrifice or Sabboth Day observance apart from hearing the law?   That is my I said what I said.   Jesus said they practiced "lawlessness" and SIN is lawlessness according to 1 John 3:4.  This is why IMO it is so important to know what sin is and what sin is not so that we too can "go and sin no more"   judyt Grace through faith apart from works of law keeping is what I look to.   Son of Dave   (hence, John David0  out !!!