You're a good kid,
It is almost funny as to just how far apart the two of us really are. Miles and miles and miles. This may alarm you somewhat, but I believe that God is bringing you and I to the same conclusion, a life in the eternal, with these two very different opinions. Only God can work through our opinions, our sense of logical progression, our failures and produce one who is full grown. Sooooo, keep that in mind.
In a message dated 9/4/2004 9:24:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: The covenant of Promise was sealed with the sign of circumcision. Do you agree? First, grace, second, outward obedience, any questions about this point?
Do you mean physical circumcision. If I give you Ro 2:28-29 -- would that answer your question?
Romans 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. So, the physical act is worthless without the testimony of obedience.
Why the addendom? I believe scripture teaches that physical circumcision is of no avail at all -- in terms of the Abrahamic or new covenant.
If you do not agree, then what are the âsteps of that
faithâ? It is important to note however that because of the commandments concerning modesty, circumcision is a private matter between a man and His creator. It is not like we walk around saying âhey look man, I am circumcisedâ. So, there must be outward obedience that testifies to the inward act?
I am confused here. Is it a cumciscision "inward" because it is a private matter or is true circumcision an inwardard action by an indwelling God?
Are we in agreement here? This is also why it says,
âcircumcise therefore the foreskin of your heartâ. Can you look at someone and say âhey their heart is circumcisedâ? No!
Yes !!! Ro 2:28-29
However there are certain behaviors that testify to the
inward condition. Faith first, obedience that has been empowered by faith, second. Any questions on this point?
Romans 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. I can understand how the term law in this context is confusing; I appreciate you making this point. The Strongs number for the usage of âlawâ in this passage is the word nomos. Nomos is a very broad term that applies to just about any set of rules or commands. Go ahead, look it up, it is number 3551.
It is this very block of scripture (Romans 2 - 8) that caused me to leave seminary just before I was to graduate, and leave the church I was raised in. I have been studying this text for nearly 30 years now, and am still excited about the passage and eager to learn. When you write Nomos is a very broad term that applies to just about any set of rules or commands. you could not be more inline with my understanding of this word. Paul is discussing "any legal system" and illustrates the point with specific reference to the Mosaical Law.
Romans 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Same word here, the conclusion when going back to verse 11, Paul is referring to those who were claiming to be heirs because of adherence to the set of rules, which disregarded the trusting faith found in Abraham. I am sure you would agree, that just because a man performs a certain act, it does not mean he has inherited the kingdom.
Amen
Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Same word again, used generically to describe a set of rules or commandments.
Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Romans 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
Romans 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
Romans 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
Romans 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Romans 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
Romans 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Romans 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Romans 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
To answer your question, you will find that Paul uses the term âlawâ in many different ways. When I say Law (capitalized) I mean Torah. If you would like, I will use âTorahâ in our discussions. In the above verses ânomosâ does not equal âTorahâ.
Only in verses 14 and 15. "Torah" would not be appropriate in the 8 or 9 applications in this text (IMO).
However, if you follow the thought through to 5:21 you will find that grace reigns through righteousness. Ask the question, whose righteousness? The answer of course is the Messiah. So if grace reigns in me, it is because Christâs righteousness has been imputed unto me, as I am sure you would agree.
Hang on that word "imputed" because in just a few minutes, you are going to say that it is earned. I report, you decide.
Romans 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
Now let us go to 6:1
Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
What is sin? Is it not violation of the commandments? Would you call an adulterer a sinner? Would you call a sodomite a sinner? If you are honest, you will answer yes.
Well, gosh, ok, if I must be honest, I guess a sodiumite is a sinner while you and are are the solt of the earth.
Sin is violation of the commandments.
I believe that "sin" is this and more -- it is a fully developed rebellion against God -- a life dedicated to self-service in a way that transcends anything that could be called love.
Sin = Death. You
seem to be saying that after conversion sin no longer equals death.
You may be right in this observation but I am curious as to what it is -- in my post -- that gives you this idea.
Paul also says that whatever is not faith is sin.
Faith in the passage you refer to (Ro 14:24-25) is not that which is based upon correct doctrinal understanding. Agree? in other words, "faith" in Rom 14: 24-25, if violated, is not a violation of a commandment but a violation of what one thinks is the correct thing to do.
You have
to balance that with violation of the commandments. They both describe sin. So, not having faith is sin. Does it not say in Hebrews
Hebrews 3:17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
Hebrews 3:18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
Hebrews 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
Verse 17 â Sin equals death.
Verse 18 â No faith, no promise.
So if I am under grace, my new nature is Christâs righteousness, what did Christ do that we could not have done? He perfectly obeyed the commandments. So if that nature is in me, I will desire to know and obey those commandments.
Ahh !! I report, you decide.
Indeed, God will be glorified. Not only by the testimony of the
change that occurred in me, but also the testimony of the humility in admitting my failures. The position you are coming from leaves only a testimony of failures, without the excellence of commandment adherence. We contend, like James, that faith has legs, and it is expressed in obedience.
The works that justify in James are what? The Sabboth observance ... and here, I would like to add more than just this one notion. But, I know almost nothing of Compassionate Legalism as it is viewed from a Messianic Jewish perspective.
When I (or anyone) speak of my successes at commandment keeping, I have to ackowledge my failures at commandment keeping at the same time -- in the same breath. The righteousness that is imputed to me (you words, I believe) comes to me as a without-merit addition to my account ledger based upon my conviction in the promises of God through Christ. My faith is substituted for my righteousness. As I see it, there can only be one reason for this -- because God had not choice!!!! He looked to my righteousness, got sick, and decided to save me anyway by giving credit to my degree of faith (I believe, help me in my unbelief) and calling THAT credit "righteousness." In "my" plan, God gets all the glory and I get zip-o, yet I remain the benefactor. PTL anyone??
This could go on and on. What I would like to do is bring closure to some of your points before we go on to more. If you will answer my previous response and the points above, we can continue with this discussion.
C. Tim Winkley
