Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law....for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2:16)
But then this:
Quote:
the doers of the law shall be justified before God. Romans 2:13
Reads like a blatant contradiction to me. Galatians was written first and Romans last, so I think Paul at first believed man was justified by faith in Jesus alone, not the works of the law. But then years later facing death, he reversed his stance, returned to his Jewish roots and revered the law. Anyone else?
Reads like a blatant contradiction to me. Galatians was written first and Romans last, so I think Paul at first believed man was justified by faith in Jesus alone, not the works of the law. But then years later facing death, he reversed his stance, returned to his Jewish roots and revered the law. Anyone else?
Read the context. It'll clear up easy enough. Seriously. This is not complicated stuff. Spend 30 minutes reading the first 6 chapters of Romans, and then Galatians and it becomes easy to understand.
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law....for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2:16)
But then this:
Quote:
the doers of the law shall be justified before God. Romans 2:13
Reads like a blatant contradiction to me. Galatians was written first and Romans last, so I think Paul at first believed man was justified by faith in Jesus alone, not the works of the law. But then years later facing death, he reversed his stance, returned to his Jewish roots and revered the law. Anyone else?
There is no contradiction. What did I tell you just yesterday in post #17 in the thread - Is it bad and selfish for me to feel this way about lukewarm Christians? I have reposted it below. I made it clear that in the first several chapters of Romans Paul was building his case and working up to the fact that man is not justified by works of the Law, but by faith in Christ Jesus. If you'll simply read ahead a bit, in Romans 3:20 Paul states that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
Here then is what I posted in the other thread.
Actually, it was Paul who said what you are quoting out of context.
Romans 2:13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
In this section of Romans Paul was talking about the impartiality of God with respect to judgment. Both the Jews and the Gentiles will be judged, but the Jews will be judged by the Law which was given only to the Jews. The Gentiles, since they were not given the Law will not be judged on the basis of the Law. The Law of Moses will not be used as the standard of judgment against the Gentiles.
The Jews were boasting in, and relying on the Law (Rom. 2:17, 23). Yet, the purpose of the Law was to demonstrate that no man can keep the Law perfectly. The Law therefore was a tutor or guardian to the Jews until Christ came.
Gal 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
Paul's point in the first six chapters of Romans was to show that no one is justified by the Law, but only through faith in Christ Jesus, and that eternal life is a gift.
And that eternal life is a free gift is what Jesus told the Samaritan woman (John 4:10,14).
John 4:10 Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water." . . . 14] but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life."
This is in keeping with what John recorded in Revelation 22:17. The Revelation which was given to him by Jesus.
Rev. 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.
Eternal life is given without cost. It is free and is received or taken possession of simply by trusting in Jesus who made salvation possible by means of His redemptive work on the cross.
And so, on the occasion spoken of in John 6:27-29, when the crowd asked Jesus what the works of God were that they might do them in order that they might have eternal life, Jesus corrected them by stating that there was only one thing, which He called a work (and this was simply speaking to them in terms that they would understand). And that one work was simply to believe on Him.
John 6:27 Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal." 28] Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" 29] Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."
Commenting on John 6:28-29 Edwin A. Blum writes,
6:28. The people recognized that Jesus was saying God had a requirement for them. They would do God's requirement if He would inform them what it was. They believed that they could please God and thus obtain eternal life by doing good works (cf. Rom. 10:2-4). 6:29. Jesus' response to their question was a flat contradiction of their thinking. They could not please God by doing good works. There is only one work of God, that is, one thing God requires. They need to put their trust in the One the Father has sent. Because of their sin people cannot please God by doing good works for salvation (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). God demands that people recognize their inability to save themselves and receive His gift (Rom. 6:23).
[The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, p. 295]
Now while good works are rewardable at the judgment seat of Christ (1 Cor. 3:12-15) that is a separate issue from eternal life. Eternal rewards are earned, but eternal life is a free gift. You do not work for a gift.
At the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) the issue of whether the Gentile believers should be circumcised was addressed. The Judaizers were claiming that you had to be circumcised according to the custom of Moses in order to be saved (Acts 15:1; Gal. 2). Peter refuted this. After referring back to when he had given the gospel to Cornelius (Acts 15:7 with reference to Acts chapter 10), Peter stated that we believe that we are saved by grace (Acts 15:11). Some years earlier Peter had been sent by God to give the gospel to Cornelius and his household. Even before he finished speaking to them the Holy Spirit came upon all who were listening to the message (Acts 10:44). They simply believed the message and were eternally saved as a result.
Paul then, did not contradict Jesus or the other apostles. Eternal salvation is a gift which is freely offered, freely given, and received simply by believing on Christ Jesus; by trusting in Him alone for eternal life.
You have to read both the immediate context and the greater context in order to understand the meaning of what is being said.
Read the context. It'll clear up easy enough. Seriously. This is not complicated stuff. Spend 30 minutes reading the first 6 chapters of Romans, and then Galatians and it becomes easy to understand.
Why does everything have to be explained with that magical Christian incantation, "Context"?
Seems clear enough to me: in one epistle Paul says one is justified by doing the works of the law and in another he says one is NOT justified by doing the works of the law? Why wrap up a clear contradiction
with a lot of gobbledygook intended to confuse a reader into believing what Paul says is NOT really what Paul says?
Look at how long Mike's explanation is--roughly 60-70 lines of text to try to untangle this supposed non-contradiction. Is this really necessary to fully understand Christiany?
Why does everything have to be explained with that magical Christian incantation, "Context"?
What? You said I'm the smartest guy you ever met and you wish you could be like me?
Quote:
Seems clear enough to me: in one epistle Paul says one is justified by doing the works of the law and in another he says one is NOT justified by doing the works of the law? Why wrap up a clear contradiction
with a lot of gobbledygook intended to confuse a reader into believing what Paul says is NOT really what Paul says?
Huh? You wish you could pick up and move to Nebraska to join my church?
Oh...wait...you actually expect me to READ your post and pay attention to the words? Funny....we should actually expect the same of you in regards to the Bible!
just read it as it was written...it's not that complicated. When you read Harry Potter, do you jump to chapter 12 and pick it up 3 pages in, then only read 1 sentence before you jump to another chapter and page, then rant about the supposed "contradiction"? Or do you actually read it starting with chapter 1?
What? You said I'm the smartest guy you ever met and you wish you could be like me?
Huh? You wish you could pick up and move to Nebraska to join my church?
Oh...wait...you actually expect me to READ your post and pay attention to the words? Funny....we should actually expect the same of you in regards to the Bible!
just read it as it was written...it's not that complicated. When you read Harry Potter, do you jump to chapter 12 and pick it up 3 pages in, then only read 1 sentence before you jump to another chapter and page, then rant about the supposed "contradiction"? Or do you actually read it starting with chapter 1?
Paul was writing for a bunch of bumpkins who couldn't count their fingers on both hands. You really think they are going to understand theology as deep as what Paul wrote and what Mike had to try to explain in a full page of condensed text? I mean are you really that naïve?
Last edited by thrillobyte; 10-14-2015 at 01:23 PM..
Paul was writing for a bunch of bumpkins who couldn't count theirs on both hands. You really think they are going to understand theology as deep as what Paul wrote and what Mike had to try to explain in a full page of condensed text? I mean are you really that naïve?
Yes--I'm guessing they actually read the letter in context. They didn't rip verses out of context like you routinely do. They also had pastors that actually taught the Gospel.
Thrill, i think Paul was saying if the law works for you be my guest......... but what ya going to do when you break it and all that self condemnation falls upon you?...... how you going to justify yourself and free yourself from that self condemnation?....... Now my Jewish friends, Christ showed us a more excellent way that frees you from self condemnation by being Christ conscious rather than law conscious....... one lifts you above your failure to live in a clear conscience, the other brings you down into a self condemned conscience. God majors on righteousness and imparts it to our conscious as we trust Christ.
The law conscious folk are easy to recognize...... they never ever shut up about sin, especially what they assume is sin in others.
Why does everything have to be explained with that magical Christian incantation, "Context"?
Seems clear enough to me: in one epistle Paul says one is justified by doing the works of the law and in another he says one is NOT justified by doing the works of the law? Why wrap up a clear contradiction
with a lot of gobbledygook intended to confuse a reader into believing what Paul says is NOT really what Paul says?
Look at how long Mike's explanation is--roughly 60-70 lines of text to try to untangle this supposed non-contradiction. Is this really necessary to fully understand Christiany?
It is time for you to engage in a real bible study in your area where you can get clarity about bible verses, you lack poorly in that regard.
Originally Posted by thrillobyte Paul was writing for a bunch of bumpkins who couldn't count their fingers on both hands. You really think they are going to understand theology as deep as what Paul wrote and what Mike had to try to explain in a full page of condensed text? I mean are you really that naïve?
Yes--I'm guessing they actually read the letter in context. They didn't rip verses out of context like you routinely do. They also had pastors that actually taught the Gospel.
Correction of my text.
I seriously doubt a bunch of bumpkins with not even a first grade education who couldn't read or write could understand past "Paul, a bondservant of Jesus."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
