David Miller wrote: >> His argument is that the Gentiles who did not >> have the LAW (were not hearers of the law) but >> were DOERS of the law, would surely be justified >> before God. Read the passage again now:
John S. wrote: > That is not what the passage says. When Gentiles who > have not the law do by nature the things of the law > .... is the picture given in Romans 2. To be more > specific -- Paul includes those who have never heard > the law. I think that is what I just said. The Gentiles, who had never heard the law, were doers of the law, having the law written upon their hearts. What Gentiles have the law written upon their hearts and are doers of the law? Those who have encountered Christ and are born again. David Miller wrote: >> What Gentiles DO the law as a result of the law >> being written upon their hearts? BORN AGAIN GENTILES. John wrote: > You make this conclusion, not scripture. Scripture > clearly tells us which Gentiles do by nature the > things of the law -- it those in this example who > have not heard the law and its requirements. Right. What Gentiles would these be? Is there any way to be righteous, to love God and your neighbor as yourself, outside of Jesus Christ? These would be Gentiles who had not the law, but who believed the gospel of Jesus Christ and received the law written upon their hearts. Romans 2:14 says that the Gentiles "do by nature the things contained in the law." What Gentile does BY NATURE the things contained in the law? Human nature is contrary to the law. Read Romans 7. Only the new nature created in Christ Jesus is the nature which causes us to do by nature the things contained in the law. John S. wrote: > If these were born again Christians there would > be no question as to their salvation -- but > salvation is not a sure thing in this passage > .. compare Romans 2:15 and the stated option > in regard to judgment day. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) (Romans 2:15 KJV) What stated option? I don't follow you. John S. wrote: >>> When the Jewish patron left the altar of sacrifice, >>> he was not protected from sin. David Miller wrote: >> Can you elaborate upon this? What do you mean? >> Didn't Job have a hedge of protection about him >> that Satan complained about? John wrote: > What God accomplished for a particular individual > does not a theology make. Are you in disagreement > with my statement? No. John S. wrote: > Do you believe that the offering of bulls and > goats afforded linear protection for the OT patron? I don't know what "linear protection" means. I don't know what you mean by "protect from sin." Do you mean deliver from temptation? David wrote: >> The repetitive nature of sacrifices had to do >> with the fact that the conscience was never dealt >> with in these sacrifices. No matter what kind of >> forgiveness might take place, the worshippers never >> really felt forgiven, so they kept doing it over >> and over again. John wrote: > Whether or not this is a biblical observation is > beside the point. When you write "No matter what > kind of forgiveness might take place ...." are you > admitting that forgiveness did take place and was > specific in scope rather than on-going --- > because that is my point. I agree with you that forgiveness took place, but I don't understand what you mean by specific in scope versus on-going forgiveness. Forgiveness under the Mosaic covenant was on-going in the sense that people continued to sin and continued to be forgiven. David wrote: >> What do you mean by linear? John wrote: > I find it interesting that we had that big > "discussion" regarding "linear" sometime back > (IJo 1:8) and you don't know what "linear" > means............ continual action with no > end in sight. Oh, you are using a grammatical term in a non-grammatical context. Ok. You have to bear with me. In science when we talk about cause and effect relationships, we might describe them as linear or curvilinear, depending on the type of relationship. So when you say that the blood of Christ is linear in scope and accomplishment, you mean it is ongoing. In other words, I guess you are saying that it is dynamically applied over time when needed? It seems to me that the Hebrew sacrifices also were applied this way, but because they had no effect upon the conscience, they kept repeating the sacrifices over and over again. I'm tempted to draw upon Torrance to talk about why they did not effect the conscience but Christ did, but I guess that is another topic. :-) In terms of how people applied the sacrifice to their lives, though, is there any difference between how people appropriate the blood of Christ and the blood of bulls and goats? Don't we all come back for forgiveness if we fall and miss the mark? John S. wrote: > Did you miss the point I made about Paul saying > one thing and the Hebrew writer saying something > else? Yeah, I didn't follow that either. Sorry. I would like to try and understand. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
