How can God justify the ungodly and still maintain His integrity to His law?
- Thread starter Roberth
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Romans 1:18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Who Paul writing about: Jews, who had & knew the law, or the Gentiles?
20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse...
So these are Gentiles, who did not have a written account of the law, but knew God through nature (the created world)....
How did they respond?
Verse 21...for though they (the Gentiles without the law) knew God (through nature), they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being...
So they turned to the worship of men, which is idolatry. What did God do in response?
26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
That's a big list of sins, right? Did they know these were sins since they didn't have the written law?
Answer: 32 "They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them."
So "yes", they knew, but practiced these sins as a lifestyle in defiance of God.
Then, in Romans 2, Paul turns to the Jews who knew the law:
Therefore you (the Jews) have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.
Who Paul writing about: Jews, who had & knew the law, or the Gentiles?
20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse...
So these are Gentiles, who did not have a written account of the law, but knew God through nature (the created world)....
How did they respond?
Verse 21...for though they (the Gentiles without the law) knew God (through nature), they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being...
So they turned to the worship of men, which is idolatry. What did God do in response?
26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
That's a big list of sins, right? Did they know these were sins since they didn't have the written law?
Answer: 32 "They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them."
So "yes", they knew, but practiced these sins as a lifestyle in defiance of God.
Then, in Romans 2, Paul turns to the Jews who knew the law:
Therefore you (the Jews) have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.
Last edited:
I'm the one who has been insisting on referring to the context all along.
Disingenuous? That's an accusation!
Well, I am here to learn.
Now, that does not mean that I should not defend what I have come to believe.
That also does not mean that I shouldn't challenge misinterpretations.
If you end up convincing me to accept your doctrine, I will not be at loss.
But meanwhile, I have to tell you where you have gone wrong.
None of us have arrived.
Disingenuous? That's an accusation!
Well, I am here to learn.
Now, that does not mean that I should not defend what I have come to believe.
That also does not mean that I shouldn't challenge misinterpretations.
If you end up convincing me to accept your doctrine, I will not be at loss.
But meanwhile, I have to tell you where you have gone wrong.
None of us have arrived.
S
Paul always had the moral law in mind when stressing the need to die to the law, for he said he faultlessly kept the legalistic law(phil3:6)
Come on, it is not so hard to obey rite, ritual and ceremony is it(though maybe tiresome at times)
Jesus said tbe pharisees did not keep the higher points of the law, mercy, faithfulness, and jystice, and they also neglected the live of God, but on the outside they appeared before men to live holy upright lives
Romans 7 in my view is the most illuminating of chapters paul wrote.and it desperatly needs to be understood, for which sins bring christians most inner guilt the majority of the time for their faliure to live as God desires them to?
Come on, it is not so hard to obey rite, ritual and ceremony is it(though maybe tiresome at times)
Jesus said tbe pharisees did not keep the higher points of the law, mercy, faithfulness, and jystice, and they also neglected the live of God, but on the outside they appeared before men to live holy upright lives
Romans 7 in my view is the most illuminating of chapters paul wrote.and it desperatly needs to be understood, for which sins bring christians most inner guilt the majority of the time for their faliure to live as God desires them to?
Originally Posted by onlinebuddy
Q: From what did Christ die to deliver me?
Ans:From sin
Q: What is sin?
Ans: For the Jew it is transgression of the law.
For the gentile (who does not have the law) sin can be
defined as: knowing the good one ought to do, and not doing it (1 James 4:17)
You use a lot of Bible verses, but then you add your own meaning to them.
When I began to know Jesus, I learned that I stood condemned because of my conscious and willfully committed sin. I am not guilty, nor am I condemned because of Adam's sin, although I face the consequences of it. The consequences are spiritual death and physical death. And yes, without Christ all men stand condemned.
I came to know what sin was when I decided to learn more about Jesus- not through the law, which is obsolete; a shadow; a guardian; a schoolmaster.
The law has achieved it's purpose: i.e. to show man that he cannot attain salvation by his works and on his own accord. He needs a Savior!
Q. What must any human being do now(in the 21st century)?
Answer: Turn to the Savior, and not to the law.
Q: From what did Christ die to deliver me?
Ans:From sin
Q: What is sin?
Ans: For the Jew it is transgression of the law.
For the gentile (who does not have the law) sin can be
defined as: knowing the good one ought to do, and not doing it (1 James 4:17)
You use a lot of Bible verses, but then you add your own meaning to them.
When I began to know Jesus, I learned that I stood condemned because of my conscious and willfully committed sin. I am not guilty, nor am I condemned because of Adam's sin, although I face the consequences of it. The consequences are spiritual death and physical death. And yes, without Christ all men stand condemned.
I came to know what sin was when I decided to learn more about Jesus- not through the law, which is obsolete; a shadow; a guardian; a schoolmaster.
The law has achieved it's purpose: i.e. to show man that he cannot attain salvation by his works and on his own accord. He needs a Savior!
Q. What must any human being do now(in the 21st century)?
Answer: Turn to the Savior, and not to the law.
S
Lets give you an example of the moral law.
Thou shalt not covet. Paul had felt alive before the law came to him but when it did come sin(consciusness) sprang to life and he died(spiritually) the commandment(the example is thou shalt not covet) that was ordained to life(if he obeyed it) instead brought death(for he could not keep it)
Once the law of righteousness came to paul he became a worse sinner, hence rom6:14
Thou shalt not covet. Paul had felt alive before the law came to him but when it did come sin(consciusness) sprang to life and he died(spiritually) the commandment(the example is thou shalt not covet) that was ordained to life(if he obeyed it) instead brought death(for he could not keep it)
Once the law of righteousness came to paul he became a worse sinner, hence rom6:14
S
I came to know what sin was when I decided to learn more about jesus not through the law which is obsolete.
The law itself is not obsolete, a law of righteousness is obsolete.
Your statement is completely wrong. Heartfelt conviction of sin can only come through the law placed within you at conversion
The law itself is not obsolete, a law of righteousness is obsolete.
Your statement is completely wrong. Heartfelt conviction of sin can only come through the law placed within you at conversion
The confusion happens when we used man made words. In which verse does Paul use the words "law of righteousness?" What are some things that the law of righteousness required from the OT Jews?
These are referred to the "10 commandments," aren't they? So these still exist, and always will.
We will discuss this at a later time, if you don't mind.
These are referred to the "10 commandments," aren't they? So these still exist, and always will.
We will discuss this at a later time, if you don't mind.
S
Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness for everyone who believeth rom 10:4
I do not set aside the gra e of God. If righteousness could be gained through the law christ died for nothing gal2:21
Not having a righteousness of my own thatomes from the law but one that comes from faith in christ. Phil3:9
The important thing you should,consider is the following. Paul could perfe tly obey the lagalistic law(phil3:6) it was the moral law he could not obey S a pharisee(rom7:8) therefore paul did not need a saviour from sin concerning the legalistic law, for he perfectly obeyed it, but he did need a saviour from sin concerning the moral law. Therefore paul had to die to a law of righteousness concerning the moral law. Please state whether you aheee with this or not
I do not set aside the gra e of God. If righteousness could be gained through the law christ died for nothing gal2:21
Not having a righteousness of my own thatomes from the law but one that comes from faith in christ. Phil3:9
The important thing you should,consider is the following. Paul could perfe tly obey the lagalistic law(phil3:6) it was the moral law he could not obey S a pharisee(rom7:8) therefore paul did not need a saviour from sin concerning the legalistic law, for he perfectly obeyed it, but he did need a saviour from sin concerning the moral law. Therefore paul had to die to a law of righteousness concerning the moral law. Please state whether you aheee with this or not
S
Some termenoligy is simple and there should be no disagreement concerning it. Sin is transgression of the law. Therefore in oeder to be conscious of sin you must be conscious of Gods laws. For only when you are conscious of Gods laws can you be conscious of yourshortfall of obedience to those laws, and your shortfall of obedience is your sin. Hence
Through the law we become conscious of sin.
If you feel unable to agree to this, i doubt there is any point in us continuing a discussion. It is basic to the christian faith and taught in all churches I know of. If you refuse to accept the basics according to the plainly wriiten word I think it would be better if I sought to discuss with someone who doesnt resist the basics of the faith. No offence meant, but I hoined the site to discuss the bible in the assumption its plaiN teaching would be accepted
Through the law we become conscious of sin.
If you feel unable to agree to this, i doubt there is any point in us continuing a discussion. It is basic to the christian faith and taught in all churches I know of. If you refuse to accept the basics according to the plainly wriiten word I think it would be better if I sought to discuss with someone who doesnt resist the basics of the faith. No offence meant, but I hoined the site to discuss the bible in the assumption its plaiN teaching would be accepted
Last edited by a moderator: