With the help of Augustine and Aquinas, we discuss how Jews, and in fact all men, have always been saved–at least according to Romans 10. By faith!
Note: This article was written before the author’s conversion to Orthodoxy.
For previous chapter click here, For Subsequent Chapter Click Here
10:1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.
Paul desires that his own kindred be saved, because on one hand they really do want to please God in a sense. They think, though they are deluded, that they are doing God’s will. As Jesus warned, “They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God” (John 16:2). So, even if one were to assert that those who have not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit cannot desire spiritual things, it would still be true to say that such a person may think he is spiritual.
3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
These misguided men did not understand that it was by faith in Christ God had intended to save them, so they pursued the lie of paganism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, secularlism, and every false religion: “all that matters is if you are a good person.” Hence, they pursued being good by following man-made rules and using the Law to puff up their own pride. They should have used the Law to see that they could not be made righteous by their works, so that they would have subjected themselves to God by faith.
The “righteousness of God” is not a righteousness that is our own as a result of our obedience. To be subject to it is simply to have faith in God and thereby be given an alien righteousness, a righteousness that is given by God’s grace and not a result of our works. Augustine writes, “It is called the righteousness of God, because by His bestowal of it He makes us righteous, just as we read that salvation is the Lord’s, because He makes us safe” (The Spirit and the Letter, Chapter 18).
For by faith, Christ is the end of the Law because He fulfills it on behalf of those who are in union with Him. In the Epistle to Diognetus it says:
For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors (Chapter 9)!
It is worth re-quoting Augustine in case we forget that “we are made righteousness (our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him); He being made sin, not His own, but ours, not in Himself, but in us” (Handbook on Hope, Faith, and Love, Chapter 41).
Apart from faith in Christ, one is still under the Law/law of nature. Christ both fulfilled the Law on behalf of believers and ended the necessity for one to comply with it in order to attain right standing before God.
5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.
We know that our exegesis of the preceding verses (that Christ is the end of the Law for believers in the sense that He literally ends it!), because of what Paul says in verse five. In other words, verse five states that Christ is the end of the Law, because if He weren’t the only possible way to be right with God is to perfectly follow the Law. In Gal 3:13 he calls this a curse, because no man can possibly fulfill it.
However, doesn’t this contradict what the Law says of itself? The Law says:
[I]f you obey the Lord your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach (Deut 30:10-11).
One one hand Paul calls it a curse and says that “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified” (Gal 2:16). On the other, the Scripture says obeying God “is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.” How may we understand this consistently so that the Bible does not contradict itself? Paul, by the Holy Spirit, exegetes Deut 30 and tells us how.
6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).”
Here, Paul unlocks the spiritual meaning behind Deut 30:12-13:
It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’ Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?’
In Deuteronomy, “it” is clearly the Law. The passage is saying not to ask who will go up to heaven, cross the sea, and bring the Law back for us so that it may be observed? Paul shows us that the rhetorical question is about Jesus.
How so? Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, so he can be accurately equated with the Law in the passage. So, the “it” is Jesus and we should not be asking ourselves who of us can bring Christ down or raise Him up.
Why? The righteousness based upon faith is not accomplished by striving, but by believing. Thus we observe the Law by having faith in Christ. We know this is the case because of how Paul follows up:
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
God does not want us striving to attain Jesus Christ’s resurrection, but to confess the “word of faith.” As Aquinas observes:
For there is no need to say, he means, that one must go up to heaven, or cross a great sea, and then receive the commandments, but things so great and grand has God made of easy access to us. And what means the phrase, The Word is near you? That is, It is easy. For in your mind and in your tongue is your salvation. There is no long journey to go, no seas to sail over, no mountains to pass, to get saved…For the Law is galling, but grace is easy.
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
This verse is the pearl of the Scripture. As said previously, salvation is not attained by doing but by believing. This is why, as we already covered, Aquinas taught that one could die before being baptized and be saved. Faith alone saves, but faith that endures leads to water-baptism and other good works.
Therefore, there cannot be any specific act that saves a man, but there are acts that are consistent with the life of faith. The moment we say anything other than believing in Christ is necessary for salvation, we contradict the above verse. The debate should not be over what saves us, it is obvious that faith alone saves. Instead, we should be debating what constitutes living by faith so that we may evaluate whether we are really in it. “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves” (2 Cor 13:5)!
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
Likewise the thief on the cross was saved when he confessed Christ. Though he was not martyred for the faith, he knew in his heart that he deserved his punishment and Christ did not. In fact, he had done nothing good nor did he partake in any sacrament. His believing resulted in righteousness and he was spiritually baptized by the Holy Spirit. Then, he confessed with his mouth these things and Christ told him of his salvation: “Today, you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).
11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
Paul adds this Old Testament citation in order to show that it’s consistent teaching is salvation by faith, and not by works.
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Salvation by faith alone is applicable to Jews and Greeks, Catholics and Protestants, former atheists and former Muslims equally. The usage of the term “whoever” in the Old Testament is seen as proof that anybody can be saved from their sins by simply trusting in Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins, and not in their works, heritage, or church. Denominations do not save, God saves in His Son Jesus Christ. The thief on the cross did not belong to a visible church, but by faith He was made one of the members of the invisible Bride of Christ.
14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”
Who is the “they” here? It is easy to forget and just think Paul is speaking in general (i.e. nobody can be saved apart from faith in Christ, and only those who have heard of Christ have this opportunity.) This may be true, but this likely is not what Paul is getting at, specifically. The last time the word “they” was used in the chapter was in verse three. There, it pertained to the Jews.
So, after discussing how salvation is by faith, and not by works, Paul returns to what he was getting at in Rom 9:33 (how the Jews have stumbled on the rock of offense). These Jews at one time could have attempted excusing themselves by saying they did not know the name of Jesus Christ. And, this appears to be a legitimate excuse according to verse 14. The work of the Apostles in Judea thereby is something commendable as seen in the Scripture quoted in verse 15.
16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?”
In verse 16, Paul is quoting Is 53:1 which states, “Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” Anticipating the discussion in Rom 11, Paul in verse 16 is referring to the hardening of Israel. In effect, Paul is saying, “The Jews have not believed because God has purposely not revealed Himself in their hearts.”
This sounds like a stretch given the immediate context, which is simply discussing how much of ethnic Israel has rejected the faith. However, this same verse is quoted in John 12:38. There, John exegetes the verse: “For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ‘He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted…’” (John 12:39-40). So, it is fitting in light of Rom 11:8-11 that when Paul here refers to Is 53:1 he is desiring that his audience keep in the back of their minds the exegesis offered by John.
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”
Paul goes to show that the Jewish people are now without excuse. Isaiah reports that the Israelites disbelieved his report and the word of Christ indeed went out to the whole “world.” Obviously, Paul does not mean the planet Earth because in Rom 15 Paul speaks of going to Spain to preach the Gospel where it has never been preached. So, the citations of the Old Testament here are being cited to show that all the Jews throughout the world have heard of Christ, and so their rejection is not of ignorance but of outright defiance.
19 But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says,
“I will make you jealous by that which is not a nation,
By a nation without understanding will I anger you.”
20 And Isaiah is very bold and says,
“I was found by those who did not seek Me,
I became manifest to those who did not ask for Me.”
“Surely Israel did not know, did they?,” Paul asks rhetorically. To their shame, they did know. Paul uses Scripture to show that God had ordained the bringing in of the gentiles, who are beginning to accept Jesus as their savior, while the Jews have universally heard of Jesus Christ and have rejected Him. The Jews have Him prophesied in Deut 30 and throughout the Old Testament, and in accordance with prophecy have had His name preached clearly to them. It is easy to see that Paul is throughout this chapter building a case up against the Jews.
21 But as for Israel He says, “All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
Paul definitively answers the rhetorical question in verse 19 by quoting the Old Testament. Even though God has entrusted them with the Scripture and sent them prophets so that they would repent, they have been disobedient and obstinate. Their rejection and hardening is deserved (Rom 11:7-10).
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Hi Craig,
I have not read each of the 9 preceding “Commentaries” (mostly since I’m new to this blog), but here are my thoughts on your Chapter 10 comments:
(1) Starting on your verse 3 comments, it is not correct to say the Jews (the people Paul is focused on here) “pursued the lie of paganism…and every false religion.” The Jews were following the 613 Commands of the Torah which the One True God had delivered to them in the Mosaic Covenant. It’s dangerous to say following the Mosaic Law is akin to the lie of paganism. It is not correct to say the Jews “pursued being good by following man-made rules” because the Mosaic Law was not man-made. THAT is the heart of the problem Paul is dealing with: God delivered a set of laws to be followed, the ‘problem’ is that these 613 laws never promised salvation. Keeping the Mosaic Law promised earthly blessings like land, large family, wealth, health, etc, but it never promised forgiveness of sins or entrance into heaven.
If God says “Do X and I will give you a wife,” it does not follow that doing X is in any way pagan or false religion. All that it means is that doing X gives you a wife. The mistake the Jews made is that they thought doing X gave them a different blessing, namely salvation, but it didn’t. They can go ahead and do X perfectly all day long, but all that entitles them to is a wife, not salvation. THAT is Paul’s point.
The Jews believed in Unconditional Election, in which they believed that without any merit on their part, God destined them to be born as Jews, and as Jews they were automatically the superior chosen favored race whom God had promised everything to them simply because God was keeping his promises to Abraham. It was grace alone in the absolute sense for the Jews. Even when the Jews sinned they held to once saved always saved in a certain sense, because they believed God would always welcome them back and never revoke his grand promises.
(2) You need to define the word “righteousness”. Maybe you have elsewhere, but in my experience no Protestant scholar has ever actually defined it based on Scripture. The fact is, Scripture never defines “righteousness” as living a sinless life of perfect obedience. That’s just not what “righteousness” is and it’s not how THE BIBLE defines it. Righteousness means a right disposition inside or doing right actions, but no place is an entire lifetime of spinelessness ever stated as the definition.
(3) Christ does not “fulfill the law” in place of believers, meaning Christ does not keep all the commandments of the law perfectly in our place, if that’s what you’re intending to say. That idea of “Active Obedience of Christ” imputed to believers is nowhere found in the Bible. The Epistle to Diognetus does not say this. Rather, that quote and Paul’s writing in general is only talking about sins being forgiven by the work of Christ. Reformed theology adds to the finished work of the Cross by insisting that more than forgiveness is needed.
(4) You said: “Apart from faith in Christ, one is still under the Law/law of nature. Christ both fulfilled the Law on behalf of believers and ended the necessity for one to comply with it in order to attain right standing before God.”
Two problems here (if I’m reading you right): First, the “Law” is not the same as “law of nature”. You must be careful with what Biblical terms mean. The “Law” is the Law of Moses, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. Second, it is a contradiction to say Jesus both kept the law in place of believers so that they can stand before God as having kept his perfect Standard while also saying that Jesus abolished that Standard. Either the Standard for righteous standing before God remains as the standard to stand before God or else it isn’t. If it is abolished it cannot be the standard by which God judges.
(5) On verse 5 you said: “Christ is the end of the Law, because if He weren’t the only possible way to be right with God is to perfectly follow the Law.”
It is true that Christ ended the Law, but it is not true nor does it logically follow that “the only way to be right with God is to perfectly follow the Law”. That is NOWHERE taught in the Bible and is in fact the central Protestant misunderstanding of Paul. The Law never promised salvation, it only promised earthly temporal blessings. Even the Deuteronomy 30 quote you gave proves this, as the only blessings listed in that text are inheriting the land, having wealth, etc. Not heaven. What Paul does is put on the spiritual glasses and sees that Deuteronomy 30 has a second lesson beyond the literal one.
(6) On verses 9-10 Paul clearly says “confessing” AND “believing,” which means believing alone (faith alone) isn’t correct. Confessing is what saves ALONG WITH believing. Two things (at least). It is a false dichotomy to say “salvation is not attained by doing but by believing,” because Confessing is a ‘doing’. Paul explicitly says the act of Confessing (distinct from believing) results in salvation.
Thank you for your response. Being that the commentaries are actual one single work, and without reading all of them you’d be missing arguments and meanings that have been substantiated along the way, my reply will be brief and I’ll give you the last word. If you choose to reply, I’d just ask you refrain from questions, rhetorical or otherwise, so that your reply can stand simply upon the points made.
“(1) Starting on your verse 3 comments, it is not correct to say the Jews (the people Paul is focused on here) “pursued the lie of paganism…and every false religion.” The Jews were following the 613 Commands of the Torah which the One True God had delivered to them in the Mosaic Covenant. It’s dangerous to say following the Mosaic Law is akin to the lie of paganism.”
Following the Mosaic Law is not paganism. Justification via Law-keeping or “works of the Law” essentially is, and Paul conflates it as so in Rom 2 to 3. Please see those chapters to understand my points as it pertains to this.
“They can go ahead and do X perfectly all day long, but all that entitles them to is a wife, not salvation. THAT is Paul’s point.”
It’s a good point, but not the point Paul makes. Paul says the Law is a tutor that teaches us our need for Christ, and that it makes sin utterly sinful so that grace may abound all the more. You can actually find the reasoning for both of these contentions in Gal 2-3, Rom 5 and 7. As for your point, Paul does not discuss it, regardless of its merits.
“(2) You need to define the word “righteousness”…Righteousness means a right disposition inside or doing right actions, but no place is an entire lifetime of spinelessness ever stated as the definition.”
The Scripture actually gives a definition that essentially amounts to righteousness being perfect moral excellence. Hence, being accounted as righteous is to be considered morally excellent.
As for the definition of righteousness, I go to Ecc 7:20- “Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.”
The verse tells us what a righteous man is–one who does good and never, ever sins. So, while I am not quite sure where in the Scripture you find your definition of righteousness, I can point to the verse. And, it would appear that Paul has this understanding as in Rom 3:10-18 it would be the analogue to the Jew who thinks he is righteous, but clearly fails to hit the mark.
“(3) Christ does not “fulfill the law” in place of believers, meaning Christ does not keep all the commandments of the law perfectly in our place, if that’s what you’re intending to say”
Jesus specifically says, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”
I do not dwell on this point, because the Scripture does not. I also did not use the term “active obedience” as it is not a Biblical term. However, I mince no meat that Christ fulfilled the Law, and that we uphold the Law by believing in Christ.
Athanasius writes similarly:
“It is necessary therefore it is necessary to believe the Holy Scriptures to confess him who is the first fruit of us to celebrate the philanthropy of him who assumed our nature to be struck with wonder at the great dispensation to fear not the curse which is from the Law for Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law Hence the full accomplishment of the Law which was made through the first fruit must be imputed to the whole mass” (Athan Synops Sacr Script lib vii in Epist ad Rom Oper vol ii p 125)
“Reformed theology adds to the finished work of the Cross by insisting that more than forgiveness is needed.”
That’s a worthy criticism, and not one I will debate. Forgiveness is clearly the more important element that is dwelled upon more. The accounting of righteousness and how we are actually made to be righteous is not as explicit. I personally believe it comes from being in the Church, which makes one in union with Christ just like a husband and wife are one flesh.
“Two problems here (if I’m reading you right): First, the “Law” is not the same as “law of nature”.”
It essentially is. You need to go back to Rom 1-3, and my commentary on those chapters, in order to see why. Further, this was the point that Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and even Origen made throughout their commentaries and works. If you deny this, you deny Catholic doctrine. Simply pull out a commentary from any of the ECFs on Rom 1-3.
“You must be careful with what Biblical terms mean. The “Law” is the Law of Moses, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.”
A lot of ECFs would disagree with you as would the Greek, where Paul often times avoids the definite article in front of the Law in order to differentiate between the Mosaic Law and Law of Nature.
“Second, it is a contradiction to say Jesus both kept the law in place of believers so that they can stand before God as having kept his perfect Standard while also saying that Jesus abolished that Standard.”
Not really, but being that this response is not concerning a specific thing I wrote, I don’t have much to add to it.
“It is true that Christ ended the Law, but it is not true nor does it logically follow that “the only way to be right with God is to perfectly follow the Law”. That is NOWHERE taught in the Bible and is in fact the central Protestant misunderstanding of Paul.”
That’s just silly. Paul says in Gal 3:10-“For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by ALL things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” ”
The WORD “ALL” (“pasin”) is in the Greek and essentially means “everything.” (http://biblehub.com/greek/pasin_3956.htm)
The word “all” shows us Paul’s obvious interpretation, because Paul is quoting Deut 27:26 which lacks the word: “Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’”
Paul obviously spiritualized passages such as Deut 28:58-59-
“If you are not careful to observe all the words of this law which are written in this book, to [d]fear this honored and awesome name, [e]the Lord your God,59 then the Lord will bring extraordinary plagues on you and [f]your descendants, even [g]severe and lasting plagues, and miserable and chronic sicknesses.”
Obviously those who are made sick and kicked out of the land are not right with God. To be right with God, “all the words of this law” must be observed. Hence, Paul shows us that God’s standard is perfection. To deny this is to fundamentally misunderstand the clear teaching of the Scripture.
“What Paul does is put on the spiritual glasses and sees that Deuteronomy 30 has a second lesson beyond the literal one.”
Which is the actual important lesson—that the Law is easy because it is not done by Lawkeeping but by faith. That’s his whole point.
“(6) On verses 9-10 Paul clearly says “confessing” AND “believing,” which means believing alone (faith alone) isn’t correct. Confessing is what saves ALONG WITH believing.”
Those are two sides of the same faith coin my friend. This is why Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, and even Thomas Aquinas can all use the term “faith alone” throughout their writings without somehow violating Rom 10:9-10…This is because Rom 10:9-10 is about faith, I am not exactly sure how you conflate believing and confessing as two completely different things. One confesses what one believes. This point should not be belabored.
“It is a false dichotomy to say “salvation is not attained by doing but by believing,” because Confessing is a ‘doing’. ”
No, confessing is a believing! As Augustine writes, “[T]he mercy of God we might attain salvation by the simplicity of a confession of faith” (Augustine on Romans, 67).
“Paul explicitly says the act of Confessing (distinct from believing) results in salvation.”
It is not distinct, this is your own private interpretation divorced from the clear meaning of words and the historical teaching of the church and you should recant.
God bless,
Craig
Hello Craig,
I will definitely go through the others parts of the series as I get the chance, but for now I’ll make a short response to all this and leave it for now.
(1) You said: //////Following the Mosaic Law is not paganism. Justification via Law-keeping or “works of the Law” essentially is, and Paul conflates it as so in Rom 2 to 3. Please see those chapters to understand my points as it pertains to this.//////
As I noted, I think this is a fundamental/core error in understanding Paul’s teaching of Justification. I will read your Ch2/3 sections, but I don’t believe it can be shown Paul conflates or in any way widens the definition of “Law” beyond that of the Mosaic Law. In Ch2 Paul clearly talks about those who have the Law and those who do not have the law, those who “call yourself a Jew and rely on the law” and how “circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law”. These make no sense if “Law” is something more/less than “circumcision and the written code” (v27), namely the Mosaic Law. And Paul continues to make this clear in the chapters that follow, making comments such as “the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God” and “whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law” (which makes no sense if everyone is under the law simply by being human). And finally, the very fact Paul is making an explicit distinction between Jew and Gentile proves he isn’t just conflating things. “Or is God the God of Jews only?” is a strange way to conclude a chapter that is simply showing the (alleged) futility of works in general.
(2) I maintain that Paul’s fundamental point is that the Mosaic Law does not save because it never promised salvation for keeping it. It promised earthly blessings only for keeping it. You responded by saying “It’s a good point, but not the point Paul makes. Paul says the Law is a tutor that teaches us our need for Christ.”
Paul actually does say the Law wasn’t intended to save, and that’s why Paul is constantly pointing to the time in Salvation history when the Law didn’t exist yet (e.g. 4:10; 5:13; Gal 3:17). You are right that the Law points out our sinfulness and leads us to Christ, but that doesn’t mean the Law ever promised salvation for keeping it. It’s a non-sequitor. The Mosaic Law served multiple functions, but none of them was the offer of salvation. If the Mosaic Covenant promised salvation, it would supplant the earlier promise of having salvation by living under the Abrahamic Covenant.
(3) Your definition of righteousness being a lifetime of sinless obedience makes no sense for the simple fact people are being judged as righteous or not before their whole lifetime is even complete. It would be like calling you an A+ Student before the semester is over; it doesn’t make sense to talk like that. People are also described as doing righteous actions, which makes no sense if righteousness looks at the whole lifetime.
You have not pointed to any Scripture that clearly defines righteousness as you’re doing, and especially not a consensus of verses.
The Scripture actually gives a definition that essentially amounts to righteousness being perfect moral excellence. Hence, being accounted as righteous is to be considered morally excellent. Even your Ecclesiastes 7:20 verse is being misread: it is saying even the righteous men on earth sometimes sin, it is not saying there is nobody on earth who is righteous because there is nobody who constantly does good. The whole book talks a lot about the contrast between the wicked and the righteous, which makes no sense if “righteous” here means “less wicked than the wicked”. In verses 15-16 it says “be not overly righteous,” which is nonsensical if righteousness means perfect, for it would be saying “don’t be too perfect.” It’s practical advice for wise/righteous/holy living throughout the book.
Words like “righteousness” and “just” are used a few hundred times in the Bible, so you should be able to find a clear consensus of texts for your definition. On the other hand, I have texts that support what I’m saying, e.g. “whomever practices righteousness is righteous” (1Jn3:7) and “they were righteous before God, keeping all the commandments blamelessly” (Luke 1:6 even though we know Zecheriah and Elizabeth weren’t without sin) and best of all is “the righteousness of God [the Father]” (which cannot be talking about The Father living a sinless life). Even David is said to have “walked before God in faithfulness, in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart” (1 Kings 3:6), yet we know David wasn’t perfect. Paul says that he himself was “blameless” when it came to righteousness under the Mosaic Law (Phil 3:6). And there’s other examples as well to show I’m not making anything up here but using Scripture as my guide. “Blessed are the who do righteousness at all times.” (Ps 106:3)
Paul’s point in Romans 3:10-18 is not that the smallest sin disqualifies you from being righteous, or that there aren’t any righteous people, but rather that the Jews as a class of people were guilty of going way off the rails and thus no better than the Gentiles as a class of people. The very Psalms Paul quotes mention righteous individuals; the point is that the wickedness being described is when the Jews were in full rebellion against God’s servants.
(4) Jesus said he came to “fulfill the law,” but the term “fulfill” does not mean “keep the commandments perfectly throughout your life.” That’s not what the Biblical term means nor is that how it’s used in Scripture. It simply means ‘recognizing the fullness’ of something, such as when a historical event takes place it is said “in order to fulfill the Scripture”. I am glad you admit Scripture doesn’t speak on this point and basically are unconfortable with Active Obedience, because it is a very erroneous teaching and yet at the heart of Sola Fide.
You said: ////////That’s a worthy criticism, and not one I will debate. Forgiveness is clearly the more important element that is dwelled upon more. The accounting of righteousness and how we are actually made to be righteous is not as explicit.////////
Then I think we’re closer than I originally thought, which would make you less Confessionally Reformed than I originally thought.
(5) You said: “Paul often times avoids the definite article in front of the Law in order to differentiate between the Mosaic Law and Law of Nature.”
I’m curious to see this “often times” when Paul use “law” to mean “Law of Nature”. I don’t know of a single instance, much less a consensus. But there are plenty of texts that indicate “Law” means “Mosaic Law” throughout Paul’s writing.
(6) I originally said that nowhere does Paul teach the only way to be right with God is to perfectly follow the Law. Romans 3:28 says a man is justified “apart from” the works of the Law. Gal 2:21 says “if righteousness came through following the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” The examples can be multiplied.
You quoted Galatians 3:10, where Paul quotes Deuteronomy saying cursed are those who don’t abide by all the things written in this book [i.e. the Mosaic Code], but the point he’s making isn’t about obeying every jot and tittle 100% of the time, but rather that you must live your whole life according to dictates of the Mosaic Covenant, a Covenant which has expired, and thus which living under is incompatible with believing Jesus has come and ended it. He isn’t saying if you keep the law you’re saved, you are assuming that’s the flip-side of what Paul is saying, but he isn’t saying that. Paul only says that the law curses if not kept. Which doesn’t translate into the law saves if perfectly kept. In fact, his very point is: “no one is justified before God by the law because The righteous shall live by faith.” In other words, the Mosaic Law does not offer saving righteousness in the first place, it only offers earthly blessing righteousness (i.e. it says who is living a good Jewish lifestyle). Hence “before faith came, we were held captive under the law”.
As a good example, even our civil laws don’t promise any positive gift for keeping them, instead our civil laws only are there to punish for breaking them. It’s a one way operation.
I ask you to simply TRY to read Romans and Galatians with the hermeneutic that the righteousness the Mosaic Law offers is not a saving righteousness but a temporal earthly righteousness only. Just try to make that fit. You will see it actually fits the overall point and individual texts quite well.
Paul’s point is not that God’s standard is perfection. Paul’s point is that following the example of Abraham is what blesses a person with salvation, and that one becomes a child of Abraham INDEPENDENT of the Mosaic Law. Gal 3:14 says Christ had to get rid of the Mosaic Law because since that covenant was broken through sin (Heb 9:15) it was blocking the blessing of Abraham from reaching the Gentiles. The Jews were meant to bring God’s blessings of Abraham to the world, but when they violated the Mosaic Law as a whole, breaking that covenant, then God had to deal with that mess before moving on to bringing about the blessing of Abraham (Heb 9:15).
(7) You said Confessing and Believing are “two sides of the same faith coin.” I would agree with that, but it wrecks any notion that faith is an “empty hand” as some Reformed have tried to argue. The Reformed definition of saving faith is that it isn’t the faith itself that is pleasing to God, but rather that faith is merely an instrument that receives Christ’s Righteousness. That’s not how the Bible defines faith, and I guess you agree with that, so you’re less Reformed than I thought.
Ooops, that wasn’t a short response