Dr. Brown answers your toughest theological questions and also discusses the place of the Law in the life of the believer. He’ll also be taking your calls and answering your emails on a wide range of biblical and theological topics. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: When it comes to the Sabbath, let us always remember that the Sabbath is the shadow and the substance is found in the Messiah.
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Let us honor one another in the midst of nonessential differences. Let us hold to our convictions before God, and honor those who differ over the nonessentials.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
Dr. Brown is offering a special combination of two of his powerful MP3 teachings for the special low price of $15! That’s right, you can download both Go and Sin No More & How to Be Led By The Spirit for only $15, with no extra postage costs!
Order Online Here!
I posted under the name Daniel.
D is for Daniel and B is for my last name.
Bo,
Romans 2:13-15 says they are doers of the Law and justified. You illegitimately add to Scripture when you say “it is talking about conscience”.
It says “God’s Law” and that’s what it means.
It says “they keep it” and that’s what it means.
It says “justified” and that’s what it means.
Your position has no response.
Like…Dan1el?
Bo,
Yup.
We had this conversation before. Are you still prophesying my doom?
The Romans 2:13-15 Gentiles, who were “doers of the Law… justified”, were believers. This means we (believers) don’t need to serve God by the Written Code in order to qualify to be called “doers of the Law”; we establish it and fulfill (“you yourselves are taught of God to love one another”, “For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word: you shall love your neighbor as yourself”, “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything but faith which works by love”, “through love serve one another”) its righteous requirement by the Spirit of Grace [Ro 3:31; 7:6; 8:1-4].
You can’t say that they are unbelievers, because it says they are “doers of the Law… justified”–but also, “no flesh will be justified by the deeds of the Law.”
If you still want to say they are unbelievers, that is fine: they reached the status of “doers of the Law… justified” without the Law, whereas not a single unbelieving Jew could reach that status with their knowledge of the Written Code; so, even if we read it that way, there is no compelling reason to put anyone under the Law: we can do better without it.
Bo,
Go ahead and respond please.
The Apostle Paul’s ministry was about using the law to preach Jesus. (Acts 28:23) Some today want to use Jesus to preach the law. They will use the gospel to preach the law rather than using the law to preach the gospel, because they ‘ve lost the laws proper place. These are like people that are out of joint. Things are not equal with these kind. The way they walk, you can see them for a country mile, like a drunken man staggering.
DB alias Dan1el,
Do you remember this:
Greetings!
Thank you for bringing to our attention the inappropriate comments made by Dan1el. His comments have been removed as requested and rightfully so. Dr. Brown has made it clear to all that when placing comments all comments that are attacking, threatening, perverse, or vulgar will be pulled from the thread. And if a particular individual is continuously posting these kinds of posts then that person will be blocked from commenting further on future posts. Again, thank you for bringing this to our attention. With the amount of communications that we deal with daily it is unfortunate that these inappropriate comments slipped through the filtering system. Please let us know if you have any further questions.
Blessings,
AskDrBrown Communications
http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2013/10/08/an-interview-with-astronomer-dr-hugh-ross-on-why-the-universe-is-the-way-it-is/#comment-464072
Are you banned under the name Dan1el from posting? Are you still thinking that the Spirit told you to write what you wrote back in October?
Bo,
Before I go any further, please answer my one request I made of you.
“I’d like your understanding of the verses I’ve set out showing the law as not in effect anymore. Let me know if you need me to collect them into a separate post.”
You must be able to square them with your position somehow, so, let’s hear it. Please don’t post a lot of verses that say something else as I’m only interested in your interpretation of the ones I touched on.
Thanks.
DB alias Dan1el,
Would you please answer post 359.
Thanks.
Bo,
If I were banned my IP would be banned.
I never was banned.
I just didn’t want to draw attention to myself when I’d made some comments previously, that is all.
Go ahead and respond.
Bo,
After that incident, I decided not to post here anymore in protest to Dr. Brown, and spent my time just studying Scripture and posting on another forum–then I realized that he had nothing to do with it.
These are just human beings running this channel.
Gal 1:6-9 tells me what God thinks of you so I don’t need anyone to affirm that.
Go ahead and answer.
Bo,
Actually, I should say that *as far as I know* I was not banned since I decided I would not post at this site afterwards.
The “policy” said that if someone “persisted” in doing things they disagreed with that they would be banned. Since I did nothing “persistently”, I don’t see any reason why I would fall into that category.
I am posting this under Dan1el to see if Dan1el was banned.
No, Dan1el wasn’t banned.
“I just didn’t want to draw attention to myself when I’d made some comments previously, that is all.”
In other words, in posting under “DB” I wasn’t “hiding” in order to “avert” the “eyes” of the moderators. I wasn’t doing anything devious.
Dan1el alias DB,
I was just wondering since you hadn’t posted in a long time. Do you still think that the Spirit told you to post what you did back then?
Bo,
Absolutely, but I won’t let you deflect any longer.
Please answer the question.
1. The Romans 2:13-15 Gentiles, who were “doers of the Law… justified”, were believers. This means we (believers) don’t need to serve God by the Written Code in order to qualify to be called “doers of the Law”; we establish it and fulfill (“you yourselves are taught of God to love one another”, “For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word: you shall love your neighbor as yourself”, “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything but faith which works by love”, “through love serve one another”) its righteous requirement by the Spirit of Grace [Ro 3:31; 7:6; 8:1-4].
2a. You can’t say that they are unbelievers, because it says they are “doers of the Law… justified”–but, also, “no flesh will be justified by the deeds of the Law.”
2b. If you *still* insist they are unbelievers, that is fine: they reached the status of “doers of the Law… justified” without the Law, whereas not a single unbelieving Jew could reach that status with their knowledge of the Written Code; so, even if we read it that way, there is no compelling reason to put anyone under the Law: we can do better without it.
3. If you hope that arguing against the fact that they were “doers of the Law”, by saying “doers of the Law” doesn’t mean “doers of the Law” but “followers of their conscience”, you just show everyone your true heart: rejection of God’s Word.
The same thing goes for if you try to say they were not “justified” by being “doers of the Law”.
Dan1el alias DB,
I see no reason to have a conversation with you if you think that what you did was led of the Spirit.
Your posts were removed but there is still a little evidence of the “spirit” of your “inspired” comments. The last post on that thread is this:
“lofradio,
I actually requested that you not remove his comments, but that you do something in regards to him continuing his attacks. If you are going to remove all attacking posts, I think you missed these posts:
51,54,68,70,75,77,82,95,97,103
Also you seem to have deleted two that were simply bringing the situation to your attention…those being:
Nicholas Peterson
ALERTING THE MODERATOR
Please see posts #45, #71 (among others no doubt).
This “Dan1el” is saying things like:
“You are an elder in demon-worship.”
and
“This is what God told me: you are a wannabe theologian.
You teach people to rebel against God – you are false prophet leading the sheep astray and God will break your leg. … you hypocritical lawless lawbreaker. You are not holy.”
Please do something about this outrage.
Nicholas Peterson
Hey Bo,
I really cannot understand why you continue to waste your time with someone who is just being abusive (on many counts). Your continuing the conversation also gives this individual an opportunity to continue to spout off his hatred. The words he is speaking are borderline murderous. I just sent a note to the moderator, but till they hear of this and take the needed action, why don’t you leave off any discussion with this person? It gives him a further platform to keep it up.
Thanks,
Bo”
The link is: http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2013/10/08/an-interview-with-astronomer-dr-hugh-ross-on-why-the-universe-is-the-way-it-is/#comment-464098
4. Additionally, if you want to claim that they were lost individuals, but that their mere following of their conscience (even though Scripture doesn’t say that) was able to make them acceptable to God then how much more would the same go for a believing Gentile who has the grace of God? There is no reason to threaten a believer who listens to his conscience and the Spirit.
Bo,
That’s right Bo.
You have no answer.
Dan1el hiding as DB,
I have answered you many times before. If you still think that you were led of the Spirit to speak almost murderous things, I have not reason to dialogue with you.
Bo,
I already said I wasn’t hiding.
I can post under Dan1el which I proved to you.
If “I have answered you many times before” is a substantive argument in your book, then it must work for me too:
“I’ve already responded to all your answers and disproven them.”
In reality, however, you don’t have an answer.
Thanks
Bo,
Yeah, the Spirit never would never say anything like that…
Galatians 5
12I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
…oh, wait, your objection is (once again) disproven by Scripture.
Dan1el,
Here is one thread where I answered you before about a year ago:
http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2013/10/08/an-interview-with-astronomer-dr-hugh-ross-on-why-the-universe-is-the-way-it-is/#comment-464098
Bo,
That page has 99 replies.
Which specifically?
Bo,
A search for “Ro 2” “Rom 2” and “Gentile” and produced no results. If those keywords are not on the page you didn’t answer my question there.
Dan1el,
Just start reading at the link and see our dialogue. Here is one way I answered:
Dan1el,
Just so you know, most commentaries agree with me about Romans 2 concerning the law written on peoples hearts. They consider Paul to be speaking in general or hypothetical terms and not about the Roman believers. Here is an a small sample from Barnes:
“Verse 15. “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;)”
Ver. 15…
‘The work of the law.’-The design, purpose, or object which is contemplated by the revealed law; that is, to make known to man his duty, and to enforce the obligation to perform it. This does not mean, by any means, that they had all the knowledge which the law would impart, for then there would have been no need of a revelation; but that, as far as it went, as far as they had a knowledge of right and wrong, they coincided with the revealed will of God. In other words, the will of God, whether made known by reason or revelation, will be the same so far as reason goes. The difference is, that revelation goes farther than reason; sheds light on new duties and doctrines; as the information given by the naked eye and the telescope is the same, except that the telescope carries the sight forward, and reveals new worlds to the sight of man.
‘Written in their hearts.’-The revealed law of God was written on tables of stone, and then recorded in the books of the Old Testament. This law the Gentiles did not possess, but, to a certain extent, the same requirements were written on their hearts. Though not revealed to them as to the Jews, yet they had obtained the knowledge of them by the light of nature…”
From Eclectic notes on the Bible:
“‘the work of the law written{1} in their hearts’-It is well to remark that there is no law written in the heart of the Gentile — [for]that is the new covenant — but the WORK which the law requires, the conscience recognises as right or wrong. Conscience knows it is wrong to murder or steal, when no law is given. Man got the knowledge of good and evil by the fall and it is of all importance to recognise the difference of this and law. Law imposes a rule by authority — here God’s authority; conscience on the contrary takes notice of right and wrong in itself, as God does. “The man is become as one of us, knowing good and evil.” Gen 3. That is, conscience takes notice of good and evil in itself, as good and as evil, without any law which prescribes or forbids it; and so far as a man is a law to himself, that is, not having the thing prescribed to him, or forbidden as law does.
(1)”Written” agrees with work, not law; the Greek leaves no question as to this.”
Geneva Bible:
2:15 Which shew the work of the law {l} written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
(l) This knowledge is a natural knowledge.”
Gill:
“Ver. 15. Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, &c.] Though the Gentiles had not the law in form, written on tables, or in a book, yet they had “the work,” the matter, the sum and substance of it in their minds; as appears by the practices of many of them, in their external conversation. The moral law, in its purity and perfection, was written on the heart of Adam in his first creation; was sadly obliterated by his sin and fall; upon several accounts, and to answer various purposes, a system of laws was written on tables of stone for the use of the Israelites; and in regeneration the law is reinscribed on the hearts of God’s people; and even among the Gentiles, and in their hearts, there are some remains of the old law and light of nature, which as by their outward conduct appears, so by the inward motions of their minds…”
Etc.
Shalom
http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2013/06/21/youve-got-questions-weve-got-answers-15/#comment-353989
Bo,
Commentaries are not Scripture; at any rate, N.T. Wright agrees with me.
Interestingly,
“From Eclectic notes on the Bible:
‘”the work of the law written{1} in their hearts’-It is well to remark that there is no law written in the heart of the Gentile — [for]that is the new covenant…”
Precisely.
That is the New Covenant.
Bo,
“Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts”
Whose “work” was it that wrote the Law on the heart?
Bo,
“The work” is not “the Law” “the work” is the fact that it was “written”.
The writer was God.
What is written is the Law of God.
Dan1el,
After I posted above, you posted:
Bo,
1. All of those commentaries – no matter who wrote them – are in error.
2. And since when does the belief of the majority (rather than facts/evidence) prove Truth?
http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2013/06/21/youve-got-questions-weve-got-answers-15/#comment-354046
To which I posted:
Dan1el,
You wrote:
“1. All of those commentaries – no matter who wrote them – are in error.”
I think that your pride is showing. The majority does not determine truth, but I thought that maybe the mouth of two or three witnesses would help you get past your offense toward me.
I guess it just goes to show you that you will not listen to those that have studied the scripture more than you and that are Greek and Hebrew scholars. If you would pay attention to what is actually written in scripture or in my posts you would gain much insight into what Yahshua taught and what I teach. But you jump to conclusions and insist on having it your own way. You are grasping at straws to find some way to justify your view, instead of accepting what said and meant in the scriptures.
It is the WORK of the law that is written on the gentiles hearts, not the law. That is what the Greek and English say. The argument that Paul is laying out is showing that all men are without excuse and will be judged by what they knew. All societies have some light and by virtue of conscience know something of good and evil.
Yahshua did and taught us to do YHWH’s law. This is quite obvious to the unbiased reader. Yahshua is the greatest in the kingdom. When you take Paul out of context and then force Messiah’s words into your false mold, you deceive yourself. Paul is meant to be understood in light of Messiah, not Messiah’s words in the lessor light of Paul. You go about your faulty logic in a backwards fashion.
Yahshua said and meant exactly this:
Matthew 5
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Paul wrote and meant exactly this:
Romans 3
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Romans 7
Ro 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law…
Romans 6
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
What part of “God forbid” do you not understand?
Romans 2
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, DO BY NATURE the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 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;)
The DO BY NATURE , not the Spirit, the show the WORK of the the law written in their hearts, not the law written in their hearts. And you still do not get the idiom.
How about Matthew Henry on Romans 2:
“1. The LIGHT OF NATURE. This the Gentiles have, and by this they shall be judged: As many as have sinned without law shall perish without law; that is, the unbelieving Gentiles, who had no other guide but natural conscience, no other motive but common mercies, and had not the law of Moses nor any supernatural revelation, shall not be reckoned with for the transgression of the law they never had, nor come under the aggravation of the Jews’ sin against and judgment by the written law; but they shall be judged by, as they sin against, the law of nature, not only as it is in their hearts, corrupted, defaced, and imprisoned in unrighteousness, but as in the uncorrupt original the Judge keeps by him. Further to clear this #Ro 2:14-15, in a parenthesis, he evinces that the LIGHT OF NATURE was to the Gentiles instead of a written law. He had said #Ro 2:12 they had sinned without law, which looks like a contradiction; for where there is no law there is no transgression. But, says he, though they had not the written law #Ps 147:20, they had that which was equivalent, not to the ceremonial, but to the moral law. They had the work of the law. He does not mean that work which the law commands, as if they could produce a perfect obedience; but that work which the law does. The work of the law is to direct us what to do, and to examine us what we have done. Now,
(1.) They had that which directed them what to do by the light of nature: by the force and tendency of their natural notions and dictates they apprehended a clear and vast difference between good and evil. They did by nature the things contained in the law. They had a sense of justice and equity, honour and purity, love and charity; the light of nature taught obedience to parents, pity to the miserable, conservation of public peace and order, forbade murder, stealing, lying, perjury, &c. Thus they were a law unto themselves.
(2.) They had that which examined them as to what they had done: Their conscience also bearing witness. They had that within them which approved and commended what was well done and which reproached them for what was done amiss. Conscience is a witness, and first or last will bear witness, though for a time it may be bribed or brow beaten. It is instead of a thousand witnesses, testifying of that which is most secret; and their thoughts accusing or excusing, passing a judgment upon the testimony of conscience by applying the law to the fact. Conscience is that candle of the Lord which was not quite put out, no, not in the Gentile world. The heathen have witnessed to the comfort of a good conscience…
Their thoughts the meanwhile, μεταξυ αλληλων — among themselves, or one with another. The same light and law of nature that witnesses against sin in them, and witnessed against it in others, accused or excused one another. Vicissim, so some read it, by turns; according as they observed or broke these natural laws and dictates, their consciences did either acquit or condemn them. All this did evince that they had that which was to them instead of a law, which they might have been governed by, and which will condemn them, because they were not so guided and governed by it. So that the guilty Gentiles are left without excuse. God is justified in condemning them. They cannot plead ignorance, and therefore are likely to perish if they have not something else to plead.”
Shalom
http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2013/06/21/youve-got-questions-weve-got-answers-15/#comment-354066
It looks like you are still as prideful in your infancy in Messiah as you were a year ago.
Bo,
As I said, N.T. Wright agrees with me.
Is he a prideful infant?
Probably not, but you have proven what you are. You have only been a believer a few years and not too long ago refused to accept the synoptic gospels…and the list goes on. Just go back and reread the thread where we had this discussion before. Once you do that, you will see that I have answered every one of your questions sufficiently.
Bo,
“Just go back and reread the thread where we had this discussion before. Once you do that, you will see that I have answered every one of your questions sufficiently.”
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander; my response is as follows:
“Just go back and reread the thread where we had this discussion before. Once you do that, you will see that I have answered every one of your questions sufficiently.”
Bo,
1. The Romans 2:13-15 Gentiles, who were “doers of the Law… justified”, were believers. This means we (believers) don’t need to serve God by the Written Code in order to qualify to be called “doers of the Law”; we establish it and fulfill (“you yourselves are taught of God to love one another”, “For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word: you shall love your neighbor as yourself”, “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything but faith which works by love”, “through love serve one another”) its righteous requirement by the Spirit of Grace [Ro 3:31; 7:6; 8:1-4].
2a. You can’t say that they are unbelievers, because it says they are “doers of the Law… justified”–but, also, “no flesh will be justified by the deeds of the Law.”
2b. If you *still* insist they are unbelievers, that is fine: they reached the status of “doers of the Law… justified” without the Law, whereas not a single unbelieving Jew could reach that status with their knowledge of the Written Code; so, even if we read it that way, there is no compelling reason to put anyone under the Law: we can do better without it.
3. If you hope that arguing against the fact that they were “doers of the Law”, by saying “doers of the Law” doesn’t mean “doers of the Law” but “followers of their conscience”, you just show everyone your true heart: rejection of God’s Word.
The same thing goes for if you try to say they were not “justified” by being “doers of the Law”.
I am more than 60% done with doing just that. How far along are you?
Bo,
I have to get your response to respond to it.
Bo,
The argument Paul makes is as follows:
1. Don’t think that just because you (Messianic Jews) are Jewish or have the knowledge of the Law in the written Code you will somehow have special favor with God…
Ro 2
11For God shows no partiality.
12For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
2. Because what counts is actually DOING what the Law says; there are a. non-Jews who b. don’t have the Law but who actually do fulfill the Law–and THEY are justified because they actually DO the Law… these are circumcised BY THE SPIRIT and are INTERNALLY JEWISH not merely externally.
Ro 2
13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
…
27Then he who is physicallyc uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written coded and circumcision but break the law. 28For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Proof positive this is speaking of Gentile believers is the fact that they are circumcised by the Spirit of God and have praise from God.
Bo,
N.T. Wright on Romans 2:12-16 may be found starting from 11 to of http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Law_Romans2.pdf
Of particular import:
“[146] I suggest, therefore, that 2.13-14 should be taken quite closely with 2.25-29, as described above. There are, however, two further points on the passage which need to be added.
First, we may consider the peculiar situation of those described here. 2.13 and 2.14, taken together, indicate quite clearly that those described in the latter as ‘doing the law’ will, according to the former, be justified (remembering, again, that we are here dealing with
future, not present, justification). This is clear from putting together
2.13: oiJ poihtai; novmou dikaiwqhvsontai with 2.14: e[qnh…ta; tou: novmou poiw:sin.
The ‘doing of the law’ spoken of here and in 2.26f., then, has to do with nothing less than justification, albeit in the future. But why then will there be uncertainty, as suggested in the very strange passage in v. 15b (‘with their conscience also bearing witness with them, and their conflicting thoughts accusing or perhaps excusing them …’)? One possible answer might
run as follows, and this answer, I think, considerably strengthens my case.
Paul has just stated that those who do not have the law will be judged without the law, while those who have the law will be judged by means of the law. But at once he faces an exception; and the fact that this is an exception demonstrates more clearly than before that we must indeed be dealing with Christian Gentiles at this point. If those who are a ‘law to themselves’, because ‘the law’ (presumably the Jewish law) is written on their hearts, are non-Christians, then Paul has been talking nonsense in v. 12 when he suggested that Gentiles, not having the law, would be judged without the law. But if they are Christians, then they are in a sense neither fish nor fowl. They are not simply lawless Gentiles; but the Jewish law, which is now in some sense or other written on their hearts, and which in some sense they ‘do’, nevertheless has a sufficiently ambiguous relation to them for them still to be concerned that the eventual issue might be in doubt. Hence, as judgment day approaches, they may well find inner conflict as they reflect on their situation. They would not have this inner conflict were they not Christians. The situation would then be the simply one of v. 12.
We might supplement the argument further by pointing out that the warning of 2.13 (‘it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who shall be justified’) anticipates almost exactly the charge of 2.23 (‘you who boast in the law, do you dishonour God by breaking the law?’) But there is another argument which strongly supports the conclusion that the people here described, as towards the end of the chapter, are indeed Christian Gentiles – and actual ones, not merely hypothetical figures.
This is v. 15a: they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. It has been pointed out often enough that this is a direct allusion to Jeremiah 31.33:
This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
from page 11 to page 15
Bo,
Also, when you try to assert the Gentiles are unbelievers, and yet approved of God by being doers of the Law, you do so forgetfully:
Romans 3
9What then? Are we any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that *all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,* 10as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
That is the description of unbelieving Gentiles; not “doers of the Law.”
Dr. Brown,
What do you have to say, in relation to this topic (the place of the Law in the Life of the believer), about the Orthodox Jewish belief that “the Mitzvahs will become void in the Messianic Age” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyIDPb80FV8)?
Dan1el,
I wrote this to you the last time we had this discussion:
Your problem is that you import your own doctrine into the text instead of reading what it says in context. Paul is beginning a complex argument and laying out the premises, not stating conclusions.
With your view Paul’s next statement makes no sense.
Romans 3
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
There is no advantage to being a Jew if the hypothetical Gentiles of Romans 2 in question are believers. In such a case the believers that do not know the law would have the advantage, but Paul says the opposite. The law could only serve as a disadvantage according to your doctrine, because you think that it is wrong to learn doctrine from reading the law, even though Paul instructs Timothy to get his doctrine and instruction in righteousness from the law.
And it would be good if you addressed the following or recant from the position you hold on rejecting the written word of YHWH for listening to some Spirit that contradicts His word.
Bo,
The reason Paul asked “1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?” was for the very fact that he was teaching there are Gentiles whose doing of the Law (without the knowledge of the Law) was counted as circumcision.
Bo,
And those Gentiles who are doers of the precepts of the Law (though they do not have the Law), and who are internally Jewish because they are circumcised by the Spirit of God [Ro 2:25-29], are the very same Gentiles he was speaking of earlier [Ro 2:13-15].
Paul says the main advantage is that the Jews have the written law. You say that that is not an advantage. You disagree with Paul.
Bo,
Paul says the Gentiles who are internally Jews, who are circumcised by the Spirit, and who have praise from God, keep the precepts of the Law without even knowing the Law and are justified because of it.
You disagree with Paul.