Well, I am sorry that I don't see the context as you see it, and I am sorry that it makes you think that that's a proof that I am not reading the posts. Not sure how you go there anyway.. but never mind. I am having a hard to time to read the Bible in it's context, cause what is the right context and what is the right interpretation. To be quite honest, the context concerning salvation in the reformed sense is starting to make lesser and lesser sense. All the texts that speak of the things that are neccesary next to faith to be saved, almost outweigh the faith alone texts. I understand that the Bible speaks that faith alone is sufficient to be justified, but there is also such a thing as future justification, at the final judgment. I just don't see how faith alone fits in those texts, it's all about works, and Christ' work is not even mentioned in those texts.
doers of the law will be justified
- Thread starter ijunn
- Start date
- Status
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Ian, others are more qualified to deal with your doubts that Christ is truly the end of the law for righteousness. A possible reading of the Acts passage is that Peter is not in fact, making a specific comment on Cornelius'.life, any more than his previous statement that he has been taught not to call any man common or unclean is specific to Cornelius and him alone. Peter is using the shorthand found throughout the OT for the what God requires of man -- a shorthand which was part of the sacrificial system and which was always meant to point people to their need of the one who would come and fulfill all those shadowy types. He then goes on as the OT leads to the New, to speak of Christ more directly.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
What do you mean by that?
Romans 2:13 is speaking hypothetically. Paul is not contradicting himself in the Book of Romans. In later chapters, Paul goes on to teach that none are righteous and that we are justified by faith alone. If a person wants to be justified by keeping God's law, then he would have to keep it perfectly. He would have to be perfect. However, we cannot keep God's law perfectly. Romans 3:10 says that none are righteous. Sinners do not have their own righteousness. Sinners cannot keep God's law perfectly. Since sinners cannot keep God's law perfectly, sinners are justified by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
If we want to know whence came the spiritual impulses within Cornelius to, v2, "fear God," "give alms generously," and "pray to God always," it will require the anthropology and soteriology--the doctrines of man and salvation--which is taught by the rest of Scripture.
It is a false inference, a faulty anthropology, to begin this chapter by assuming that Cornelius had made initiative toward God, to which God reacted. Instead, we rightly begin by recognizing that God reacts (so to speak) to his own prior work in Cornelius and his household.
The angel in the vision engages Cornelius at the level of his human experience--not by teaching him about the long trail of Providence that had finally brought him to live as a "godfearer' beside his Jewish neighbors--but simply by stating, v4 & v31, that his "prayers and alms" had been received by God.
At the level of Cornelius' experience, God answers his devotion by giving him instruction to summon a particular minister (Peter) for further guidance. At the level of eternal purpose, God is fulfilling his own decree of election that encompasses all the means foreordained to bring the gospel of Cornelius' salvation to him at the appointed time.
v22 contains the judgment of men (which is again at the level of human perception) concerning the reputation of Cornelius. In their experience, a devout Jew (which they presume Peter to be) would seldom risk ceremonial defilement by going into the uncleanness of a Gentile dwelling (cf. v28, also Jn.18:28). They make their request for Peter's presence using the best human and divine inducements they know.
So, do vv34-35--which begins a record (epitome) of Peter's message that day--mean to teach that here and there in the world, there are people who prepare themselves somehow for God to act? V35 considered simply as a statement, connected with v34, doesn't actually say a single thing about prior conditions at all, but is an observation that God is not only the Propitiator of Jews (marked by devotion), but the Propitiator of every nation.
How does it come about that anyone, of any nation, fears God and works righteousness, in any degree? Peter doesn't refer to divine causation, but not mentioning it doesn't mean he doesn't believe it is so, and that it is necessary.
People have a tendency to read-between-the-lines, especially when handling narrative texts. There is actually warrant for that, to some extent; because we ought to be reading narrative text bearing in mind the beliefs of the narrative participants, as well as that of the narrator. Narrative tells a story, and in the telling not every fact can be related--selection is necessary. But there is a whole network of beliefs that undergird the presentation.
The big problem in reading-between-the-lines is when it is done not with a biblical-theology informing "the gaps," but with personal experience taking that role. If the reader assumes at the outset that Peter's belief is (even before he opens his mouth in v34): Cornelius is already "accepted by God" to some degree on account of his works; then the reader will read the words of v35 a certain way.
But is that assumption in keeping with a biblically complete and accurate anthropology and soteriology? I don't think so. There is a better way to read the text as given, with a better set of assumptions behind the reading filling in the gaps.
The fuzzy nature of interpolation is a major reason why we do not typically ground doctrine in narrative texts. It's true: Peter is engaged here in didactic presentation. But that only underscores the importance of sticking precisely to the propositions he makes (and limiting our assumptions as to what may be implied); and most importantly to observe that the precise teaching purpose of the full speech comes out in vv36-43, not in the introductory and slightly biographical expressions of vv34-35.
The purpose of vv34-35 is to declare the opening of the divine call of grace to the Gentiles. It's purpose is not to teach preparationist doctrine, or that the purpose of evangelism is to go and find the god-fearers and do-gooders of the world, in order to get the gospel to the people who have prepared themselves. Yes, it's possible to read the text that way, but not consistently with the rest of Scripture.
Who are the godfearing and righteous people in God's sight (not in their own sight, or other men's sight)? They are believers in Christ. Any man who hearing the gospel rejects it, though he have a wonderful reputation with men, he is not godfearing and righteous in the sight of God. Apart from the grace of God, men are dead in trespasses and sins, and cannot please God. No man's prayer to God is due an answer, apart from the prior promise of God. All genuine seeking of God is prompted by divine initiative.
Such is Peter's biblical theology, in the light of which everything he says should be understood.
It is a false inference, a faulty anthropology, to begin this chapter by assuming that Cornelius had made initiative toward God, to which God reacted. Instead, we rightly begin by recognizing that God reacts (so to speak) to his own prior work in Cornelius and his household.
The angel in the vision engages Cornelius at the level of his human experience--not by teaching him about the long trail of Providence that had finally brought him to live as a "godfearer' beside his Jewish neighbors--but simply by stating, v4 & v31, that his "prayers and alms" had been received by God.
At the level of Cornelius' experience, God answers his devotion by giving him instruction to summon a particular minister (Peter) for further guidance. At the level of eternal purpose, God is fulfilling his own decree of election that encompasses all the means foreordained to bring the gospel of Cornelius' salvation to him at the appointed time.
v22 contains the judgment of men (which is again at the level of human perception) concerning the reputation of Cornelius. In their experience, a devout Jew (which they presume Peter to be) would seldom risk ceremonial defilement by going into the uncleanness of a Gentile dwelling (cf. v28, also Jn.18:28). They make their request for Peter's presence using the best human and divine inducements they know.
So, do vv34-35--which begins a record (epitome) of Peter's message that day--mean to teach that here and there in the world, there are people who prepare themselves somehow for God to act? V35 considered simply as a statement, connected with v34, doesn't actually say a single thing about prior conditions at all, but is an observation that God is not only the Propitiator of Jews (marked by devotion), but the Propitiator of every nation.
How does it come about that anyone, of any nation, fears God and works righteousness, in any degree? Peter doesn't refer to divine causation, but not mentioning it doesn't mean he doesn't believe it is so, and that it is necessary.
People have a tendency to read-between-the-lines, especially when handling narrative texts. There is actually warrant for that, to some extent; because we ought to be reading narrative text bearing in mind the beliefs of the narrative participants, as well as that of the narrator. Narrative tells a story, and in the telling not every fact can be related--selection is necessary. But there is a whole network of beliefs that undergird the presentation.
The big problem in reading-between-the-lines is when it is done not with a biblical-theology informing "the gaps," but with personal experience taking that role. If the reader assumes at the outset that Peter's belief is (even before he opens his mouth in v34): Cornelius is already "accepted by God" to some degree on account of his works; then the reader will read the words of v35 a certain way.
But is that assumption in keeping with a biblically complete and accurate anthropology and soteriology? I don't think so. There is a better way to read the text as given, with a better set of assumptions behind the reading filling in the gaps.
The fuzzy nature of interpolation is a major reason why we do not typically ground doctrine in narrative texts. It's true: Peter is engaged here in didactic presentation. But that only underscores the importance of sticking precisely to the propositions he makes (and limiting our assumptions as to what may be implied); and most importantly to observe that the precise teaching purpose of the full speech comes out in vv36-43, not in the introductory and slightly biographical expressions of vv34-35.
The purpose of vv34-35 is to declare the opening of the divine call of grace to the Gentiles. It's purpose is not to teach preparationist doctrine, or that the purpose of evangelism is to go and find the god-fearers and do-gooders of the world, in order to get the gospel to the people who have prepared themselves. Yes, it's possible to read the text that way, but not consistently with the rest of Scripture.
Who are the godfearing and righteous people in God's sight (not in their own sight, or other men's sight)? They are believers in Christ. Any man who hearing the gospel rejects it, though he have a wonderful reputation with men, he is not godfearing and righteous in the sight of God. Apart from the grace of God, men are dead in trespasses and sins, and cannot please God. No man's prayer to God is due an answer, apart from the prior promise of God. All genuine seeking of God is prompted by divine initiative.
Such is Peter's biblical theology, in the light of which everything he says should be understood.
Prudent advice from John Owen might help orientate the reader of Scripture to see it in its pristine light:
Let the experience of them that do believe be inquired into; for their consciences are continually exercised herein. What is it that they betake themselves unto, what is it that they plead with God for the continuance of the pardon of their sins, and the acceptance of their persons before him? Is it any thing but sovereign grace and mercy, through the blood of Christ? Are not all the arguments which they plead unto this end taken from the topics of the name of God, his mercy, grace, faithfulness, tender compassion, covenant, and promises, — all manifested and exercised in and through the Lord Christ and his mediation alone? Do they not herein place their only trust and confidence, for this end, that their sins may be pardoned, and their persons, though every way unworthy in themselves, be accepted with God? Doth any other thought enter into their hearts? Do they plead their own righteousness, obedience, and duties to this purpose? Do they leave the prayer of the publican, and betake themselves unto that of the Pharisee? And is it not of faith alone? which is that grace whereby they apply themselves unto the mercy or grace of God through the mediation of Christ. It is true that faith herein worketh and acteth itself in and by godly sorrow, repentance, humiliation, self-judging and abhorrency, fervency in prayer and supplications, with an humble waiting for an answer of peace from God, with engagements unto renewed obedience: but it is faith alone that makes applications unto grace in the blood of Christ for the continuation of our justified estate, expressing itself in those other ways and effects mentioned; from none of which a believing soul doth expect the mercy aimed at.
Let the experience of them that do believe be inquired into; for their consciences are continually exercised herein. What is it that they betake themselves unto, what is it that they plead with God for the continuance of the pardon of their sins, and the acceptance of their persons before him? Is it any thing but sovereign grace and mercy, through the blood of Christ? Are not all the arguments which they plead unto this end taken from the topics of the name of God, his mercy, grace, faithfulness, tender compassion, covenant, and promises, — all manifested and exercised in and through the Lord Christ and his mediation alone? Do they not herein place their only trust and confidence, for this end, that their sins may be pardoned, and their persons, though every way unworthy in themselves, be accepted with God? Doth any other thought enter into their hearts? Do they plead their own righteousness, obedience, and duties to this purpose? Do they leave the prayer of the publican, and betake themselves unto that of the Pharisee? And is it not of faith alone? which is that grace whereby they apply themselves unto the mercy or grace of God through the mediation of Christ. It is true that faith herein worketh and acteth itself in and by godly sorrow, repentance, humiliation, self-judging and abhorrency, fervency in prayer and supplications, with an humble waiting for an answer of peace from God, with engagements unto renewed obedience: but it is faith alone that makes applications unto grace in the blood of Christ for the continuation of our justified estate, expressing itself in those other ways and effects mentioned; from none of which a believing soul doth expect the mercy aimed at.
Hi Ian - i see you are struggling with this issue. It is both difficult and simple at the same time and i understand how you feel (been there, done it , got the tea shirt etc etc ) I have recently purchased ; "Saved by grace ;The Holy Spirit's work in Calling and Regeneration " by Herman Bavnick (1854-1921) of the Reformed church in Netherlands. As you are in Holland its quite appropriate for you . The book discusses Eternal Justification and explains all views of this doctrine and many others - both pro and con . It will help you (i am half way through it and its fantastic). The Dutch Theologians look at this topic with ingrained "european" culture and insight which is of a different frame than that of Britain or America and provides some "new" insights. The book was only published in English for the first time last year but it was originally published in Dutch in 1903 . It costs around £6 English pounds on amazon and worth every penny . Meanwhile to whet your appetite please ponder on Jeremiah 1:5 and Luke 1:15 (KJV). Happy reading !
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
