Midterm Flashcards
Based on assigned reading and class lectures, what is a proper understanding of the phrase “works of the Law” and why Paul contrasts it with justification by faith? How does this differ with other views?
Romans 4:2 - fundamentally the idea of works; Abraham before the law of Moses was not justified by works (works of the law). It is not the worth or merit of the person that makes one righteous. Abraham is trusting himself in a righteousness that he cannot supply; his faith is trusting in God’s provision to supply righteousness
Psalm 32:2 God counts those righteous (creative imputed acts) despite the fact that they are sinful.
“The Works of the Law” in Paul’s writings is properly understood to be the moral works of the law. This is proven by looking at Romans 2, where the apostle cites the moral stipulations of the law and not the ceremonial aspects as the law which they are transgressing. This is in contrast with the New Perspective on Paul, which teaches that the “works of the law” are the ceremonial aspects which distinguish Jew and Gentile.
Based on assigned reading and class lectures, what is a proper understanding of Rom 2:6-11, 13? Along these lines, what is the relationship between Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith and the nature of the final judgment?
The proper understanding of Rom. 2:6-11 is that Paul is still making the case that it is not by being a covenant member, possessing the law, or having circumcision that saves you. Rather, it is obedience to the law that saves. The problem, as Paul continues to show, is that mankind, both Jew and Greek, are unable and unwilling to keep the law of God and thereby are condemned. It is not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law that are justified as Paul will later say. Again, the problem that he is setting up is that no one is a doer of the law. The relationship between justification by faith and the final judgment in Paul’s writings is that if you have faith in Jesus Christ, you are declared just in the sight of God apart from any works of your own, and on the Last Day your justification by faith in Jesus will be “vindicated” before God and all the world. Not that faith is the grounds of justification, which would run contrary to Paul’s argument, but that Jesus Christ’s atoning work or ‘the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus’ is the grounds for our justification which is received by faith.
Based on your assigned reading and class lectures, what would you say is the importance of inaugurated eschatology (i.e., the two ages, the now/not yet) for understanding Paul’s letters, particularly Romans?
The importance for understanding inaugurated eschatology in the writings of Paul is that it helps us understand and distinguish between ideas of justification in Paul’s writings. When Paul speaks about justification, he often speaks of it in the past or perfect tense as something that has been done already on behalf of the believer because of the work of Christ. But, there are also times where he will speak of justification in terms of the Last Day where God will declare us just. Many have been and are confused, thinking that these two things are the same exact event, but, properly understood, justification has both now and not yet implications for Paul. We are presently justified, but we will one day be “justified” or vindicated on Judgment Day before the court of God.
Based on your assigned reading and class lectures, describe the relationship and differences in Paul’s thought between Justification and Sanctification. Does this come up anywhere in Romans?
Paul does not divorce Justification and Sanctification, but he does distinguish them. In Paul’s thought, one leads to the other but they are not the same thing. That is the error of Roman Catholicism. Justification is a declaration while sanctification is a process. This particularly comes up in Rom. 6 where Paul is answering the charge that his gospel leads men into sin.
What is the importance of Rom 1:1-6 and 16:25-27 for understanding Paul’s message and purpose in Romans as a whole? How does it seem to apply particularly to the first six chapters?
Paul’s message is about the triumph of God through Jesus Christ over sin and death, and how God ultimately reconciles us to Himself and all things through Jesus Christ, His Son. Paul says that he longs to preach the gospel all over the world, even as far as Spain, and part of Paul’s reason for writing Romans is to show the Roman Church (which would have likely been the apostle’s homebase for the Western Mission, just like Antioch was in the East) what the content of his gospel is and what its implications are. Basically, Romans is like a sales pitch, showing the Roman Christians what Paul would be teaching the West. Sadly, Paul was never able to make it to Spain, but he did get to Rome! The first six chapters are Paul laying out his doctrine of justification by faith, which is a core component in his message.
Beginning with Rom 1:16-17, how would you explain to a non-RBC friend what Paul means when he uses the phrase “the righteousness of God” in Rom 1-3? Do all the uses refer to the same idea, or are they different?
- God’s righteous character
- A status that is given by faith
- The covenantal faithfulness of God to His promises
The key is knowing when Paul is using these three different ideas. The error of many is to read one definition into all the uses which lead to a misrepresentation of Paul and Scripture.
A non-RBC friend of yours is confused about why Paul talks so much about Abraham after discussing justification by faith in Rom 3. How would you help him/her understand why?
I would explain to a non-RBC friend that Paul uses Abraham as an example of what he had just argued for in Romans 3. The Jews looked up to Abraham as a perfect example of obedience because of his actions with Isaac in Gen. 22. Paul, however, shows the Jews from Scripture that Abraham was justified by faith, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Notice Paul’s claim that we are justified by faith and not by works; Paul shows that faith was what led to these other works found in Genesis.
A non-RBC friend of yours is confused about the logic of Paul’s argument in Romans 3. How could you explain it to them?
I would explain to my non-RBC friend that Paul in the course of the book of Romans is presenting a sweeping argument for the guilt of all mankind, whether they have the law of God or not. In chapter 3, Paul’s argument comes to a head where he shows from the consensus of the Old Testament that all men everywhere are under the judgment of God. He pivots however in verse 20 to show what God has done to save humanity. God has manifested his righteousness (the status that is received by faith in Jesus which is consistent with God’s righteous character) apart from the law, although witnessed by the law and the prophets. This righteousness is only received through faith in Jesus Christ whom God himself set out as an atonement for sin and a satisfaction of divine wrath against the sin of all who would believe. This righteous and gracious act of God destroys all ground for boasting in ourselves and our own abilities and places our confidence wholly on the work of Jesus Christ done in our place.
How would you engage a non-RBC person who claimed that Rom 1:26-27 does not establish the inherent sinfulness of homosexuality?
- This is written by a Jewish author, so Paul most definitely does not mean their explanation
- The Jewish view is according to the Old Testament where man by nature is to marry a woman and a woman by nature is to marry a man, period
- Examples like Genesis; the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is very clear that their primary sin was homosexuality
I would explain to a non-RBC friend that the line of argumentation that Paul uses from Rom. 1 is very clear on the sinfulness of homosexuality. Paul describes it as a handing over to abominable lusts of the flesh and defilement. He also says that there are penalties in the flesh for doing such things.
To the best of your ability, based on the required reading and class lectures, how would you explain to a non-RBC friend the differences between the traditional Reformed view on Justification and other views, like those of the New Perspective on Paul and the modern Roman Catholic Church?
I would explain to my non-RBC friend that the Reformed view of justification is that God has provided Jesus Christ as an atonement for sin and also as a satisfaction of God’s wrath against sin. We receive the righteousness of Christ by faith, and we are justified by God. Our justification, however, leads to our sanctification; we do not possess an idle faith. The Roman Catholic view of justification is that justification is a process whereby those who are baptized have to continue to mortify their sins and keep with the sacraments of the church in order to be declared just, since God will not declare anyone just who is not actually just. The Roman Catholic church confuses justification and sanctification. The New Perspective position is that our justification is our “inclusion” into the covenant community. The “works of the law” that Paul is railing against is not the moral law as a means of salvation, but the ceremonial law as a means of sticking it to everyone who is not a Jew. The issue is no longer one of salvation, but of our doctrine of the church.
Describe Paul’s argument in Romans 1
The gospel is the power of God unto salvation
The righteousness of God is revealed through the gospel in accordance with the OT
All the Gentiles, all of God’s covenant people, and each individual person are guilty of sin and without excuse
Describe Paul’s argument in Romans 2
- The covenant won’t save you;
- Knowledge of the Law won’t save you;
- Circumcision won’t save you
Describe Paul’s argument in Romans 3
- All have sinned
- The meaning of Law is to point to Christ
Describe Paul’s argument in Romans 4
Justification by faith (Abraham)
Describe Paul’s argument in Romans 5
Covenantal Headship (Adam and Christ)
