Thanks rline. This is a new possibility to me and one I will have to think about more.
I have recently been wondering if a different approach may be worth considering. I may be totally wrong but I will put it out there in case anyone has any thoughts- positive or negative.
Could real obedience to the law be basically the same as real faith, or two sides of the same coin if you will. You can’t have one without the other. Paul may not be contrasting faith with true obedience to the law. He may be contrasting faith with the “works of the law”. True obedience to the law may be a good thing, and goes along with faith, and leads to eternal life, whereas works of the law, like circumcision, which distinguished Jews from Gentiles, and that the Jews boasted in, could just be outward and not affect the heart, and still be self seeking and reject the real heart of the law, and lead to wrath.
Just so people are aware, there are a lot of verses coming up. I’ve put my comments where needed after each one.
Rom 3:20 - Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law [righteousness and law are at odds]
Rom 3:20 - through the law we become conscious of sin [the law exists to make us aware of sin]
Rom 3:21 - a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known [again, righteousness has nothing to do with law; it’s apart from it; it’s contrasted with it]
Rom 3:28 - For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. [ditto]
Rom 3:31 - Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. [rather than righteousness by the law, it’s righteousness through faith, which then upholds the law]
Rom 4:14 - For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value [again, huge contrast]
Rom 4:15 - where there is no law there is no transgression. [think about this: sin is only possible because of law. If law didn’t exist, neither could sin!]
Rom 5:13 - before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. “the law” referring to the law of Moses. Paul makes this clear by again reiterating that there’s no sin if there’s no law]
Rom 5:20 - The law was added so that the trespass might increase. [Wow! The law of Moses was put in place by God with the express purpose of INCREASING SIN! Note that Moses’ law doesn’t [b]*introduce *sin, it ***increases ***it.]
Rom 6:15 - What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! [Great verse. Many people miss the point of the question. The point is that we are not under law. Law has nothing to do with us. As well, law and grace are directly contrasted.]
Rom 7:4 - So, my brothers, you also died to the law [pretty conclusive…]
Rom 7:5 - For when we were controlled by the flesh, the passions of the sins aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. “passions of sins” are woken up BY THE LAW!]
Rom 7:6 - But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law …]
Rom 7:7 - What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. [again, Paul says that what the law did was to make known sin. He said this in Rom 3:20. And why is the law not sin? Because it’s a tool of God. God uses the law to accomplish His purposes, just as He uses everything else in all creation to accomplish His purposes]
Rom 7:12,14,16 - the law is holy, spiritual and good. [Given everything else Paul says about it, we conlcude that despite it being these things, it’s not for us, it’s not meant to be followed by us. Its function is to make sin known.]
Rom 10:4 - Christ is the end of the law …]
1 Cor 15:56 - the power of sin is the law [the law is what gives sin is power. This is so amazingly crucial. If we, as believers, try to follow the law, then we are empowering sin in our lives. The obvious question is how then should we live and should we ignore the law? Yes, ignore the law. But by living according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4) and according love (Rom 13:10), we end up fulfilling the law. And we do it completely apart from law. Pretty awesome how God worked all this out.]
Gal 2:16 - a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. [mroe of the same]
Gal 2:19 - I died to the law so that I might live for God. [and so did we]
Gal 2:21 - if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing [Paul seems serious about this!]
Gal 3:10 - All who rely on observing the law are under a curse [not where I want to be]
Gal 3:11 - Clearly no one is justified before God by the law …]
Gal 3:12 - The law is not based on faith [faith and law contrasted again]
Gal 3:13 - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us [the law is a curse and we [i]**have **- past tense - been redeemed from it by Christ.]
Gal 3:23 - Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. [the implication is that anyone who currently tries to live by law in any way is being held prisoner.]
Gal 3:24 - So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. [law vs. Christ; law vs. faith]
Gal 3:25 - Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. [could Paul possibly be any clearer than this?]
Gal 5:3 - Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. [circumcision was merely one part of the law, but Paul says that if they go ahead and do it, they must then keep the entire law. The same is for us. Even if there’s only one tiny piece of the law we submit to, we are then obligated to keep the whole thing. No thanks.]
Gal 5:14 - The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” [and this is why by loving, we end up fulfilling the law, as opposed to “keeping” the law.
Eph 2:15 - by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. [Huh? Christ has already abolished the law. Anyone who still tries to keep it is clutching at the wind. It’s gone.]
Based on the above, we know that love fulfills the law. We also know that the law has been abolished, we died to the law, no-one gets declared righteous by observing it, and that people are justified by faith apart from law. If we try to observe even one tiny part of the law, we’ve missed the boat. Christ is the end of the law. When God gives people the gift of faith, they will end up living according to love and therefore end up fulfilling the law. The real heart of the law was to make people aware of sin.
I don’t know whether this goes anywhere to thinking through your question, Craig, but it at least makes it clear to me where the law stands! I also enjoyed working through those verses on law. What do you think?
Thanks for all these great bible passages and your comments rline.
You asked what I think. I am not sure at the moment. There are some things which I can clearly follow and agree with. There are some other things I am not sure about. I am a bit confused.
I am not thinking that what a person needs is to have the law of Moses in front of him, and then try with all his own strength to obey it all, and then because he has done such a good job God will justify him and give him eternal life because he deserves it.
But I do think that through the work of the Spirit, the central heart of the law, summarised as love God and love your neighbour, will be worked out in the life of the believer. I think there is a way that “obedience” can be a work of the flesh, and there is a way that “obedience” can be a work of the Spirit of God and God’s grace. When it is a work of the Spirit- true faith, true repentance, true obedience, true love for God and neighbour (and thus true fulfilling of the law), true perseverance etc - are all present and part of the one painting that is a work of God. Jesus and all the bible writers seem to me to be happy to intermingle all these things with salvation, and not just “faith” as though it is different or in opposition to all the others. The problem is when the work of “obedience” is from the flesh. Then it is different and leads to death. I am wondering if when Paul is opposing “works of the law”, he is referring to some sort of false “obedience” which is a work of the flesh and therefore doesn’t fulfil the “righteous requirements of the law”, doesn’t result in love for God or neighbour and results in wrath. So true “obedience” can be a good and godly thing but “works of the law” that are done in the flesh are not.
I think I have heard somewhere that Paul’s expression “works of the law” may mean something tied very specifically to the law of Moses and associated with our own strength or fleshly efforts. This may be quite different to obedience brought about by God’s grace through His Spirit.
I still need to do a lot more thinking about all the verses and thoughts you supplied, and the concept I am thinking about may be heresy or it may be correct. I am not sure.
I know that there are many passages that tell us that salvation is through faith. But I also think I can find many other passages that tell me things like:
Salvation is through good deeds (Matt 25 Parable of the sheep and goats), salvation is through repentance (Acts 3:19), salvation is through love (1 John 3:14), salvation is through patience and perseverance (Heb 6:11,12) etc. It seems to me that the bible writers see faith as one gift from God associated with salvation amongst a whole range of other gifts associated with salvation.
Paul speaks about justification by faith in Rom 5:1 but sees no contradiction speaking about justification (righteousness) by obedience in Rom 6:16
“Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey —whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?”
So my thought is that when God is at work in our lives through His grace and through His Spirit, He gifts us with a whole bunch of things and the bible writers seem quite naturally just to pick the appropriate one or several of them together as characterising those who have eternal life.
Obedience and good deeds are works of God in our lives associated with salvation, just as much as faith is. Paul seems happy to talk about it both ways, whereas in the churches I have belonged to, to speak of justification through obedience, I think would be thought of as heresy. I am not sure that Paul would drive a wedge between obedience that is a work of God and faith that is a work of God. “Trust and Obey for there’s no other way to be happy in Jesus” as the song goes.
So back to Rom 2:7 and other similar verses, I think that these may be true believers, who do good, because that’s what God enables true believers through His grace to do. But hey, I could be totally on the wrong track so let me know if you think I am.
Sorry if my ramblings are a bit confusing. I hope you can follow my thinking.
In thinking about your suggestion, you may be correct, but I am not sure. If I am understanding you correctly, the problem I see with this suggestion is that Rom 2:7 is not really unusual. There are many passages saying the same sort of thing throughout the bible and spoken to people who know about God and Christ and have faith. So I am not sure that it only applies to people who don’t have faith until the resurrection.
When Jesus talked about eternal life, sometimes he talked about faith and other times he talked about obedience and loving God and neighbour. He wasn’t always consistent, always saying “believe in me and you will have life”. This gets confusing and we find it difficult to fit Jesus’ words into our “justification by faith alone” system.
The OT has heaps of passages linking obedience, love for neighbour (e.g. care for widows, orphans, justice for the oppressed etc) and life.
Some say that Jesus, Paul and the Old Testament are only speaking hypothetically when speaking of obedience and life, because no one can be perfect enough. But I am not convinced about this approach. I don’t think God is speaking of sinless perfection. In Luke 1:6 concerning Zechariah and Elizabeth,
“Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.” This is not an uncommon idea in the bible. God has always been pleased with people who trust Him and love Him and obey Him and do good and it is these people who have righteousness and life. I don’t think he means that Zech and Eliz were sinlessly perfect. Humility, realising our need for forgiveness is another God-given gift and quality of a righteous life and God delights to give grace and mercy and forgiveness to the humble.
Great thoughts. Your thoughts are really similar to mine a while back. Let me hit a few with quick responses and then take it from there.
Agreed! Justification is through faith, however we slice it.
Yes, and this being worked out is itself also a gift from God. God gives the gift of faith to acknowledge the truth initially and then faith to live in that knowledge ongoing.
I don’t think this directly affects our discussion, but there’s a translation problem. There’s no word for eternal in the Greek or Hebrew texts. The relevant word means age. Just as a word in English cannot mean something and the opposite of that something at the same time, neither can the Greek word aion mean **eternal ****and age **at the same time. These two things are opposite. We can easily see which one it does mean by considering passages, which if translated using the word eternal, end up saying such things as “before the beginning of eternity” (2 Tim 1:9), “at the conclusion of the eternity” (Heb 9:26) and “this present eternity” (1 Tim 6:17). Clearly, these phrases are ridiculous, and the translators realised it. So they used words like “age” and even “world” to translate the same word which they in other places translated “eternity”, when it didn’t cause them problems.
The first thing most people think of when faced with the possibility that “eternal” doesn’t mean “eternal” is What about John 3:16? Well, Jesus is talking to John about eonian life, or age-long life, which is exactly what the Israelites were looking for: a ruling and reigning Messiah in the kingdom prophesied about and promised for centuries. Our problem is that we then wonder “So is God not concerned with eternal life?” To which I say, “No”. It’s not on his radar since everyone will eventually be resurrected, death will be abolished, all reconciled, etc etc etc. Getting eternal life was never the issue.
The issue with this is that often those things are completely at odds. Eg. “by grace through faith alone” contrasted with “if you do not forgive others you won’t be forgiven”. This is not a minor discrepancy, it’s a complete opposite.
I don’t think so, because of the context. Paul’s building a case for how everyone in the world is in the same boat of utter lostness. He hasn’t introduced justification by faith at all and I don’t think believers are anywhere to be seen at this point.
And now for the main bit.
You’ve hit upon the thing that just never seems to go away: why do we see all these conditions for salvation (eg. repentance, love, forgiving others, patience, perseverance etc) on the one hand, and on the other hand there are many verses which tell us that salvation has nothing to do with us. Both these thoughts cannot be correct. It’s either one or the other. This led me to an impasse which I locked away for years, reasoning that if I didn’t think about it, it wouldn’t exist.
In Matt 10:5-7, it says “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’”
In Matt 15:24, Jesus says “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
In Romans 15:8 it says “For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcision (ie. Jews) on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed”
If Jesus really came to spread a message on earth of salvation from an eternal and fiery hell for anyone who didn’t “trust in Him”, he sure had a strange way of going about it.
Now, these verses tell us that Jesus (and Paul) saw his ministry as a ministry to Israel only. Not the Gentiles/nations. Rather than what is commonly thought, (that is, Jesus came preaching a message of salvation from sins for the whole world, and deliverance from hell for all mankind), in fact Jesus preached only to and for the Jews of Israel. This was supposed to be the culmination of God’s messengers, from prophets to kings and finally the Messiah. And when the Messiah arrived, he said he was only sent for Israel.
How is this possible???
We have verse after verse in Matthew (for instance) which clearly say that salvation is dependant on what one does or does not do. Then in Paul we have verse after verse which say that salvation has absolutely nothing to do with what one does or does not do.
There are only two options here. 1) Accept that the Bible -the inspired Scriptures when translated correctly - have contradictions which cannot be reconciled. 2) Adjust our understanding.
Read Paul carefully, and see how different it is to what Jesus said. Am I saying that Jesus and Paul were at odds? May it never be! Paul’s message was the message of and from Jesus, given to him by Jesus after the Damascus road experience. But it was a different message for a different people.
Jesus’ message was an earthly message for an earthly people, (Israel - which included the occasional proselyte, which explains instances like the Canaanite woman), which was about land, an earthly kingdom and about saving His people (the Jews) from their sins.
Paul’s message (given by the same Jesus) was for the nations (Gentiles). It was not at all about an earthly kingdom and it was a no-strings-attached message of grace.
Let me give you some examples from Matthew
• 6:15 if you should not be forgiving men their offenses, neither will your Father be forgiving your offenses
• 7:2-with what judgment you are judging, shall you be judged
• 10:22-yet he who endures to the consummation, he shall be saved.
• 10:33-whoever should be disowning me in front of men, I also will be disowning him in front of my Father who is in the heavens
• 12:37-by your words shall you be justified and by your words shall you be convicted
• 24:13-he who endures till the consummation, he shall be saved
Contrast all these with Paul:
Eph 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no-one can boast.
By works, Paul means anything that might be done to gain God’s favour, such as, forgiving men their offences, judging correctly, enduring to the end, not disowning God in front of men, speaking words that justify
The contrast is so stark. And I think the reason it’s so stark is that it’s a gospel designed for a different people. Further, there’s no way to reconcile the statements of Jesus about going into the fire of Gehenna, or being cast out into outer darkness etc etc, with the statement of Paul that God is the saviour of all men, or that as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive, or that God will be all in all, or that God will reconcile all creation to Himself. No way to reconcile them, of course, if we take Jesus’ earthly words and Paul’s words to be the same gospel to the same people (ie. everyone) with no distinction.
As soon as I adjusted my understanding, rather than try and ignore these conundrums, the “problems” pretty much disappeared (no, I’m not claiming to have perfect understanding ), as in the big issue we’re talking about, namely how to resolve what you wrote above:
Let’s go a little deeper and think about the Bible.
All the OT is written to and for Israel (excepting I guess Gen 1-11). Then in the gospels Jesus comes along and proclaims that “the kingdom of the heavens is at hand”. Nothing about eternal life for all mankind. Then in Acts, we see Peter, James, John and the other Jewish apostles taking the gospel message to the Jews. Peter’s message is typical: repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins. And then around chapter 8 or 9, Paul is introduced. He starts slowly, and there’s a transition where Peter and Cornelius (Cornelius being a God-fearing Gentile) are on the scene, but then all the Jewish apostles recede into the background and Paul and Barnabus take centre stage. By the end of Acts, it’s “Peter who?”. Then at the end of Acts, something interesting happens. Remember how Paul was always “Jew first, then Gentile”? Now, he proclaims that the Jews are ever hearing and never perceiving, and that the gospel now goes to the nations. Jews are set aside. (He goes into detail about all this in Rom 9-11). After Acts are all of Paul’s letters. Then Hebrews, which has unkown authorship. Then all the letters of the Jewish apostles. Finally Revelation.
Now, if you consider the 2nd half of Acts together with Paul’s letters, you have an inspired revelation from God to, about and for the people of the nations. Everything else in Scripture is to the Jews.
Paul makes clear that he has a different gospel to the other apostles. This is why he says in Gal 2 “I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.” Why would he need to do all this if it was the same gospel being preached to the Jews? He also uses the phrase “my gospel” on at least 3 occasions, which is a strange thing to say if the gospel is all the same to everyone everywhere, and if his gospel is precisely the same as that of the Jewish apostles.
Gal 2:7-8, “they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.” See the huge contrast between Peter (Jews) and Paul (Gentiles)?
And then look at Acts 15:5 "Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” Notice that these people were believers. But they were Jewish believers. What were they saying? Obedience to Moses and circumcision are required for salvation.
The resolution to this was that the Jewish “pillars” recognised that God had gifted Paul for the nations and themselves for the Jews. They recognised it was a different message. They sent them off with a blessing.
Jewish message-kingdom of heaven has come, repentance for forgiveness of sins, fulfilling prophecies made to the patriarchs, etc etc
Gentile message- none of the above, rather salvation by grace through faith which is itself a gift. God was in the world not counting people’s sins against them. (Ponder this to see how utterly opposite it is to “repent and be forgiven”.)
The upshot of all of this is that as believers from the nations, we have tried to assimilate a message which was not for us, nor addressed to us. This is where all the confusion comes from. As soon as we recognise that Paul is the apostle to and for the nations, we stop being syncretists. It enables us to rightly divide the word of truth. We read Peter, James, Jude and John’s letters and appreciate them, but remember that they are written to and for the Jewish believers, not us. Revelation, then, is a book about how God will finally save all Israel. Israel are currently hardened in part. But when God has finished his dealings of calling the body of Christ out of the nations, then he will resume dealing with Israel.
A couple of sidenotes are that only Paul speaks of the body of Christ, none of the other letter writers. Also, Paul doesn’t speak of any of the three words commonly translated “hell”, except once. And when he does, he taunts it. “Where O death is your sting?”!
All this is only a beginning in thinking it through. I’m guessing you may not have considered it like this before. And I’m quite sure it will raise questions. Have a think about what I’m saying. This understanding has resolved the problems of what appears to be the contradiction between salvation by grace and salvation by works.
I probably should clarify that, although I would still say I am not 100% certain of Christian Universalism, after reading several of the well known CU books and thinking about it a lot over the last few months, in my opinion it is the most probable explanation of the biblical data. So I can understand and relate to what you are saying here, and also agree that it is not an issue directly affecting our discussion. But thanks for the clear explanation you have given.
I agree that it sounds the opposite. I think we are identifying the same problem and looking for answers to it. I am interested in trying to follow your explanation and think about it, so thanks for your time on this. The direction I have been wondering about would see a life that forgives others, is also a life of faith, and a life filled with God’s grace and so these things are not actually opposed, even though they sound like it. All come from God’s grace and characterise the believer. The faith alone that saves is intimately wrapped up with a forgiving spirit. If there is no forgiving spirit at all, then is God’s grace through faith really there?
You may be correct. But it could be that Paul is introducing the subject in Rom 2. Everyone is sinful, but somehow there will be people who actually do good v7, who obey the heart of the law even when they are not a Jew and do not have the law v13,14. How can this be? The rest of the letter will go on to explain how through faith in Christ and the work of the Spirit of God this can happen.
Could both be correct- if these conditions do not come from us- but rather from God? Mk 10:26 "Who then can be saved? Jesus looked at them and said 'With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.
Agreed
I am not sure that they need to be seen in total contrast. They can all only be done through God’s grace, just like faith. Can any of these things be done in the flesh at all and succeed, as “works”? No, it is impossible. But with God all things are possible. If we try and do them ourselves we will fail. But God is at work in believers to fulfil the righteous requirements of the law. Rom 8:4
I agree that these are difficult questions, but I am sure that many on this forum could give them a pretty good shot.
Correct
Correct
Will do.
While I’m thinking (and feeling much out of my depth), if anyone else has any thoughts, please chime in.
Are you saying that the message to the Jews is a message of salvation by works, through things they do, while the message to the Gentiles is a message of salvation by grace?
I have only come across a little bit of dispensationalism. Are you saying similar things to this view of things?
A problem I can see with what you are suggesting, is that I think it is not just a Paul v Others thing but seems to be a Paul v Paul thing. Paul himself says things that could be construed as “salvation by works”, (unless you think that he is just writing to the Jews when he says these things) e.g. Righteousness through obedience in Rom 6:16 Life through putting to death the misdeeds of the body Rom 8:13 Life through having a mind controlled by the Spirit Rom 8:6 Salvation through perseverance 1 Cor 1:8 There could be many if I keep looking- I am not sure. I think you can at least understand my question, and I will look for more if it is necessary.
Thanks again rline for the interaction.
Blessings.
You sound ***exactly ***like my wife! Cautious, restrained, and ready to admit when something appears to have the weight of evidence without 100% committing.
Yes, definitely. We both may end up going our separate ways in our minds, or end up agreeing, but each of us needs to be fully convinced in our own minds. I suspect we’re not the only ones who have ever stumbled over this problem.
You’re very welcome.
Well let’s clarify this. I don’t think they’re opposed at all. I do think the “problem” is in the motivation for forgiving others. If our motivation is to forgive others, and love deeply, etc, so that by doing so we obtain life, then we’ve missed the boat. But then again, this is exactly what Israel was taught to do all through the OT. Moses’ covenant says that if the people do this, that and the other, God will bless them. If they don’t, they’ll be cursed by God and He’ll drive them out of the land. Look what happened.
I see the forgiving others etc as a natural outworking of the rapture we have with seeing clearly what God has done for us and for the world. We forgive others because God forgave us. We love others because God first loved us. We love our enemies because that’s precisely what we see God doing (which, by the way, is a huge argument for God saving all). We were once enemies of God.
Possibly. We can’t expect that everyone will be at the same place, even if they clearly see God’s grace. There will always be some sins that will plague each of us till the grave. God is working on each of us in His own way and in his own time, and I’m not sure we can necessarily make a judgment on someone else who claims to be a believer, simply because they don’t do something we feel is essential for “belief” or salvation. In any case, this seems dangerously close to rejecting the grace of God. Grace, after all, is something that is completely unmerited. That means nothing we do or don’t do can shield us from it.
My answer is yes they could, but definitely not for the same group of people. If someone tells me that it is essential for me to forgive others, repent, have patience, love deeply to be saved, and in the same breath tells me that there is simply nothing I can do in order to be saved (since it’s completely the grace of God) then I have no other option than to conclude that person is not quite aware of the meaning of some of the words in the English language. Mind you, this is what I thought and spouted for years.
Where are these alleged other forum members???
I honestly wouldn’t have a clue. What’s dispensationalism?
I’m trying to think ***very ***carefully about how I answer this! Let me answer that later.
I can certainly understand your question. I’d like to look at each of these you mention in turn, by using a literal translation to make sure we don’t have big translation issues.
Rom 6:16 - have you not known that to whom you present yourselves servants for obedience, servants you are to him to whom you obey, whether of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness?
I think Paul is simply making a point. I don’t see him saying here that by obeying, we get righteousness. It’s rather a thing of natural consequences. When we are slaves to something, we will end up having with the slavehood, its consequences. The consequences of being slaves to sin is death. The consequences of being slaves to obedience is righteousness. It doesn’t say that if we choose to offer ourselves as slaves to obedience, we will gain righteousness.
Rom 8:13 - for if according to the flesh you do live, you are about to die; and if, by the Spirit, the deeds of the body you put to death, you shall live;
The same here. It’s not that by putting to death the misdeeds of the body, we can gain life. If it was, this would raise the interesting question of how many people each of us know who have actually put to death the misdeeds of the body, since that would be a description and definition of believer-hood. My hand is definitely not up…
Rom 8:6 - for the mind of the flesh is death, and the mind of the Spirit – life and peace;
This is just saying that the “mind” of the Spirit is life and peace, and not death. I’m not seeing how this comes across as a condition for salvation.
1 Cor 1:8 - who also shall confirm you unto the end – unblamable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Again, I’m not sure how this could be taken as any kind of condition for salvation. Paul makes the point that it is God who is the one who will keep believers until the end. In other words, it’s absolutely nothing to do with what the believers do.
Back to this one.
I’m saying that the message to the Jews is a message which is a fulfillment of everything in the OT concerning the Messiah who would come to rule in his earthly kingdom. But the message to Gentiles is a message about a mystery, the brand new “Body of Christ”. Salvation is always by grace.
Let’s take Peter.
Acts 2:37, when the people heard about how Jesus was in actual fact the promised Messiah who was to rule on David’s throne but that they had gone and killed him, they asked Peter and the others what to do. Acts 2:38 Peter tells them two specific things: repent, and be baptised. Remember that Peter and the others know nothing of any Body of Christ. As far as they’re concerned, this whole thing with Jesus is a Jewish thing. This is crucial. They “know” that God is concerned with His people only, the Jews. We get further confirmation of this in the whole Cornelius thing, where Peter initially said No to God! The 3,000 who were baptised had to make that choice themselves.
Then in Acts 3:19 Peter speaks to the onlookers and tells them to repent and turn to God, so that sins may be wiped out. Notice verse 23: “Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people” It’s still all about the Jews.
Then see Acts 5:31 - “God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel” Still Israel.
Verse 32: “We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him” Apparently the Spirit only gets given to those who obey God. A condition of receiving the Spirit is obedience to God. But only for Israel.
Then Acts 8:12 - “But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God” What is this gospel about? The kingdom of God.
Through all this, the Jewish apostles speak to Israelites and proselytes about the kingdom of God. The message is that they need to repent, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins.
Now Let’s take Paul.
Ananias gets told by God Acts 9:15 that Paul is his chosen instrument to carry his name before the “Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel”. For the first time, we read about the Gentiles and their kings being involved. I really don’t think we grasp the significance of this. (Huh? Isn’t the gospel for Israel only???) Acts 10:45 “The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were ***astonished ***that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.” Why were they astonished? Because the gospel was only supposed to be for the Jews. This spisode is the transition from Jewish only.
Now, in Acts 13:16 we read Paul’s 1st recorded message. "Men of Israel and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me! " Paul is still talking only to Jews and the Jewish proselytes. His goood news is in verse 32: “What God promised our fathers he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus”. It’s still all to do with a fulfillment of Jewish things. Verse 38 and 39: "Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. " If the people believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah of Israel, then they get justified and receive forgiveness of sins. It’s conditional salvation. But in case we get to thinking this is apart from the grace of God, look at verse 43: “talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God”!
This is terrific! The message to the Jews was a message of believing that Jesus is the Messiah in order to receive forgiveness, and it’s through the grace of God.
through the rest of the book of Acts, we see Paul going to the Jew first (synagogues) and then Gentile (rivers, streets, etc). By the end, he proclaims that God has temporarily set aside Israel and the gospel is now for Gentiles. Acts 28:28 “Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!”
In Acts 26:15-18, we hear Paul’s account of what Jesus told him: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them [as in, to the Gentiles] to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.”
Paul confirms this in his letters. He is the apostle to the Gentiles just as Peter etc were apostles to the Jews.
What we see in Paul’s letters is talk of this completely new thing, the Body of Christ. This was a mystery which didn’t appear in the OT and which God revealed to Paul by direct revelation. Rom 16:25, Eph 3. His gospel to the Gentiles is the gospel of the grace of God and his letters speak of this over and over. Instead of the message to the Jews, which is “Repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins”, his message to the Gentiles is “God was in the world reconciling the world to Himself, not counting people’s sins against them”.
So I’m saying that if we mix these two distinct messages to the two distinct groups of people, we get a “gospel” which doesn’t make sense, which has contradictions and which is not helpful at all. It sounds like “You are saved by grace, completely apart from anything you do, as long as you repent of your sins.”
The Gentiles were not joined to the existing Jewish body, but were brought into a new body, which is composed of Gentiles and Jews who receive the message of God’s unconditional grace. The “Great Commission” is something for Jews. Our mandate is to proclaim the truth that God has reconciled the world to Himself through Christ already. Jews needed to be baptised, but Paul says there is only one baptism (Eph 4:5) and that that baptism was a baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). Even this tells us that there can’t be a baptism of water and a baptism by the Spirit and that these happen to the same group of people AND that there is only one baptism. The two baptisms are for different groups, and that goes for everything else.
The gospel to and for the jews is the gospel of the kingdom of God. The gospel to and for the Gentiles is the gospel of the grace of God.
The gospel to the Jews is a message about the kingdom of God on earth, as promised through the OT and is by grace. The message to the Gentiles is a message of the grace of God, which has nothing to do with an earthly kingdom. It’s also by grace.
Sorry. I’ve written too long again. Maybe all this will stimulate further thought.
Thanks again rline for all your work. I just have time for a few comments and questions to check if I am following you properly.
You see two different messages (gospels) - one to Jews and another to Gentiles.
Both are messages of God’s grace. You do not see the message to Jews in the NTas salvation by works.
You see the message to the Jews as conditional - repentance, believing that Jesus is the Messiah in order to receive forgiveness and justification.
You see the message to the Gentiles as unconditional.
Do you see the message of the law of Moses in the OT as salvation by works?
Do you see faith as a “condition” of salvation for Gentiles?
Do you see things like repentance, obedience, love etc as “conditions” but faith is different and is not a “condition”?
If you see two different gospels- one to Jews and another to Gentiles, how do you understand Rom 1:16 “…the gospel…is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.”
How do you understand Rom 1:5 where Paul talks about calling the Gentiles to the “obedience of faith”?
If Jews today respond to the gospel of the kingdom, which makes sense, given that that’s their hope, then so be it. If Jews today respond to the gospel of the grace of God to the nations, then they’ll be part of the body of Christ. The body of Christ contains Jews and Gentiles (but predominantly Gentiles). I don’t see the message to Jews in the NT as salvation by works. They can only respond to it if God calls them and gives them the gift of faith to believe the message, since no-one seeks God and no-one can come to Jesus unless God draws them first. They’re saved through faith, when they believe the message proclaimed to them, namely that Jesus is the promised Messiah and the kingdom etc.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No. It’s a gift, not a condition. We believe because we’re saved; we don’t get saved because we believe. there’s a world of difference. Salvation has already been won. Christ died for sins. End of story. Whether God chooses to give anyone at all faith to believe it is another matter. scripture tells us that He does, each one in his own order, some now, some later, all eventually.
For Jews, conditions. (And to clarify, they can only meet those conditions when God enables them to have the faith to do so.) For Gentiles, outworkings of their faith. The result of their belief and of living a life worthy of the Lord, in light of clearly seeing exactly what God has done (saved the world from sin, including them.)
Because at its heart, the gospel has the same foundation: Christ died for sins. Even Paul separates the Jews and Gentiles here.
A literal translation says “through whom we did receive grace and apostleship, for obedience of faith among all the nations, in behalf of his name”. The “of” in that verse is important. Another literal translation translates it faith-obedience. It’s the obedience of faith, springing from faith. It’s not the obedience in order to get or have faith. Paul is saying that his commission is to call people from the nations to obedience to God. But that obedience can only come out of faith. Again and again we see, First faith, then change. The progression goes, Not seeking God, God gives us the gift of faith, God enables us, through faith (continue to live as you first believed) to learn to obey Him more and more. This is sanctification, through faith. It makes perfect sense that faith would precede obedience, since the Gentiles know nothing of the law and are far from God to begin with.
I can agree with many of the things you write in regard to the Jews and Gentiles, but still feel that you may be pushing those differences too far.
You say that faith is not a “condition”, but a “gift”. I think you would agree that repentance and obedience are gifts also. Like faith, they all spring from the grace of God and the Spirit of God at work in our hearts. Why is repentance a “condition”, but faith not a “condition” when they are both gifts from God and both necessary?
My understanding of “condition” is something that needs to be present for an outcome to eventuate. It seems to me if I understand you correctly, faith is still necessary for Gentiles for their desired outcome to eventuate, and repentance is necessary for the Jews for their desired outcome to eventuate. They are both gifts, but the fact that they are gifts does not stop them from being conditions. Even if one preceded the other, or one came from the other, I am not sure that it would make one a condition and the other not a condition. Sorry rline, but I am not yet seeing the difference you see. I am still thinking though, and acknowledge that the problem may be in my understanding of what you are saying.
You’re right, in that I may well be pushing things too far. I appreciate the opportunity to think through what I’m saying and be challenged. At the end of the day, everything, as you say, that we do, whether good or evil, is directly or indirectly, a gift from God. We could do nothing without the breath he gives us and the mind he gives us.
I think what I’m doing is trying to make sense of what I see in the scriptures in terms of the great disparities that appear to be there. In my experience, what most Christians do is be quite prepared to live with these disparities. They use phrases like “two sides of the same coin” and such, which sound catchy. (One of my favourites is Side 1: God is sovereign. Side 2: Humans have free will. Sorry, but no matter which way the coin lands, you can’t have both. They’re utterly mutually exclusive.)
I see Jesus in the gospels talking to Jews, appearing to exclude non-Jews, talking about the kingdom. I talked yesterday about how I saw the progression of things through Acts, and how Paul ended up (ended up, not started out) calling his gospel “my gospel” and “the mystery”. It just wouldn’t be a mystery if it was the same as what Jesus talked about. I don’t want to rehash all that (neither I think does anyone else reading along want me to ).
This is how I see things. I guess I’d say almost the biggest issue today for Christians, apart from bad translations, is that they want to take everything they read at face value, as if it was all written to them and for them and about them. I hear people quoting old testament verses from Isaiah that have nothing to do with them. They quote verses about God telling the Israelites that he has a future and a hope for them (in the context of them being liberated from exile). I always wonder why they don’t go around quoting verses like 1 Samuel 25:22 (the king james version sounds best here…) It’s all part of what I’m trying to convey by using the word syncretism. As a Gentile, the stuff to and for and about the Jews doesn’t apply to me. I’m not a Jew. How could it? I’m interested in the message of Jesus to me, a Gentile, through His apostle to the Gentiles, Paul.
Thanks rline for your patience with me and graciousness in all your posts. I respect the obvious amount of time and effort you have put into the study of this issue and am grateful for the time you have spent in conveying your thoughts to me. You have given me some good things to chew over.
I think it is a difficult issue, and that is why I entered this discussion - to learn, and ask questions, and to see what possibilities there are, and see what others thought about my own thinking. I hope it has not been too frustrating for you.
It is great to have a friendly environment to respectfully discuss different viewpoints and ask questions.
I am not sure where everyone else is on this issue - perhaps busy with other threads?
Frustrating? Not even close! It’s a welcome change to be able to talk with someone in a calm manner, to challenge and to be challenged. I won’t be around for a couple of days, but I may make another post after that time.
rline;
On the Jesus’ message vs. Paul’s message thing: I know Martin Zender would totally agree with you, as well as anyone else from the concordant camp. I’m beginning to lean more firmly that way myself. It just makes the most sense of the data without doing some serious gymnastics to try and reconcile the very different and otherwise contradictory statements. I have a suspicion that you’re right. Their messages were for two different groups of people at two distinct points in history (particularly the aspects of Jesus’ message you pointed out. Some of Jesus’ message worked itself out of a job when he fulfilled what he came to do with national Israel, then used Paul to course-correct the message for what came after.
I don’t think this means there are two gospels, but rather that certain things in Jesus message were simply transitional for national Israel; sort of a “beta” gospel, whereas afterward, he gave Paul the finished product to pass on. This also fits nicely with the nature of the scripture as progressive revelation. Jesus even told his disciples while still with them that he had many more things to tell them, things they couldn’t handle yet…
This is an interesting view. I think it would be my 2nd choice for a view to make sense of the data, but still not my 1st. What you’re saying hinges on the things in Jesus’ message being transitional for national Israel, but Paul gets the finished product. (correct me if I’ve interpreted you wrongly here)
The big (and really only) problem I have with this is that Paul says something completely different. He tells us through Romans 11 that
God has not rejected his people (1-2)
there is still a remnant chosen by grace (5) - what would be the point of a remnant if their time and their gospel of the kingdom were past and no longer possible?
Israel has stumbled precisely because God caused them to stumble (8)
Israel’s stumbling is not permanent but temporary (11)
God actually caused them to stumble so that the Gentiles could be saved (11) - I’d almost go so far as to point out here that this is exactly what we see in Acts 28. There’s an incredible contrast between Israel and the nations. The gospel being preached up until Acts 28 was predominantly (exclusively?) to Israel and was the gospel of the kingdom. Then, Israel, because of God’s doing, stumbles. And then and only then Gentiles can receive salvation.
But think of this: there were some Gentiles who already had salvation before this (eg. Cornelius). How to explain this? They were saved under the gospel preached to Israel. And so when Paul speaks of salvation coming to the Gentiles, he simply must mean something different than that gospel. I think he’s talking about the “my gospel” which is the gospel of the grace of God and the reconciliation of the world (which by the way is totally different to the gospel of the kingdom of God).
cause and effect: since Israel was rejected, therefore the world gets reconciled to God (15) - and again we see the contrast between Israel and the Gentiles.
And then the key verse 25: “I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery [people didn’t know this until Paul taught it], brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part [not completely] ***until *** [this is time related; there will be a time when God will take away the hardening he gave to Israel] the full number of the Gentiles has come in.”
All Israel will be saved (26), but only after the full number of Gentiles has come in (to the body of Christ)
All of this says that the gospel of the kingdom Jesus preached to Israel, and the gospel Paul preached in the synagogues, and the gospel which Peter, James and John preached to Israel, was not transitional. It hasn’t vanished. It’s been set aside until God has finished dealing with the Gentiles. When that happens, Israel is back in the picture. That gospel will be preached once again. And there definitely will come a time when all those prophecies about Messiah reigning on the throne will come to pass. Israel will head up the nations and Jesus the Messiah will rule in his earthly kingdom.
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, I didn’t think of that aspect, although I do realize that Israel’s temporary rejection was for the benefit of the Gentiles. I personally don’t see the “beta” Gospel coming back for national Israel. I think that version is now obsolete, as indicated by Jesus’ breaking down of the wall of division between the two, so there is no longer any Jew or Greek.
Ah, yes, but that “no longer any Jew or Greek” is specifically talking about the body of Christ, which is of course the mystery. Col 3:11 “where there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, foreigner, Scythian, servant, freeman – but the all and in all – Christ.”
Paul isn’t saying that Greek culture and life is finished, and so is Jewish, and that there are no longer any foreigners or servants etc. He’s saying that as far as the body of Christ is concerned, these distinctions are meaningless. A Jew in the body of Christ is no different than a Gentile.
I still don’t think it’s any kind of beta gospel. It’s God’s A game, just for Israel. But I’d ask, if you don’t see this “beta” gospel coming back for national Israel, how do you think things play out when the full number of Gentiles has come into the body of Christ and God resumes dealing with Israel? What about Revelation? Where does that fit?
Hi rline,
You seem to not mind a challenge, so I hope you don’t mind me adding a few more questions to my previous post. No hurry and no pressure - just whenever you are able to. Thanks.
One of the questions we were discussing was how salvation can be by grace while judgement can be on the basis of what we have done. This seems to be contradictory and you are suggesting a solution.
I have been trying to follow your argument and would appreciate your help if possible to understand it better as I continue to evaluate it.
Are you saying that the answer to the problem lies in the different messages to the Jews and the Gentiles? Are you saying that in Paul’s message to the Gentiles he doesn’t speak about a judgement according to their deeds?
How do you understand 2 Cor 5:10?
“For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”
This passage would seem to include Gentiles who have been saved by grace through faith - would you agree?
This sounds similar to the judgement in Rom 2:6-8 which seems to involve everyone and is said to be the same for both Jews and Gentiles in Rom 2:9-13.
This also sounds similar to the judgement in Rom 14:10-12.
Another bit I don’t really follow is when you say
I replied
You replied
On the one hand, you seem to be saying that Jesus and Paul are saying opposing things and this is why you seek to explain things with the different message to the Jews and Gentiles.
But on the other hand you seem to be saying that they are not saying the opposite. They would only be saying the opposite if Jesus was teaching people to do things from a motivation that would “miss the boat”. This would seem to imply that if Jesus was seeking to teach people to forgive others from correct motives, that there may be no contradiction at all, and so this may be a possible solution to our original question. This is the solution I am pondering, rather than resorting to the different message approach (even if there is some truth in what you say) to solve the question of salvation by grace and yet judgement by works.
I realise this is a difficult issue. I’m just seeking to follow your thoughts and evaluate things properly. Have I misunderstood you somewhere?
Yes. And I think it’s appropriate to at least point out here that it seems to me that valid solutions to this problem (and it is a big problem) are basically non-existent. I think trying to find a solution (which we’re both doing) is far better than the standard approach of “Let’s talk about something else and hope this goes away”.
Precisely.
No. i think we’re confusing the initial gospel message, with anything that might be said later on to believers. When we talk about the message, we’re talking about the gospel, the well-message, the evangel. I am saying that in Paul’s gospel message to the Gentiles, his message is simply this: God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting your sins against you…We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. That is the exact message we, as members of the body of Christ, should be ambassadoring to our fellow humans. This message is so succinct and so spot on. Instead of something like “God hates gays and they’re all going to hell” or “God hates atheists”, we tell them that God loves you no matter what you’ve done or will do. God has already done all that’s required to take away your sins and the sins of the world, and He doesn’t count those sins towards you. Now this is genuine good news.
Does this mean there’s nothing to be said to Gentiles about judgment, about holy living, about forgiving others? Of course not! That will come. Gentiles have heard time and time again how they “shouldn’t smoke”, “shouldn’t lie, cheat or steal”, “shouldn’t run over your neighbour’s foot” etc etc. They know that already. What they haven’t heard (and I’m convinced this is why so many of them are so antagonistic towards Christians and the church) is that despite all this stuff (their sins) God has already dealt with it all. Once they realise that God is not against them, but for them, and that God has already redeemed them, then they will naturally want to find out more about this amazing God and will naturally want to live a life worthy of this God. They will gradually want to forgive others because they’ll be overwhelmed with the magnitude of God’s forgiveness to them. They’ll want to please God.
My first response to this is context. From verse 1 of chapter 5 through to verse 10, Paul is clearly talking to and about believers, those members who, like him, are part of the body of Christ. For example, unbelievers don’t “groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling”, nor do they wish “to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling”, nor have unbelievers been given the spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come. Unbelievers live by sight, not by faith. So the “we” in verse 9, must surely be believers. Paul wouldn’t suddenly change tack from talking about believers to suddenly, with no warning, talking about every human from the nations. It’s believers who “make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it.” and verse 10 explains why this is true: because we all (believers!) must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one (each believer) may receive what’s due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.
So, yes, I would 100% agree that this passage includes Gentiles who have been saved by grace through faith. That’s exactly who it’s about. Those “especially believers” of 1 Tim 4:10. Judgment begins at the house of God, of course.
Does this conflict with the simple Gentile gospel presented above? No way. A gospel message cannot possibly be “the whole kit and caboodle”. Are you saying that we should take any and every passage like this, directed towards Gentiles in the body of Christ, and include it in our gospel message? I think the verse you chose is good. It does show how salvation can be by grace while judgement can be on the basis of what we have done. That’s what Scripture teaches us. Notice that 2 Cor 5:10 has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation. Salvation is purely based on Christ and His death. The only part we play is to be the sinner.
In terms of Romans 2 and judgment, this passage (2 Cor 5:10) shows another way that God judges people based on what they’ve done, as we see in Romans 2. I think the issue comes when we try to say that the judgment is all about salvation. The judgment in 2 Cor 5:10 obviously has nothing to do with salvation, and I’d say neither does the one in Romans 2. Everyone will eventually experience and realise the salvation that has already been won for them by Christ. But also, everyone will be judged, in different ways. If we’re happy to break the direct connection between judgment and salvation (as in, being judged = not being saved), then things should be ok.
It sounds similar but Paul is not in that context talking about believers in the body of Christ.
This sounds similar because it is, I believe, the same judgment as in 2 Cor 5:10. The phrase “judgment seat of Christ” is the same in both. The reason Paul quotes Is 45:23 in verse 11, is not to make the point that everyone in the world will face this judgment, but to make the point that since every knee will bow, this therefore must include even believers. He’s counteracting an idea that believers would somehow be exempt from judgment. He says “No. Not at all. In fact, they get judged at the judgment seat of Christ”. Again, judgment, yes; judgment connected with salvation, no. Would we present this in a gospel message? No. Would it eventually come up as someone starts reading through the Scriptures? Yes.
With all these passages (Rom 2, 2 Cor 5, Rom 14), the key is the context.
Now, on the exchanges you quoted between us, yes, at the very least I owe you a clarification and probably owe one of these as well: (I’m actually strangely annoyed and honoured at the same time that you read my words so thoroughly. )
So what was I trying to say?
I affirm that the message which the Jerusalem apostles preached to Israel was different to the message that Paul preached to the nations. This can easily be verified just by reading Acts and the Paul’s letters.
Paul and Jesus are not opposed. Paul’s message, after all, is a direct revelation from the risen Jesus.
Jesus explicitly stated he had come only for Israel. We can ignore this statement but it doesn’t make it any less true.
Paul’s message was so different from the Jerusalem apostles that he needed to go up to Jerusalem to submit it before them all, and referred to it as “my gospel”.
I also affirm that both messages are messages of salvation by grace. (and now I think my brain has just made it clearer to me where the issue lies.) The difference lies in the response.
Israel was commanded to repent and be baptised, for the forgiveness of their sins and entrance into the kingdom.
Gentiles are commanded to believe that God has done what God said he has done - reconcile the world and not count people’s sins against them.
Both groups are saved by grace. Both groups require faith to respond. Both groups are judged in one way or another.
I appreciate it. Please let me know if I haven’t been clear enough or am making things more confusing. It’s late at night so for all I know it could all be gibberish
Thanks rline. This has helped considerably, and given me some good food for thought.
It is late at night where I am too, so I’ll do some more “pondering” tomorrow.
I’ve put my comments where needed after each one.
), as in the big issue we’re talking about, namely how to resolve what you wrote above:
I’m trying to think ***very ***carefully about how I answer this! Let me answer that later.
I’ve written too long again. Maybe all this will stimulate further thought.
