Replies

It doesn't matter to me who first mentioned the text. As far as my current question to you is concerned, I don't care what papertyger or I think the text says or implies.I am trying to understand your interpretation of the text. I even posted the RSV text in order as written, rather than jumping around as your post did, in hopes that you would explain it again, in compassion for my denseness.

You seem to think that the reference to the day of the Lord or God's not being a respecter of persons has some telling or determining bearing on whether the text can rightly be understood as supporting the idea that even those without the so-called positive law still have some, possibly innate, understanding of right and wrong.

I'm not trying to score points. I'm trying to understand your contention and I'm failing miserably.

I see no parentheses in verse 13. When Paul says God is no respecter of persons (it looks to me something like "For there is no favoritism by God"), in the context I see him explaining that therer will be tough times for whoever does evil, Jew or Greek, and glory, honor, and peace for whoever does good, Jew or Greek. And then there is verse 11 with its postpositive γαρ: ου γαρ εστιν προσωπολημψια παρα τω θεω.

So it seems that the aspect of persons which God does not consider is whether they are Jew or Greek. The γαρ (= "for", more or less) serves to join the statement of principle (no regard for persons) to the instance (being a Jew or a Greek won't make any difference about the kind of consequences deeds incur.)

Verse 12 continues and restates the idea that sinners (οσοι ... ημαρτον) without the law (ανομως) or "in" the law (εν νομω) will be judged, without or within the law.
13 contrasts hearing and doing - doing justifies, hearing doesn't.
14 ... and I believe this is where the nub of the disagreement is, says (and again there is the postpositive γαρ) FOR, when the ethne not having the law [nonetheless] DO "by nature" (φυσει) what the law requires, they are a law to themselves [!].
Then (and I take this as an explanation of the idea of being a law to oneself, an expression which could stand some explication) Paul says that what the law requires is γραπτον εν ταις καρδιας -- written in their hearts.

So that seems to me to support the idea that at least some aspects of the moral law are revealed to all.

And I don't remember now but I think that was papertyger's initial contention, and it sure seems to me that walking through these verses supports that contention.

IN general, I think Augustine is right. We are born with a lack in us which can be filled only by God. One aspect of that lack is a moral sense, and, as it were, seeing the shape of the hole left in our soul, we can begin to understand the shape of the thing which would fill it. And the moral aspect of that understanding is sorta kinda maybe like what theologians mean by "natural law".

IMHO, somebody needs to write a paper on Paul's use of φυσις and its cognates.

......You seem to think that the reference to the day of the Lord or God's not being a respecter of persons has some telling or determining bearing on whether the text can rightly be understood as supporting the idea that even those without the so-called positive law still have some, possibly innate, understanding of right and wrong.

Yes I do believe what is written before 13-15 and right after does need be required instruction to fully get a grasp on what Paul is instructing. Paul's words come across to many different peoples differently depending upon how much of the 'old' they have been taught. As Paul makes note of where his foundation came in Romans 1:2 (Which He had promised afore by His prophets in the holy scriptures,)

Based upon how it reads to me 2:15 comes well into the doctrinal subject which from my reading starts in Romans 1:16 and continues through Romans 8:39. And Romans 1:20 gives a depth that Paul builds around through out his writings wherein he says "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that *when* they knew God they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful;

but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

When was this *when* they knew God they glorified Him not as God????

I'm not trying to score points. I'm trying to understand your contention and I'm failing miserably.

I too do not understand why the plucking out a few words in the beginning of doctrinal instruction would be use, given the subject of this thread. Especially given that the scripture quoted regarding who can be sanctioned to have communion does not read to me it is any man's business regarding who is allowed or whom is NOT.

1 Corinthians 11: 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

This reads *whoever* and does not box any person in any particular church, nor does it give responsibility to any head or passer out of the Communion the charge to judge the status of any desiring to partake.

I do not know what to tell you my KJV clearly has parentheses from Romans 2:13-15.

Again I will refer you back to Romans 1:20-21 as Paul explaining on differing levels about when some things took, are taking, and will take place. Paul goes into great detail regarding 'predestination' in Ephesians where in Paul ends Romans mentioning a 'mystery'. Paul serves as example of being predestined to pen the majority of the New Testament even though his will was to destroy the Church.

Verse 12 continues and restates the idea that sinners (οσοι ... ημαρτον) without the law (ανομως) or "in" the law (εν νομω) will be judged, without or within the law. 13 contrasts hearing and doing - doing justifies, hearing doesn't. 14 ... and I believe this is where the nub of the disagreement is, says (and again there is the postpositive γαρ) FOR, when the ethne not having the law [nonetheless] DO "by nature" (φυσει) what the law requires, they are a law to themselves [!]. Then (and I take this as an explanation of the idea of being a law to oneself, an expression which could stand some explication) Paul says that what the law requires is γραπτον εν ταις καρδιας -- written in their hearts.

In the most simplest terms I can possible use I believe what is said is there is no perfect judge to assess intent because the Heavenly Father alone can know the 'heart' and mind. Each will be judged alone on what they individually do, think and believe based upon their level of acceptance and instruction. The complete opposite of our current judicial system wherein ignorance of their law is no defense, whereas the Heavenly Father who reads minds knows without doubt the state of mind of each and every one of us is the only one who can judge.

Which is what I believe Paul's doctrinal message is about at least up to the verses we are discussing.

So that seems to me to support the idea that at least some aspects of the moral law are revealed to all.

I do not dispute this but the question is *WHEN*? And according to Paul before this 'flesh' age everybody knew full well what was what and who was who and some chose to go against the Heavenly Father. I can provide from the 'old' where others discuss as well as Paul in his writings speak of an age wherein Peter call it the world (age) that was. IIPeter 3.

And I don't remember now but I think that was papertyger's initial contention, and it sure seems to me that walking through these verses supports that contention. IN general, I think Augustine is right. We are born with a lack in us which can be filled only by God. One aspect of that lack is a moral sense, and, as it were, seeing the shape of the hole left in our soul, we can begin to understand the shape of the thing which would fill it. And the moral aspect of that understanding is sorta kinda maybe like what theologians mean by "natural law". IMHO, somebody needs to write a paper on Paul's use of φυσις and its cognates.

I do not know Augustine, but what and why does Paul describe Jacob and Esau in the manner he does in Romans 9:10-13.... He is not saying God created Esau to be hated and yet Esau was hated before ever entering this flesh age.