Faith AND Works-James 2...Again

[dadof10]

I don't agree with that posting. There were many then as there are of today that are just Christian in name. Always just a Remnant. (but a Remnant there was! from Adam on to Rev. 12:17)

And these were ALL saved only one way, by an obedient faith in the Rev. 14:6 Eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Acts 4:12. No other name! 1 Co. 10:4 & that Rock was Christ!) God/Christ in OT & God/Christ/Son in the NT. But STILL BY OBEDIENT FAITH! Phil. 4:13

--Elijah

I agree we are saved by an obedient faith or faithfulness or faith working through love or however you want to say faith and works together. We must obey in faith or lose salvation. So when Paul speaks of "works", he does not mean good deed (obedience), he means specifically "works of the Law". Where do we disagree?

 

[Elijah674]

I agree we are saved by an obedient faith or faithfulness or faith working through love or however you want to say faith and works together. We must obey in faith or lose salvation. So when Paul speaks of "works", he does not mean good deed (obedience), he means specifically "works of the Law". Where do we disagree?

Disagree? 'i' see the Plan of Salvation as the Rev. 14:6 Eternal Gospel Plan to save from Adam on through Rev. anyone by FAITH, any who accepted Christ in Obedient Living Working Faith and which MUST MATURE, and in both the O.T. as in the N.T. Phil. 4:13 , 2 Cor. 12:9. These all will be as Dan. 3:14-19 who were in the O.T. 666 testing I see as the FINISH for the FINAL world's Testing for who is the genuine one. Nah. 1:9 And in that test, it is the world against the small Obedient Remnant. Rev. 12:17

--Elijah

 

[dadof10]

Disagree? 'i' see the Plan of Salvation as the Rev. 14:6 Eternal Gospel Plan to save from Adam on through Rev. anyone by FAITH, any who accepted Christ in Obedient Living Working Faith and which MUST MATURE, and in both the O.T. as in the N.T. Phil. 4:13 , 2 Cor. 12:9. These all will be as Dan. 3:14-19 who were in the O.T. 666 testing I see as the FINISH for the FINAL world's Testing for who is the genuine one. Nah. 1:9 And in that test, it is the world against the small Obedient Remnant. Rev. 12:17

--Elijah

So, I'm having trouble reading you. Do you agree that the "works" Paul is referring to are works of the Law or not? A simple yes or no without a bunch of preaching will be fine.

 

[Elijah674]

So, I'm having trouble reading you. Do you agree that the "works" Paul is referring to are works of the Law or not? A simple yes or no without a bunch of preaching will be fine.

Are you getting sarcastic?;) If not, then the answer is both an simple (?) Yes & mostly NO. Gal. 3:19 was the one that was added because of sin. And the Acts 15:1 & verse verse 5 has the chapter all about Moses law that Paul mostly was considering when 'works' were mentioned.

And 'without a bunch of preaching you say will be fine'. I think that 'i' am getting to the point of the 'once or twice of' Titus 3:9-11.


And what 'works' of the law were you versing?? (and you are having trouble reading me????):eeeekkk


--Elijah

 

[dadof10]

Are you getting sarcastic?;) If not, then the answer is both an simple (?) Yes & mostly NO. Gal. 3:19 was the one that was added because of sin. And the Acts 15:1 & verse verse 5 has the chapter all about Moses law that Paul mostly was considering when 'works' were mentioned.

And 'without a bunch of preaching you say will be fine'. I think that 'i' am getting to the point of the 'once or twice of' Titus 3:9-11.


And what 'works' of the law were you versing?? (and you are having trouble reading me????):eeeekkk


--Elijah

Can you show me a verse where Paul contrasts faith and works and the word "works" does not directly refer to the law, specifically circumcision?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Elijah674]

Can you show me a verse where Paul contrasts faith and works and the word "works" does not directly refer to the law, specifically circumcision?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Do not preach you say. But do read Rom. 2:13 (even see verse 14-15) or Rom. 13 that covers only one table of stone, that God alone penned, the second ones duty to man.

And Christ being tempted by a lawyer? Matt. 22:35-40 tel's what Paul knew!

 

[tjw]

It means exactly what it says, that man is justified by faith, not works of the Law. See, the words mean what they say. Now, what does Jesus mean when He answers the question "what must I do to inherit eternal life" with the words "keep the commandments"?

It seems that either Jesus looks at the "commandments" as above the "Law" or Paul means "Law" in a general sense. What's NOT open to us is to twist Jesus' words out of context to fit our preconceived, man-made doctrine.

I think Jesus was making a point in Matthew 19. In Luke 7:50, Jesus tells a woman that her faith has saved her.

The question is what point was Jesus making in Matthew 19 (rich, young ruler)?

When Jesus says to the rich, young ruler to "keep the commandments," does "keep the commandments" mean keep them perfectly and never sin once in your life? Meaning that in order to enter Heaven on your own, you must be sinless. But, all have sinned.

Jesus is the only one who was/is sinless and perfect. Only Jesus has kept the commandments/Law perfectly.

 

[francisdesales]

I think Jesus was making a point in Matthew 19. In Luke 7:50, Jesus tells a woman that her faith has saved her.

The question is what point was Jesus making in Matthew 19 (rich, young ruler)?

When Jesus says to the rich, young ruler to "keep the commandments," does "keep the commandments" mean keep them perfectly and never sin once in your life? Meaning that in order to enter Heaven on your own, you must be sinless. But, all have sinned.

Where does Jesus say that one must perfectly keep the commandments??? ANYWHRE???

The rich young man's answer and Jesus' response (He loved him...) tell us that Christ isn't looking at "perfection" in the Greek or modern sense as absolute... At issue is the man's committment and the man's "first love", where his heart laid - in money.

To be a disciple is NOT about a one-moment declaration of faith, but a life of carrying one's cross daily.

Regards

 

[tjw]

Where does Jesus say that one must perfectly keep the commandments??? ANYWHRE???

The rich young man's answer and Jesus' response (He loved him...) tell us that Christ isn't looking at "perfection" in the Greek or modern sense as absolute... At issue is the man's committment and the man's "first love", where his heart laid - in money.

To be a disciple is NOT about a one-moment declaration of faith, but a life of carrying one's cross daily.

Regards

I'm not sure I was clear in what I was saying...

Does God require perfection to enter into Heaven? I'm talking without Jesus (the only one who never sinned and the only one who was/is perfect).

 

[francisdesales]

I'm not sure I was clear in what I was saying...

Does God require perfection to enter into Heaven? I'm talking without Jesus (the only one who never sinned and the only one who was/is perfect).

Not while on earth... I presume you are not considering Purgatory.

Here is an example. The Jews did not understand "perfect" or "blameless" the same way we do, as to mean utter and absolute purity.

Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me. He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight. Psalm 101:6-7

Regards

 

[tjw]

Not while on earth... I presume you are not considering Purgatory.

Here is an example. The Jews did not understand "perfect" or "blameless" the same way we do, as to mean utter and absolute purity.

Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me. He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight. Psalm 101:6-7

Regards

In Luke 7:50, Jesus told a woman that her faith has saved her. Romans 3:28 says that we are justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Aren't the Commandments a part of the Law? This makes me think that there is some point(s) Jesus is trying to make in Matthew 19 (rich, young ruler).

How do you reconcile Luke 7:50 and Romans 3:28 with Matthew 19:17?

 

[francisdesales]

In Luke 7:50, Jesus told a woman that her faith has saved her. Romans 3:28 says that we are justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Aren't the Commandments a part of the Law? This makes me think that there is some point(s) Jesus is trying to make in Matthew 19 (rich, young ruler).

How do you reconcile Luke 7:50 and Romans 3:28 with Matthew 19:17?

My friend,

In Luke 7, the woman's "faith" includes her action to go and touch Jesus. Of course there is a point Jesus is trying to make - but it certainly is not that one is saved by faith alone... It is never mentioned - it is presumed, though, since Jesus does judge the man's obedience as worthy. No one can please God without faith, so the man must have had faith, though not mentioned.

Romans 3 is talking about the Mosaic Law and its application to justification. No one is saved by just doing the Mosaic Law. If so, then people would have to become Jewish. Paul gives examples of righteous pagans and Abraham who were just, but not because of the Mosaic Law. They were justified because of their "faith working in love". Paul goes to great lengths to tell his audience that Jewish national identity is no longer considered by God, "Israel" is now "catholic", universally available to all men.

Yes, the commandments are part of the Law, but the majority of the Decalogue is already written in the hearts of people by the Spirit. People know that they should honor their parents, not lie or steal or commit adultery. One doesn't have to become Jewish to know that stealing and murdering is wrong. In addition, Jesus is looking for an internal disposition, not just following the letter of the law. Jewish interpretation of the Law held that as long as there were no actual sexual liaisons, there was no adultery; Jesus went further on the interpretation of the Law.

Regards

 

[ivdavid]

francisdesales,

I don't want you to think(now or in the future) that I'm being stubborn in my beliefs to the point of trying to impress them upon someone here - I'm not defending them nor trying to prove them here. Nor am I expecting anyone to do so concerning their beliefs. I only want to discuss what each of us believe and where and how exactly we differ in our beliefs.

Our differing ideas of God are perhaps what cause all the differences and I suppose that's so for now because we know in part. However, love is independent of these differences.

So, when I ask a question or share my beliefs, do not think I am intending to prove a theological point in my favour - not at all. I want to see it as you see it - for an added perspective and a check against any of my own false assumptions. I am seeing James 2 differently now - not exactly the way you see it - but differently from what I was seeing it before your sharing your understanding. To that end, let's not be defensive in our discussion but free in sharing our own beliefs, as Christ leads us into all truth in Him.

...the Law doesn't justify us....
And yes, at a personal level, it is possible to obey the Law and be considered righteous.

What seems clear to you is not clear to me - I'd request you to factor in these limitations into our discussion here. Hence the need for clarification - and usually it's got to do with what we mean by a word. When you say that the law doesn't justify us AND in the same breath say we could be considered righteous by obedience to it - it only seems like a contradiction to me. Please try and see it from my perspective to help resolve my conflict.

The meaning of the word 'justify' is to 'consider as righteous'. Hence, if I am 'considered as righteous' by obedience to the law, then isn't it the same as saying I am 'justified' by obedience to the law? Since i have not yet understood what you exactly mean by this, our discussion on this topic might carry some misunderstanding.

Also, if you've understood what Paul meant in Gal 3:12 by the law not being of faith, kindly share that with us. Else, it's just fine...


francisdesales - "The fact that we find righteous people in the Bible BEFORE Jesus death tells us that one could walk in faith, as Abram did, before the giving of the Law (as Paul mentions in Romans)."
Oh absolutely - Hebrews 11 too comes to mind here. But this is the very argument against the righteousness of the law - that none can be made righteous by it - but rather through faith by grace, working in love. Were you pointing to something else besides this?

Paul does not say that "no one can individually keep the dictates of the Law." Paul himself said that he did...

He did keep the law as the flesh saw it but when he saw the law as being spiritual after his regeneration, he died by it - because he saw himself condemned(=not considered righteous) by it. How can one keep the law and still be condemned - it goes against Lev 18:5. Or are we not looking at the same thing here?

Doesn't Christ call on MEN to repent? Doesn't this imply the ABILITY to repent?

We'll have to finish discussing the previous point on the Law to come to this. I see Lev 18:5 given by God and yet no man is able to receive life by it. How can I then conclude that God commanding something implies we have the ability to do it? I mean, Rom 7:14 and Rom 8:7 only seem to imply that the unregenerate man can never keep God's Law. Isn't that the very purpose - to reveal God's will through a Law that none can keep in order to show the sinfulness of sin in them that prevents them from doing so - and in turn pointing them to Christ who works in them what they themselves ought to and cannot, only because of His grace and mercy.

I consider the obedience to the Gospel is also part of God's plan to show forth the real sinfulness of sin, to show that sin in us prevents people from ever turning to God - thereby requiring a complete work of God to enable man to do any good. Total dependence on God, and none on man himself. Any other way, to me, seems to be robbing God of that bit of His glory. Is there another way of reconciling this?

Without the seed, there can be no fruit. Without the good ground, there can be no lasting fruit.

Agreed. Only, when I refer to 'grace alone' - I count it also as God's grace in preparing the ground to be good.


Continued in a later post....

 

[Elijah674]

Where does Jesus say that one must perfectly keep the commandments??? ANYWHRE???

The rich young man's answer and Jesus' response (He loved him...) tell us that Christ isn't looking at "perfection" in the Greek or modern sense as absolute... At issue is the man's committment and the man's "first love", where his heart laid - in money.

To be a disciple is NOT about a one-moment declaration of faith, but a life of carrying one's cross daily.

Regards

Sounds like double talk to me? The last part is as God tel's it, but only partically, Full safe to save Final Maturity is required. Nah. 1:9. And you missed the mark on the first question of Christs commanded requirements. And that of Acts 5:32 finds one must be Born Again as Christ's documents in John 3:3-8, which finds that He is given to only one who OBEY'S Him. And again we see the Holy Spirit speaking not of Himself, BUT OF CHRIST! John 15:26 + chapter 16:7-14

Perhaps you think that the Two in Gen. were not including Christ God? Regardless, It was the devil who lied, in Gen. 3 not the Godhead who [[ALL]]REQUIRED OBEDIENCE.

 

[ivdavid]

francisdesales,

This is a complex issue, and the Bible is not a theological textbook.

I believe the Bible is a sufficient source to give us the knowledge of God - but I'm not against hearing what other sources have to elaborate on this - I'd test what they say with Scripture and if it isn't contradicted, I'd accept it gladly.

It[grace] doesn't "push us out of the way", it aids us, helps us.

I never implied otherwise - I don't believe God works in me as if my sentience does not matter. I've elaborated further in the following points.

Proof texting singular verses is pointless, since I could provide verses that make men operative.

I would never consider proof texting as having any validity in a discussion. I am not trying to prove anything here - and I do agree that there are many verses that make men operative.

We must take the totality of Scriptures when analyzing theologically the relationship between grace and nature.

It is out of this intent that I brought up Ezekiel 36. I reconcile the operations of man as being wrought by the superseding operation of God - God is not dependent on man's cooperation for His working. And yet, He does not nullify the working of man - He just sets the stage right to induce man to work out what God wants him to work out. For eg: man does not seek God by himself. God gives him a new heart (God's act, in which man plays no role), and with this new heart, man willingly wants to seek God(man's act). Man still is conscious of what he does but that operation has been influenced by God to execute His own operation. If I had the desire to do a good deed and I had the mind to tell me to do it - I would end up doing it. So when our desires are the will of God wrought by the Spirit and we have the mind of Christ, what cooperating role are we in, apart from being a conscious recipient of grace.

Man is hardened against his own sin - God convicts him and man confesses - God forgives him and grants him repentance and man turns from his sins. God teaches him and man increases in the knowledge of God. Every act of God fulfills its purpose with no dependency on man to bring it to fulfillment while never violating his consciousness. We are not in control of what desires are generated in us nor are we in control of the understanding we have at any time. God's sufficiency to establish both these is what I believe in for my sanctification.

And yet, I think you are not directly against anything I've presented here. You're only against the seeming implications of this where man may think he is not accountable when we are to depend completely on God for everything good - ie if all our stubbornness also is unto the glory of God, why must we be judged for being that part of God's plan. I find my answers in Rom 3:5-8. God is not the author of sin - therefore He has every right to judge the acts of sin.

I've stated what I believe - Not as a point of debate but just so you know where I come from.

...even this doing nothing is SUSTAINED by grace in as much as grace attracts us.

I believe most parts of this. This implies that those who reject God's grace could not see the complete attractive power in it - Because of sin hardening their hearts and the devil blinding their minds. I go further and believe that God's grace reaches out further to nullify these obstacles and shines forth as that irresistible attraction - that moves man, (through but not by, his own operation) to obey God.

The only problem I have in accepting Ft. William Most's solution is that it assumes we can simply do nothing(which is neither good nor bad - it's amoral). But that seems impossible by the very definition of morality - in any moral activity, we are either doing good or we're doing bad - there is no amoral part in a moral activity. When I'm doing nothing - I'm either not doing the good that I ought to be doing which amounts to sinning or I'm not doing the wrong I'm commanded against which amounts to doing good. I can't see a neutral amoral neither-good-nor-bad ground here.



francisdesales - "He plainly presumes that Jerusalem had at least the power to not reject grace by which God gathers His children - OTHERWISE, there is no reason to weep or lament."

Let me share how I see it - I'm thinking, if I employ a similar reasoning, I would conclude that God did not know what was in Abraham's heart before Gen 22:12 - otherwise, there is no reason for Him to have said that. But I don't see it as that singular in interpretation. God said what He said in Gen 22:12 not to convey His inability to know but rather was revealing a part of His nature - that though He is beyond time, He walks with us in time. Similarly, Matt 23:37 need not be conveying an inability of God to draw hardened hearts(nor an ability of man to overcome his own hardened heart) - but rather His revealing a part of His nature in grieving over the hardened hearts of all people - a grief that will move your regenerated heart to weep in gratitude, knowing you have immensely received of His grace though you yourself have caused such grief.


francisdesales - "Nor would God be considered Just while condemning men who have no ability whatsoever to even "do nothing" while allowing God to work within the will of man"

Let's just set this aside as one of the points we differ on. I guess if we were to discuss this, it'd revolve around Rom 9:19 - which has already been observed to be circular and endless because of our other presuppositions.


Continued....

 

[ivdavid]

francisdesales,

To "be perfect as the Father" is to love one's enemies, which rules out, in my mind, predestination to reprobation.

I am quite hesitant to discuss predestination here, not because of the doctrine itself, but because of how we end up applying it. With respect to man, it makes more sense looking back, never looking forward.

Anyway, I can't see the link between God's love for His enemies and predestination - Unless I assume that you mean predestination to reprobation as God desiring and planning the destruction of the wicked in a malicious sense. If that's the case, I don't adhere to that meaning of predestination - in fact, I feel that He actively predestines only who will be saved. And no, it need not be a logical contradiction to say this anymore than in any other system of doctrine.

One thing we need to understand and agree upon predestination is that - everything is predestined by God. He is the first cause. Without diverting too much, let's assume the free will model - God created men with freewill to either be saved or to perish. But He knew even before He created them that many would perish - and yet He created them. In that, He has predestined such events to pass. When He could have chosen not to create man and hence prevent the perishing of the many, He still chose to do so, out of His sovereign and wise will - thereby permitting the perishing of the many. I don't call this predestination to reprobation in a derogatory sense.

We may say that it was not God who caused man to sin and perish but rather it was man's self-determined choice or sin's motions in him - but nonetheless, these have been permitted by God when He always can stop anything He wants to. In such permission, He has predestined it. We say that He cannot stop man from sinning because He constrains Himself to give man freewill - but in making the choice to give man freewill, God has predestined through permission, all consequent activities to pass.

The resolution here is in differentiating between God's 'active' predestination and His 'passive' predestination. When He actively predestinates, the predestined event is of His pleasurable desires. When He passively predestinates, the event is not of His direct pleasurable desire but He executes it to fulfill a greater purpose that He has desired in Himself.

I think the same understanding is followed by all systems of doctrine. Where exactly is your point of conflict on this?

 

[Drew]

You keep missing the point,you can ONLY be grafted in by faith with no works because the act of presenting works to God for salvation is disobedience toward God. BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED,.....

This is not a denial of the importance of good works in relation to justification. It is a denial that the works of the Jewish Law of Moses justify.

We need to read the Bible more carefully - Paul never, repeat never, denies that good works play a role in justification and in fact he asserts that they do (Romans 2 and elsewhere).

Please take context into account. Whenever Paul denies "justification by works", he is either explicit that these are the works of the Law of Moses, or it is otherwise clear from context that the Mosaic Law, in particular, is in view.

 

[francisdesales]

francisdesales,

I don't want you to think(now or in the future) that I'm being stubborn in my beliefs to the point of trying to impress them upon someone here - I'm not defending them nor trying to prove them here... So, when I ask a question or share my beliefs, do not think I am intending to prove a theological point in my favour - not at all. I want to see it as you see it - for an added perspective and a check against any of my own false assumptions....

Fair enough, I will be happy to share my views on these subjects.

When you say that the law doesn't justify us AND in the same breath say we could be considered righteous by obedience to it - it only seems like a contradiction to me. Please try and see it from my perspective to help resolve my conflict.

There are deeper meanings to all of this, whether refering to Paul or the Jews of the OT. In all cases, however, no one is justified by their own actions so that God owes anyone something. Even in the Psalms, where we find definitively that some men are righteous because of obedience to the Law, it is not because of that obedience FROM THEMSELVES that they are righteous. The Psalm writers identify God as the source of their ability to obey. Thus, the ask over and over (see Psalm 119 for numerous citations) for God's aide, God's grace.

O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes! Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments. Ps 119:5-6

Note the synergy here and throughout the OT. It is difficult to miss to those who read the Psalms daily. What is key here, then, is that no one can obligate God because of their obedience. Any obedience is a result of God "directing" them to keep His Law. And has anything changed in the NT, when we look at the heart of the Law being preached by Christ?

For Paul, the "Law" almost always refers to the Mosaic Law. Not specifically the Decalogue, but rather, the dietary practices and other specifically ethnical practices of Jews. One did not have to wash dishes or hands to be just. Never were those practices "self-justifiable". Paul gives evidence in Romans, not only of Abraham's faith, but the supposed "faith" of the Jews that Paul relates when noting the wicked Jews of the Psalms who pursued David, the rulers of Judaism who were not concerned with the very core of the Law - love, mercy, forgiveness, and trust in God. Paul argues that one does not need to become Jewish. A Gentile can have faith in God without obeying the Old Covenant. However, note carefully that the New Covenant does not overturn the heart of the Law, just Jewish-specific rules, to include circumcision and sacrifices in the Temple. Those days are done as Christ is the New Temple.

The meaning of the word 'justify' is to 'consider as righteous'. Hence, if I am 'considered as righteous' by obedience to the law, then isn't it the same as saying I am 'justified' by obedience to the law? Since i have not yet understood what you exactly mean by this, our discussion on this topic might carry some misunderstanding.

Your obedience is not entirely dependent upon yourself. Thus, you cannot obligate God and say "You owe me the distinction of being considered righteous, because I earned it". The righteous do not believe that they can obligate God because their obedience is a gift. Righteousness is a gift, not wages we earned. (Rom 4:4). By obeying God, we are righteous, but it must always be understood that this is not our own righteousness earned entirely from our own ability. This brings forth an entirely different attitude - humility.

Also, if you've understood what Paul meant in Gal 3:12 by the law not being of faith, kindly share that with us. Else, it's just fine...

I think the above explains this, since otherwise, Paul is contradicting himself.

And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Gal 3:12.

I believe Paul states this another way in Gal 5

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Gal 5:6

Life is attained (as a gift) by walking in faith working in love. The Law itself is not faith, but one must obey it, through the graces given by God.

But this is the very argument against the righteousness of the law - that none can be made righteous by it - but rather through faith by grace, working in love. Were you pointing to something else besides this?

Again, the above, hopefully, explains this. We are commanded by Christ Himself to obey the will of the Father. We know the Spirit is given only to those who obey God - and that this obedience is PROOF of God's abiding presence. What is the purpose of this abiding presence? To enable us to obey God, to do His will.

He did keep the law as the flesh saw it but when he saw the law as being spiritual after his regeneration, he died by it - because he saw himself condemned(=not considered righteous) by it. How can one keep the law and still be condemned - it goes against Lev 18:5. Or are we not looking at the same thing here?

He is not being condemned because of personal guilt. Jesus never sinned, correct? He is "condemned" because Jesus has taken upon Himself the guilt of mankind, willingly. All the sorrow, Jesus swallowed and took upon Himself, so that, AS MAN, He can present US to the Father.

We'll have to finish discussing the previous point on the Law to come to this. I see Lev 18:5 given by God and yet no man is able to receive life by it. How can I then conclude that God commanding something implies we have the ability to do it?

At some level, we do have the ability to obey the Law, even if merely written in our hearts and no access to the written code (Romans 2). As I said, we cannot fully understand the mystery on the cooperation between Grace and nature. We do know, though, that Grace rains upon all men, even the evil, since God died for all men, even the evil. However, some men choose, at some level, to reject the Spirit of God. This eventually leads to a hardening of the heart and to a permanent lack of communion between God and the individual.

I mean, Rom 7:14 and Rom 8:7 only seem to imply that the unregenerate man can never keep God's Law.

Yes, the wicked cannot keep the Law, the Psalms make that clear. But "wicked" does not mean one is "born" into that state without any possibility of change. It seems that this "wickedness" is not always an eternal state that is unchangeable. In other words, men can repent and are given the opportunity to repent (and vice versus).

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Ez 18:21

Paul notes we all are "wicked" at some point, awaiting the grace of God to aid us. By placing our faith in God, we are pleasing to God and are not wicked.

Isn't that the very purpose - to reveal God's will through a Law that none can keep

Sure men can keep it! Not by themselves, that's all... That is the clear point of the Scriptures. Have you not read the Psalms? God didn't give us a Law that no one could hope to keep, even WITH His help!!!

I consider the obedience to the Gospel is also part of God's plan to show forth the real sinfulness of sin, to show that sin in us prevents people from ever turning to God - thereby requiring a complete work of God to enable man to do any good.

Again, I am sorry, but that overturns the heart of the Gospel.

REPENT AND BELIEVE. These are not mocking words by God, said to people who have no ability to do any of these things!!!

If God is the first and only cause, then there is no purpose in preaching the Gospel, except to rub man's face in it. This is NOT the God we find in the Bible, at all.

Total dependence on God, and none on man himself.

We rely on God for everything, but that doesn't mean we have no say in the matter. It doesn't necessarily follow that "I depend upon God" leads to "I do nothing".

Any other way, to me, seems to be robbing God of that bit of His glory. Is there another way of reconciling this?

I see your point as "robbing from God His glory"! You seem to insist that God is just another man, more powerful, but similar to us. That God NEEDS glory from us to feel good about Himself. This totally forgets that God PUT ASIDE Divinity to bring us to Him. God is glorified by His work for the benefit of mankind.

The ancient Church had a saying (I am paraphasing, I don't recall the precise words)... "God is glorified by mankind fully realized". It is far more glorious for God when man willingly chooses to utilize the gifts and return love back to God. It is far more glorious that God became man and even died on a cross. God's idea of glory appears different than yours. It is not glorious when one forces another to comply with their will. God is glorified by man saying "THY KINGDOM COME, THY WILL BE DONE" as a result of man, being sanctified, declares freely to the world.

Regards

 

[Drew]

For Paul, the "Law" almost always refers to the Mosaic Law. Not specifically the Decalogue, but rather, the dietary practices and other specifically ethnical practices of Jews.

I believe this analysis is bang-on correct and I only wish other readers would objectively explore how seeing "the law" in this way makes so much sense in context that there is little doubt that this is at the heart of what Paul is referring to by the term "law".

 

[Drew]

Romans 3:28 says that we are justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

True, but we need to remember - these are the works of the Law of Moses: Paul is certainly not denying the role "good works" have in justification.

Romans 3:27-28 in the NASB:

27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

What are these works of the Law that cannot justify? “Good works†in general, or the practices or “works†of the Law of Moses?

Paul is addressing the Law of Moses here, not “good worksâ€. The “boast†(verse 27) is not the boast of the person who thinks he can climb to heaven by a ladder of good works, it is the boast of the Jew who thinks that being part of the ethnic group who do Law of Moses will justify him.

This is borne out by verse 29 which makes no sense if "good works" or "or obedience to a general law" is in view in verse 28, but which makes perfect sense if the works are those of the Law of Moses:

29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

Paul is amplifying the implications of verse 27 and 28, focusing on how the Jew and Gentile are both members of God’s family. In verses 27 and 28, he has written that “works†do not justify. In verse 29, it becomes clear that these are the works of Law of Moses since it is by doing the works of Law of Moses that the Jew could boast "God is God of the Jews only". What marks out the nation Israel from the Gentile? Possession and doing of Law of Moses, of course. Not good works.