Faith AND Works-James 2...Again

[tjw]

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.

I think we need to clarify our positions...

This is what I'm saying: We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus alone. Good works (things like helping the poor) are a result.

What is your position?

 

[Drew]

I think we need to clarify our positions...

This is what I'm saying: We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus alone. Good works (things like helping the poor) are a result.

What is your position?

Our positions are not the same. I believe there is no way to read this text from Romans 2 to avoid the conclusion that "good works" are necessary for salvation:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.â€[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

I believe that faith is necessary to do the "works", but the works are the basis of the final verdict re salvation.

 

[francisdesales]

I think we need to clarify our positions...

This is what I'm saying: We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus alone. Good works (things like helping the poor) are a result.

What is your position?

Can you enter God's Kingdom without DOING His Will?

Regards

 

[tjw]

Can you enter God's Kingdom without DOING His Will?

Regards

What is your understanding of "doing His Will?"

 

[dadof10]

Do not preach you say. But do read Rom. 2:13 (even see verse 14-15) or

All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, (Romans (RSV) 2)

What point are you trying to make with this? Paul is not using the word "works" to refer to good deeds done in faith, AS JAMES IS. I thought your point is that Paul means that NOTHING but faith saves, including good deeds. Is this not your position?

Rom. 13 that covers only one table of stone, that God alone penned, the second ones duty to man.

Do you mean Rom. 2:13 or Chapter 13? I don't understand your reference to the "table of stone".

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

That love of God is the greatest Commandment? O.K. "Works of the Law" don't justify, and the greatest commandment is love of God. Do good deeds done in faith justify?

 

[dadof10]

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)?

Exactly what the words say. If you want to gain eternal life, keep the commandments. This is pretty straight forward.

So, if we look at BOTH of these situations and take BOTH of Jesus' answers at face value, we see that faith AND keeping the commandments, or more accurately, keeping the commandments through and by faith in Christ, justifies.

I think you should ask yourself why you can accept Jesus answer to the Woman at the well at face value (and even use it universally), yet you must explain away His simple, straightforward answer to the Rich Man. Bias, perhaps?

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.

When he talks about having faith, does He mean in order to "enter Heaven" you must have perfect faith, never doubting once? Again, because I believe what Scripture says about works having a role in justification, doesn't mean I believe that works allow a person to "enter Heaven on your own".

 

[dadof10]

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.

Exactly. This is the "mindset" I've been trying to describe. The Jews of Jesus' day believed they COULD obligate God, thus Paul's "faith vs. works" chapters. He is NOT disparaging good deeds done in faith, but obligatory works.

 

[dadof10]

This is what I'm saying: We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus alone. Good works (things like helping the poor) are a result.

What is your position?

TJW, could I get your opinion on this?

"We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus alone". We must HAVE faith and this takes an act of the will. I have heard many times that we are justified by faith, but this faith is a Grace in and of itself. God GIVES us the Grace of faith and by it we are justified, so it is not US, but God working through us "so no one may boast", therefore faith is not a "work", it is Grace.

My question is, couldn't this same dynamic apply to good deeds done in faith also? If you agree that you must HAVE faith to be justified, and faith is a Grace, is it such a leap to say we must do good deeds to be justified, and the will and ability to please God in these works is a Grace?

It seems to me that HAVING faith and DOING works are either both Gifts from God or both "works".

 

[ivdavid]

francisdesales,

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

God didn't give us a Law that no one could hope to keep, even WITH His help!!!

This is an unfortunate misrepresentation of what I said. What I'd written goes on to include this -
"...and in turn pointing them to Christ who works in them what they themselves ought to and cannot..."
I'm stating that one could hope to keep the spiritual intent of the law, only with God working in us.

God is glorified by His work for the benefit of mankind.

I'd only limit it to - "God is glorified by His work". Whatever He does is glorious - His grace, His mercy, His wrath, His judgement - everything. It has no basis on whether it benefits us - it's not a man-centric universe. Yes, God saves - but it's not for our sake but for His Holy Name's sake. And I'm pretty sure you agree to all this. Where I cannot reconcile is when we claim we are to supplement His glorious work with ours to make complete His glory.

It is not glorious when one forces another to comply with their will.

I thought this was adequately dealt with in post#235 - on how God does not 'force' us to comply with His will. He causes us to will everything good - not forces us.

I think this differing view of God's glory stems from our understanding of what sin in our flesh exactly is.

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.

If that is the equivalent of 1Cor 1:29, then yes, that's the purpose. But I sense that we don't share the same understanding of what we mean by flesh.

francisdesales - "We rely on God for everything, but that doesn't mean we have no say in the matter."
I'm genuinely asking - what else does it mean according to you?

francisdesales - It doesn't necessarily follow that "I depend upon God" leads to "I do nothing".
When "I depend upon God" because "I can do nothing", it seems consistent.

[Again, I'm trying to narrow down our differences to discerning those few differing foundational beliefs - and to that end I'm stating my beliefs and enquiring about yours.]

He[Paul] is not being condemned because of personal guilt.

I didn't understand this belief of yours - please could you elaborate. I don't understand the comparison with Christ either - can mere man be compared with Jesus Christ? How do you reconcile that Paul, while he was under the law, kept the law and still was condemned by it?

We know the Spirit is given only to those who obey God

How do you mean this -
a) Causatively - If you obey God, then because of such obedience you will be given the Spirit.
OR
b) Evidentially - If you obey God, then it is the evidence that you have been given the Spirit.

If you meant it causatively, do you believe that man is able to obey God's will without having His Spirit?

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.

Follow the context from Rom 6:14 onwards into Rom 7 - and we see Paul is referring to the same usage of the Law.
Rom 7:7 clearly refers to the Law as including a commandment of the Decalogue.
I don't see any such divisions of the Law - all are holy,just and good commandments of God revealing His will.

In the absence of such distinctions, how does one reconcile the points we have been discussing.

Continued...

 

[ivdavid]

francisdesales,

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

You do realize that there is a difference between using the word 'flesh' and the word 'wicked' - when we qualify the word 'wicked' to replace 'flesh' here, we tend to focus on 'wicked' as if it were a state we could be in and not be in as we choose. But if we retain the word 'flesh' as used in the Bible - it refers to who we are as we were born of our natural parents. And this lends itself to the meaning that we are naturally unable to keep the law of God until we are regenerated.

francisdesales - "But "wicked" does not mean one is "born" into that state without any possibility of change."
Without the replacement, we are "born" as "flesh". The possibility of change is there - from being in the flesh to being in the spirit - as determined by the regenerative work of God.

francisdesales - "It seems that this "wickedness" is not always an eternal state that is unchangeable. "
Our "flesh" in this world is unchangeable.

francisdesales - "In other words, men can repent and are given the opportunity to repent."
Men are given the opportunity to repent, yes, to show them that the flesh profits them nothing - That they need the regenerative work of God in them to be able to repent of their enmity against God.

"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"
This reveals God's nature and His justice rather than man's ability. How does one meet these requirements in the flesh - he can't. Which is why we must be regenerated and be 'made'[not by forcing but by causing] to walk in His statutes by Him.

francisdesales - "Paul notes we all are "wicked" at some point, awaiting the grace of God to aid us."
Paul notes all of us are born in the "flesh" and are wicked continuously until the "point" of being regenerated by God, by His grace alone.

francisdesales - "This eventually leads to a hardening of the heart and to a permanent lack of communion between God and the individual."
Well, all of us begin with a hardened heart, with no communion with the Spirit until we are regenerated by the working of the Spirit - where there is a removal of this hardened heart of stone and the replacing of it with a heart of flesh - and a renewed spirit of the mind - with which we see the real glory of God.

francisdesales - "By placing our faith in God, we are pleasing to God and are not wicked."
Yes, with this new regenerated mind and heart, we see the depravity of sin in our flesh and acknowledge that we are dependent only on the grace of God - for Him to will and to act all good things in and through us - this dependency is through faith in what God is able to do in His promises, thereby abounding to His glory and pleasing to Him. No longer being in the flesh, but having been regenerated as a new creature in the spirit - we no longer are sinners/rebels against God and hence are being sanctified from wickedness into holiness, though the flesh lusteth against the Spirit.

Continued...

 

[ivdavid]

francisdesales,

Note the synergy here and throughout the OT. It is difficult to miss to those who read the Psalms

If you mean synergy as both God and man being involved in any good act of man with only God as the self-determining causative agent, I'd agree as I've stated in post#235. But I think you mean synergy as both God and man acting as self-determining causative agents.

We both agree that God is the first cause of all and only good works. I believe that sin in our flesh is the first cause of all evil in us, with the tempter 'catalysing' it. You have an issue with God being the only cause of everything good in us - because you think that's 'forcing' us. If God were to save us without our doing anything, you think it amounts to 'forcing' us. But that's not what is implied...that would be the same as saying that the good samaritan 'forced' that wounded man by saving him without asking his permission,cooperation and self-determined choice. Man is similarly under sin and is enslaved by its power and is unable to obey God's commandments, and for all spiritual purposes,dead[Eze 37:1-14] - but God, out of His mercy and compassion, regenerates such a one and works in him continually to give him life - which is evidenced through good works worked out of man. Is this still 'forcing' somebody?

Anyway, i think you see it as man being presented with these 2 first causes - and he, as the secondary self-determining causative agent must choose between them. Left to himself, man could never have chosen to do good but since God as first cause, by His grace, has given man this option to do good, he is now enabled to choose - to do good. But whether he does choose it or not is left to his own free, uninfluenced self-determination. God, further prompts,encourages,chastises him to choose to do good - to negate the solicitation by sin and satan to transgress God's will. And yet, taking all this into account, man still has to choose between the good and evil choice.
If this is not your position, correct me.

If this is your position, then consider how one actually makes this choice. As for me, I see it as something like this - Our mind takes the desire as input, takes into account our various beliefs of the heart for processing[our understanding] and finally compiles probable courses of action with the counsel of one main action advised to our consciousness[soul]. These are then perceived by us along with the understanding, and we end up acting on the chief counsel which is then either executed as our imagination or as our action through the members of our body.

Now, the understanding which compiles the counsel to be worked out is not under our control per se. The understanding is either of the flesh or of the Spirit[regenerated believers have the mind of Christ]. So how can one in the flesh have right understanding and if all he has is his fleshly understanding, how can he contribute to any righteousness in any small part even?

Basically this is what I'm trying to reconcile - if we are born in the flesh and we can never obey God's commandments in the flesh, and we remain in the flesh until we are born of the Spirit, how can such a one before regeneration claim to have performed any righteous part of any act before God?

Righteousness is a gift, not wages we earned. (Rom 4:4).

I think you view it as God giving the gift and it being upto each one of us to either accept it or reject it. But we who are all under sin before being regenerated, naturally will choose to reject it because of sin in us, ie in our flesh. If God is to really give us this gift, He has to enable us to receive it too. And that's where He overpowers the sole cause of our rejecting God's grace - namely sin in us. And once that's negated by God's grace, we will but accept God's gift consciously and freely. So, I see one level of grace where God reaches out with His gift and another efficacious level of grace where He enables us to receive it - all by grace. Where exactly is the point of difference over this?

 

[ivdavid]

dadof10,

Thank you for replying.

It seems to me that HAVING faith and DOING works are either both Gifts from God or both "works".

Yes, faith too could be considered a work [John 6:29] - though it's paradoxical to call it a work. And yes, all these are gifts from God. Where I think we differ is in our understanding of "gifts". Could you just browse through the latter part of post#251 for my beliefs on this.

The Law covered justification.

How have you interpreted Rom 3:20 ? I think your answer would be something on the lines of this -
dadof10 - "Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is constantly deriding the leaders for not living up to the "Spirit of the Law". THIS MINDSET (not the true Law as given by God) is what Paul is reacting to in his letters."

You say this as if there were some people in the flesh[before 'This Mindset' crept in] who were justified by the law in the sight of God. Am I right?
Can one in the flesh keep the "Spirit of the Law"?

I can only give you the definition of faith from Hebrews, I really don't know what you're asking for.

I'm sorry - I had assumed that you believed people in the OT were also justified by faith and hence I asked you to elaborate on the differences of their faith then and ours today. But you seem to have indicated that you believe they were justified by the law - we could get back to this after I understand your position on the law more clearly.

And are you referring to Heb 11:6 as the definition of faith? I'm unable to understand it as a definition - could you elaborate a little. What I was looking for was more an explanation of the phrase "believeth on me" in John 6:47.

 

[dadof10]

Yes, faith too could be considered a work [John 6:29] - though it's paradoxical to call it a work.

Is it also paradoxical to call keeping the commandments a "work"? Here is the question I asked TJW above. Could you give it a shot?

"We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus alone". We must HAVE faith and this takes an act of the will. I have heard many times that we are justified by faith, but this faith is a Grace in and of itself. God GIVES us the Grace of faith and by it we are justified, so it is not US, but God working through us "so no one may boast", therefore faith is not a "work", it is Grace.

My question is, couldn't this same dynamic apply to good deeds done in faith also? If you agree that you must HAVE faith to be justified, and faith is a Grace, is it such a leap to say we must do good deeds to be justified, and the will and ability to please God in these works is a Grace?

It seems to me that HAVING faith and DOING works are either both Gifts from God or both "works".

And yes, all these are gifts from God. Where I think we differ is in our understanding of "gifts". Could you just browse through the latter part of post#251 for my beliefs on this.

I think you view it as God giving the gift and it being up to each one of us to either accept it or reject it. But we who are all under sin before being regenerated, naturally will choose to reject it because of sin in us, ie in our flesh. If God is to really give us this gift, He has to enable us to receive it too. And that's where He overpowers the sole cause of our rejecting God's grace - namely sin in us. And once that's negated by God's grace, we will but accept God's gift consciously and freely.

Ah...The Calvinism finally comes out. I knew it would sooner or later. How can we be truly free if it's impossible to reject God? Could you please expand on this?

How have you interpreted Rom 3:20 ? I think your answer would be something on the lines of this -
dadof10 - "Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is constantly deriding the leaders for not living up to the "Spirit of the Law". THIS MINDSET (not the true Law as given by God) is what Paul is reacting to in his letters."

You say this as if there were some people in the flesh[before 'This Mindset' crept in] who were justified by the law in the sight of God. Am I right?

No. I have not commented on what TRULY justified the Jews, only on how THE JEWS AT THE TIME OF CHRIST INTERPRETED THE LAW, ON THEIR MINDSET OR ATTITUDE TOWARD THE LAW. That's why I wrote "THIS MINDSET (not the true Law as given by God) is what Paul is reacting to in his letters"

The OP is James 2. Paul was brought up (like he always is in a discussion of James 2) by the "faith alone" crowd in an attempt to explain away James 2 in light of the the erroneous view: "James couldn't POSSIBLY have meant we are not justified by faith alone, because then he is contradicting Paul". My point (which you still haven't addressed) is that Paul is talking about THE LAW, not good deeds. James and Paul are talking about two different things using the word "works".

I have no interest in delving into the nuances of the Law. It's irrelevant to the OP. It's beyond obvious that when Paul contrasts faith and WORKS he is contrasting faith and obligatory "works of the Law".

And are you referring to Heb 11:6 as the definition of faith? I'm unable to understand it as a definition - could you elaborate a little. What I was looking for was more an explanation of the phrase "believeth on me" in John 6:47.

No, Heb. 11:1. "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

This IS the basic Biblical definition of faith, right? We must have faith in Christ, which assumes changing our ways, conforming to the image of Christ. But does this changing and conforming belong strictly in the DEFINITION of faith?

 

[tjw]

Exactly what the words say. If you want to gain eternal life, keep the commandments. This is pretty straight forward.

So, if we look at BOTH of these situations and take BOTH of Jesus' answers at face value, we see that faith AND keeping the commandments, or more accurately, keeping the commandments through and by faith in Christ, justifies.

I think you should ask yourself why you can accept Jesus answer to the Woman at the well at face value (and even use it universally), yet you must explain away His simple, straightforward answer to the Rich Man. Bias, perhaps?



When he talks about having faith, does He mean in order to "enter Heaven" you must have perfect faith, never doubting once? Again, because I believe what Scripture says about works having a role in justification, doesn't mean I believe that works allow a person to "enter Heaven on your own".

I'm saying that there is more to the context in Matthew 19 (rich, young ruler).

As for bias, I am a former Catholic and almost my entire family is Catholic.

 

[tjw]

TJW, could I get your opinion on this?

"We are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus alone". We must HAVE faith and this takes an act of the will. I have heard many times that we are justified by faith, but this faith is a Grace in and of itself. God GIVES us the Grace of faith and by it we are justified, so it is not US, but God working through us "so no one may boast", therefore faith is not a "work", it is Grace.

My question is, couldn't this same dynamic apply to good deeds done in faith also? If you agree that you must HAVE faith to be justified, and faith is a Grace, is it such a leap to say we must do good deeds to be justified, and the will and ability to please God in these works is a Grace?

It seems to me that HAVING faith and DOING works are either both Gifts from God or both "works".

I'm basically saying that the reason someone does works is because they have faith... Why do you do works? To me, the answer is because you have faith. Works are a result. The works themselves don't save.

 

[dadof10]

I'm saying that there is more to the context in Matthew 19 (rich, young ruler).

And I'm just asking why? Why do you think there is "more" to it?

As for bias, I am a former Catholic and almost my entire family is Catholic.

It's been my experience that a FORMER Catholics are the MOST biased. It may not be so in your case, but that's been my experience because there are REASONS why they are FORMER Catholics, even if it's only a caricature of what the Church truly is.

 

[dadof10]

I'm basically saying that the reason someone does works is because they have faith... Why do you do works? To me, the answer is because you have faith. Works are a result. The works themselves don't save.

You keep repeating this. Your argument is not with me, it's with James and Paul and Jesus.

Explain the difference between HAVING faith and DOING works. Do both take an act of the will? Do both rely on the Grace of God? You want to set faith above everything and make it the exclusive means of salvation, the ONLY thing you have to DO. Read that again, TJW. The only thing you HAVE TO DO. If you have to DO it, how is it not a "work"? It is something that has to be DONE or you can't be saved, right? You must ACCEPT Jesus as Lord and Savior to be justified, right? You can only DO this by the Grace of God, right?

How is HAVING faith ANY different than keeping the commandments or Christian charity? They are either ALL "works" or they are ALL not. You can't have it both ways.

 

[ivdavid]

dadof10,

Here is the question I asked TJW above. Could you give it a shot?

I thought this was what I'd answered in my previous post -
that faith too is a 'work' AND that both faith and [good]works are gifts of grace. We don't differ here at all. It's the way we've understood the grace of God that differs.

And regarding faith being placed over works - I don't look at it that way at all. I only say - faith is placed before works - in temporal sequence. You cannot do good works without first having faith - and one who has faith will end up doing good works. If one does not continue in good works, then it shows that he never had faith. This way, the works are the evidential result of such faith. Works are not thrown away as unnecessary - they're not made optional - they're not wrong - they're not inferior. They just proceed from faith that precedes them.

Again, if we differ here - it's because we haven't concurred on what we each mean by faith - as I see here -
dadof10 - "We must have faith in Christ, which assumes changing our ways, conforming to the image of Christ. "

How can we be truly free if it's impossible to reject God? Could you please expand on this?

Sure. I think you're mixing up "being free" with "being sovereign". No man is sovereign. See, sovereignty is bidirectional - it can go this way or that way. But freedom is unidirectional - it's always headed in the direction opposite to oppression. So, if a person heads towards oppression, I wouldn't be calling that person free. How can a person who rejects God be free - I'd say he's under the oppression of sin to do such a thing.

Also Rom 6:16-23 show how being free from sin is to be 'slaves' of God and vice versa - there is no middle ground of amorality in all things pertaining to morality. And being a 'slave' of God is not oppressive at all and hence we are free - not sovereign but free. Does this suffice?

How about you - Would you say that one is free to reject God's grace or would you say that he is under the oppression of sin to not accept God's grace?

My point (which you still haven't addressed) is that Paul is talking about THE LAW, not good deeds.

Was there some question on this for me to address? I may have overlooked it. Anyway, I do agree that Paul and James aren't talking about the same "works". Paul talks to those who are under the law and James talks to those who do good works under grace. Is there anything else to be clarified here?

I have no interest in delving into the nuances of the Law. It's irrelevant to the OP.

Could you bear with me while I try to understand your beliefs on the OP. For me to understand what you mean by good works, I need to know how you contrast it with the works of the law. I know you have stated many things to explain your beliefs but please do understand that I'm not privy to all your presuppositions and accompanying beliefs that go along with what you've stated. Hence I'm not able to form a complete understanding of what you believe, which is what I'm seeking to get clarified with my every post.

That's why I wrote "THIS MINDSET (not the true Law as given by God) is what Paul is reacting to in his letters"

Alright, this is something I haven't understood of your beliefs. What is this True Law given by God - is it the Law given through Moses? And what is this Mindset - is it the attitude that one could make God obligated to him by his works of the law? If so, Paul should have been only against the temporal mindset of that time and not against the Law itself which was given by God through Moses, right? And so Paul should have continued to uphold the true Law and its intended purpose - my question is regarding this intended purpose(of the true Law and not any law which has been perceived wrongly by some sets of people). The intended purpose of the Law seems to be justification as seen in Lev 18:5. But in the context of Gal 3, Paul clearly refers to the Law given by God through Moses - the True Law that we expect him to uphold - and says that the Law is not intended for justification. Then what is it intended for?

This[Heb 11:1] IS the basic Biblical definition of faith, right?

Is it? Looks more a definition of a property of faith than of faith itself.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
When I say "milk is the substance of ice-cream", it neither defines milk nor ice-cream but expresses a property of milk - in that it is the chief ingredient of ice-cream - ie it conveys that ice-cream is primarily based on milk.
Similarly, faith is being described as the primary foundation on which our hopes rest - signifying the relation between faith and hope - but not defining faith itself.

Now, "hope" is to believe as true, an event that is yet to occur in the future.
If one said "I hope to reach that place on time", and somebody were to ask him how he could believe this future event to be true - he'd state that he believes so because of his faith in the bus services.
If one said "I hope to win this match", and somebody were to ask him how he could believe this future event to be true - he'd state that he believes so because of his faith in himself.
Do you see how hope rests on faith. And how faith itself is not defined in Heb 11:1.

Also, when I say "blood is the evidence of a cut in my hand", I'm not defining blood, but rather its property of application.
Similarly faith is the evidence or that which convinces one of things not seen as if they were - but this does not define what that faith is itself.

The straightforward definition of faith - is the act of believing. And the working definition of "believe" is to "hold a given premise as true".

In that sense, what is this saving faith? When we talk of "believing in Christ", what premise are we exactly to hold as true?

 

[francisdesales]

What is your understanding of "doing His Will?"

Obeying what God commands, loving one's neighbor, etc...

 

[francisdesales]

francisdesales,

This is an unfortunate misrepresentation of what I said. What I'd written goes on to include this - "...and in turn pointing them to Christ who works in them what they themselves ought to and cannot..." I'm stating that one could hope to keep the spiritual intent of the law, only with God working in us.

While the Jews of the OT did not understand that "the Christ" was working within them to keep the Law, they did realize it was God and His initiative that enabled them to keep the Law. Jesus = God of the OT, in this application. In neither case do we or Jews feel that we must keep the Law perfectly. Nor did they expect to do so without God's help.

You stated "God gave us a law that none could keep". Of course, that is false. What sort of God do you have in mind that commands men to do what they cannot hope to do?

I'd only limit it to - "God is glorified by His work". Whatever He does is glorious - His grace, His mercy, His wrath, His judgement - everything. It has no basis on whether it benefits us - it's not a man-centric universe. Yes, God saves - but it's not for our sake but for His Holy Name's sake. And I'm pretty sure you agree to all this. Where I cannot reconcile is when we claim we are to supplement His glorious work with ours to make complete His glory.

Our very response to God is God's glorious work made manifest. It goes without saying that no one can add anything to an infinite God. The point of showing God's glory is to make it manifest for others to see and make it work in their lives. That is the entire point of Christ coming - to come DOWN to US and bring US to Him. This gives God glory. But the giving of glory to God, in no case, adds anything to Himself. Even His Own work doesn't "add" to Himself, since He already IS, completely and fully, before He manifested His Loving at creation.

francisdesales - "We rely on God for everything, but that doesn't mean we have no say in the matter."
I'm genuinely asking - what else does it mean according to you?

That God allows secondary causes...

Men and women give birth to children as secondary causes. God allows His creation to partake and participate in an action where He is not the only cause. We know of only one exception to this case where God allows the secondary and IMMEDIATE cause that brings children into the world. God does not bypass secondary causes, ordinarily - and I take it that you would agree that the Incarnation of the Word was an extraordinary case of an exception to the rule.

francisdesales - It doesn't necessarily follow that "I depend upon God" leads to "I do nothing".
When "I depend upon God" because "I can do nothing", it seems consistent.

You are a secondary cause, you don't await God to give you permission to have sexual affairs with your wife. It appears perfectly consistent to state that men can do nothing SALVIFIC without God, not that I can do nothing AT ALL without God. As the first cause, this is true, but as the First Cause, He allows His creation to act and make choices.

I didn't understand this belief of yours - please could you elaborate. I don't understand the comparison with Christ either - can mere man be compared with Jesus Christ? How do you reconcile that Paul, while he was under the law, kept the law and still was condemned by it?

"Being condemned" does not mean "found guilty of sin". This is impossible, since Jesus never committed sin. God cannot commit sin. Being condemned means being punished. In His case, vicariously, innocently. Willingly. Sent to die for the sake of another guilty party. To say that literally, "Jesus was made sin" is a complete contradiction of Hebrews, where "Jesus like us in all ways except sin".

How do you mean this -
a) Causatively - If you obey God, then because of such obedience you will be given the Spirit.
OR
b) Evidentially - If you obey God, then it is the evidence that you have been given the Spirit.

The Bible uses both meanings, so we, as Christians, must understand it in the same manner without making an "either/or" judgment.

If you meant it causatively, do you believe that man is able to obey God's will without having His Spirit?

Of course not. God's Spirit is within all men at some level. Isn't He the First Cause of all??? What you give before, you now take away...

Follow the context from Rom 6:14 onwards into Rom 7 - and we see Paul is referring to the same usage of the Law.
Rom 7:7 clearly refers to the Law as including a commandment of the Decalogue.
I don't see any such divisions of the Law - all are holy,just and good commandments of God revealing His will.

Yes, all of God's Laws are holy and just. But it doesn't follow that all are meant to be applied universally and equally throughout all time. The Old Testament announces a New Covenant would come to replace the Old. Hebrews states that the Old is a shadow of the New. There is a time and a place for the rituals and laws that point to the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. Now, that Law, that served as a wall that separated Jew from Gentile has been broken down. Rituals that separated ethnic Jews from Gentiles are no longer necessary.

In addition, one must remember that there are components that are FOUND in the Mosaic Law that are not promulgated by the Mosaic Law. The Decalogue is largely the case, as man was commanded before Moses not to kill or steal. While related in the Law, these commands were not initially defined in the Mosaic Law. Such universal laws supersede and transcend the Mosaic Law.

An example are some of the "laws of liberty", accounted in the Declaration of Independence. Though "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is stated in written form in the declaration, it is by no means an "invention" of the document. It is a recognition that man has been given a universal and perennial right. We can trace this AT LEAST to the Magna Carta of 500 years earlier. Such principles are not bound to the Declaration of Independence, though listed. Neither are the universal law to honor one's parents bound only to the Mosaic Law. This command is written in all men's hearts and transcends the Mosaic Law.

Thus, when we say that the Mosaic Law is abrogated as the means by which men become the People of God, it does not mean that we no longer have to honor our parents, since such law transcends the Mosaic Law.

Regards