Faith AND Works-James 2...Again

[ivdavid]

Francisdesales,

Francisdesales - "..it doesn't follow that we no longer are required to obey God and cooperate with His grace..."
I never implied that we are no longer required this - we are always required this as what we are held accountable to. I only proceeded further in saying we are totally unable to obey God and cooperate with His grace in the flesh - thereby requiring God to work all good in us Himself.
To discern where exactly we differ on this, can you share what you mean by the "flesh".

francisdesales - "You would be hard pressed to state that "working out our salvation" is NOT cooperating with God's grace."
I have shared in post#276 my beliefs on how our works are the natural consequence of the desire and counsel in us - so when God works in us His godly desire and counsel, I could refer to my own works without implying any cooperation from my side.

Synergy is a fundamental part of Christianity.
Note my signature from St. Francis..."There is no fear that a perception of what He has given you will puff you up, so long as you keep steadily in mind that whatever is good in you is not of yourself."

I agree with the quote - whatever is good in man is not of himself. But while endorsing synergy, aren't we negating that?
Consider what synergy is -
God as the first cause, provides all the good for man to act on.
And it is up to man as self-determined secondary cause to accept or reject acting on such good.
But what is the reason for one man accepting God's grace and the other rejecting it - does that not indicate an inherent goodness in man?
I know this might get into a spiral when one says that that inherent goodness itself was given by God's grace - and I'd go further in asking what goodness prompted one to act on his inherent goodness and not the other? Are you able to see my conflict? If I've misunderstood anything here, correct me.


francisdesales - "Paul is condemned under the Law because of sin. Christ is not condemned under the law because of His personal sin."
I need clarification - I assume the above two statements are what you're saying you believe - am I right? If so, then why even raise this as an issue - when have I even tried to imply that Christ had personally sinned? As I've already stated, how can I compare mere man with Jesus Christ? The focus is entirely on Paul and just Paul - was he condemned under the law because of sin in his[Paul's] flesh? I try to draw no further inferences from this concerning Christ at all.

Francisdesales -
"I was not refering to the unregenerate man, of course, since such a man cannot hope to keep the Law without cooperating with God."
"This does not occur before regeneration, since the POINT of regeneration is to cooperate with God's grace."
"The process of "repenting and believing" depends upon God working in man - and man cooperating at some level - to even get to the point of regeneration."
Perhaps you'd like to clarify. If man can cooperate only when he's regenerated and he's expected to cooperate even to get to that point of regeneration - how exactly does that work?

Here, you refer to this unbeliever's act of love as an act of good before God - I don't believe so.

Francisdesales - "While the unbeliever's act of "love" may not be an act of faith, it prepares the ground for a future conversion."
Do you take this unbeliever's act to be an act of good before God? If not, then it is sin and I believe sin only spoils the ground further.
Francisdesales - "Even here, God is working, is He not?"
We have differing views on how God works good in man - according to me, only if good is done here in the sight of God by that unbeliever, God has worked good in him.

Francisdesales - "Paul makes this a major theme in Romans 2-3, how some non-Jews were following the Law written in their hearts, while other Jews (refering to the many Psalms citations in chapter 3) were "wicked", despite their offering of flesh to God and so forth..."
Which specific verses are you referring to in both chapters?

 

[francisdesales]

francisdesales,


Everything I have discussed concerning the law thus far, has revolved around what you've written here - my chief concern being what one is to understand the law to be.

You have underlined and marked in red - what you wanted to indicate as very important and appropriate with regards to our response to God. But the very phrase that you attribute so much importance to is decried in the Gospel.

Let's look at Gal 3:11-12 -
v.11a declares that no man is justified by the law.

I agree. We are not justified BY the Law, but by God. By obeying the Law written on our hearts, God considers us just. The Law doesn't make that decision.

But what is the relation - why must justification by faith result in denial of justification by the law?

Because people can "do" the dictates of the Law WHILE having hatred and anger in their hearts. God said that the sacrifices of Isreal were ever before Him, but not mercy and justice. Following the Law does not necessarily lead to what God truly desires from us.

I know there are different usages of the word "law" in the Bible, the chief being these two -

Law(1) - as the set of commandments given to the jews in the OT.[Usage in Matt 5:18]
Law(2) - as a governing rule - like the law of gravitation - specifically, the law of works(Lev 18:5,Gal 3:12b) vs the law of faith. [Usage in Rom 3:27]
Whenever Paul speaks against the Law, he means it in the sense of Law(2) - the Law of works.

The "works of the Law" refers to Jewish-specific rules of behavior in the sight of God. These do not make one righteous, since Gentiles can be righteous in God's eyes by faith, not by becoming Jewish. These "works of the Law" were once a dividing wall that separated the Jews from the Gentiles. Now, this wall was broken down. Not the heart of the Law, but the necessity to obey them as a legitimate response to the Covenant, as there now is another Covenant in force that depends on faith.

Now consider Gal 3:12b - The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Is this a governing rule given by God - yes. For we find it in Lev 18:5. But is this what is being preached under grace - is this part of the new covenant ; or is this part of the old covenant under the law, not to be poured into the new wine bottles.

Paul seems to say we must do them to live. What more needs to be said? He doesn't say "what used to be required" but do them "now" shall live. Paul is certainly not advocating antimonialism. He constantly exorts Christians to remain in obedience to moral laws. Why? Because those who DO NOT cannot enter the Kingdom of God... For example, further in Galatians, he notes a list of those who CANNOT enter the Kingdom, people who murder, lie, etc...

Paul is not advocating that moral law is "old wine in the new wine bottles"...

Consider Rom 10:1-5 and onward...
Rom 10:2 For I bear them[those under the law] record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Here, we find that those under the law may have zeal and yet may be without knowledge - specifically being ignorant of God's righteousness.

No problem. People think that being devoted to piety is equated to living a life of faith. This is simply a false way of looking at things. Conducting pious actions does not necessarily mean one is righteous in God's eyes. The Pharisees, could anyone have been more "pious" in act? Jesus saw their inner heart, and that is what is important, the impetus for doing those acts.

Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise....
Again we see the contrast of the two means of righteousness.

I am not advocating that one can be righteous of their own ability WITHOUT God. That is what Paul is talking about. Thus, no one can brag, since God is the one who gives us even the gift of faith (Eph 2). We cannot attribute ANYTHING GOOD entirely to ourselves.

francisdesales - "Yes, it is a fine line, but even here in Galatians, we are still told that we must follow the Law (works of the Law are refering to the Jewishness of the Law, not the Law written in men's hearts, as I detail above.)"
I hope we'd now concur on this - that Gal 3:12b is referring to the law of works that we are not supposed to follow. Would you agree?

Continued....

The "works of the Law" invariably means Jewish particulars, not obedience to the Commandments or moral law.

Regards

 

[ivdavid]

Francisdesales,

I just wanted to quickly say that my post[#279] that you replied to was continued into its following post[#280] - on the same topic of the law.

Now consider Gal 3:12b - The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Paul seems to say we must do them to live.

See, you've gotten half of that right. Gal 3:12b is very much saying that "we must do them to live".
But it isn't Paul who's saying that - he is quoting the law of works as saying that. This is how I see it -

Just compare the color codes -
Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

1. Would you agree here - that the righteousness of the law stands for man's own righteousness and faith in Christ stands for the righteousness of God ?

2. Would you also agree that the righteousness of God is an end to the righteousness of the law?

Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise,....

3. Would you agree here - that Rom 10:5 contrasts the righteousness of the law with Rom 10:6 righteousness of faith ?

4. Would you agree - that Rom 10:5 is describing the righteousness of the law from Scripture - Lev 18:5 - as the man which doeth those things shall live by them.


Now compare Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12,
Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

5. Would you agree - that Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12 are referring to the same quote?



francisdesales - "Paul is certainly not advocating antimonialism."
Paul is certainly not against Law(1)[Post#279] - he is very much against Law(2) - the Law of works given in Gal 3:12.

francisdesales - "...God considers us just. The Law doesn't make that decision."
Could you clarify this w.r.t. para2 in post#280.

francisdesales - "Because people can "do" the dictates of the Law WHILE having hatred and anger in their hearts."
Could you clarify this w.r.t. para3 in post#280.

francisdesales - "We cannot attribute ANYTHING GOOD entirely to ourselves."
Could you clarify this w.r.t. the last para in post#280.

 

[francisdesales]

I'll do the best I can to answer your questions, but my time lately is limited...

Francisdesales,

Francisdesales - "..it doesn't follow that we no longer are required to obey God and cooperate with His grace..."
I never implied that we are no longer required this - we are always required this as what we are held accountable to. I only proceeded further in saying we are totally unable to obey God and cooperate with His grace in the flesh - thereby requiring God to work all good in us Himself.

To me, this seems to "give with the left and take away with the right"...

If "God does all good in us Himself", without us, then how are we held accountable? For what are we judged? Rather, God is judged in this paradigm - Did God do enough? Since it isn't my fault, my ability to obey God, even WITH His help, then clearly, you are holding God accountable, not the individual man. In addition, you say "I never implied we are no longer required (to obey the Law)", but you are saying just that, since we can't anyway! Correct me if I am misunderstanding your point of view, but there seems to be a logical disconnect here. WHO is being judged at the end of time, God or man?

francisdesales - "You would be hard pressed to state that "working out our salvation" is NOT cooperating with God's grace."
I have shared in post#276 my beliefs on how our works are the natural consequence of the desire and counsel in us - so when God works in us His godly desire and counsel, I could refer to my own works without implying any cooperation from my side.

Again, this is verbal gymnastics. Do you realize what the word "cooperation" means? It does not mean being passive during an action, doing nothing. While NOTHING we do can be good if done ALONE, IN CHRIST, we can do anything good - and even more than Jesus did, as He Himself stated.

I agree with the quote - whatever is good in man is not of himself. But while endorsing synergy, aren't we negating that?
Consider what synergy is -
God as the first cause, provides all the good for man to act on.
And it is up to man as self-determined secondary cause to accept or reject acting on such good.
But what is the reason for one man accepting God's grace and the other rejecting it - does that not indicate an inherent goodness in man?

Men are not all the same, what's the problem?

Man is made in the image and likeness of God, and we do retain a conscience, a love of beauty and truth. While our fallen state clouds this, we do individually retain a varied level of seeking that truth and the connection that once was between God and man. We never will find it without Divine Revelation and His initiative, but some are more likely to listen to that voice that seeks God while others choose not to, satisfying the flesh.

I know this might get into a spiral when one says that that inherent goodness itself was given by God's grace - and I'd go further in asking what goodness prompted one to act on his inherent goodness and not the other? Are you able to see my conflict? If I've misunderstood anything here, correct me.

What exactly is God judging when we stand before Him? Himself and His total work in us???

NO! He is judging our response to His grace.

Francisdesales - "While the unbeliever's act of "love" may not be an act of faith, it prepares the ground for a future conversion."
Do you take this unbeliever's act to be an act of good before God? If not, then it is sin and I believe sin only spoils the ground further.

What part of "NOTHING GOOD I DO IS OF MYSELF" are you not understanding?

It is not an "Either God does everything or nothing".

Why is it so difficult to comprehend that God moves in us the will to do good - and then we utilize that grace to awkwardly seek Him before regeneration? That is the entire background behind "REPENT AND BELIEVE". It presumes the ability for the individual to CHOOSE to accept or reject, based upon God's graces given to both who accept good or evil.

Francisdesales - "Paul makes this a major theme in Romans 2-3, how some non-Jews were following the Law written in their hearts, while other Jews (refering to the many Psalms citations in chapter 3) were "wicked", despite their offering of flesh to God and so forth..."
Which specific verses are you referring to in both chapters?

Practically all of Romans 2 describes how pagans are entering into eternal life, being made "spiritually circumcised"...

In Chapter 3, Paul's litany of OT citations that point out just how "righteous" the followers of the Law were. Being righteous is not necessarily equated with burning sacrifices to God. It comes from circumcising the heart, not the flesh

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales,

See, you've gotten half of that right. Gal 3:12b is very much saying that "we must do them to live".
But it isn't Paul who's saying that - he is quoting the law of works as saying that. This is how I see it -


Just compare the color codes -
Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

1. Would you agree here - that the righteousness of the law stands for man's own righteousness and faith in Christ stands for the righteousness of God ?

2. Would you also agree that the righteousness of God is an end to the righteousness of the law?

Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise,....

3. Would you agree here - that Rom 10:5 contrasts the righteousness of the law with Rom 10:6 righteousness of faith ?

4. Would you agree - that Rom 10:5 is describing the righteousness of the law from Scripture - Lev 18:5 - as the man which doeth those things shall live by them.


Now compare Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12,
Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

5. Would you agree - that Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12 are referring to the same quote?

Both are describing the Jewish idea of establishing one's own righteousness, rather than living in faith... Note the "but" separating the two clauses in Gal 3:12 that you cite. "the Law is not of faith; BUT the man that does them shall live IN THEM.

Note the difference now, with the 'but'. It is a contrast. The former contrast is based upon the following:

For they, not knowing the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God. Romans 10:3

This is not the life of faith! We must "live in them". Not just "do them". Our life must be centered on living God's commands, not just doing them while not placing trust in God.

This is a constant refrain by Paul. We cannot establish our own righteousness by merely following the letter of the Law. Only when we follow the spirit of the Law, led by the Spirit Himself, can we hope to be justified BY GOD.

Romans 3 gives a fine example of "supposedly righteous Jews" who the BIBLE calls "wicked". Jews following the LETTER of the Law were considered wicked because, among other things, were pursuing God's anointed, David. They did not have any of the inner dispositions God demands, faith, trust, mercy and forgiveness. Rather, they thought that washing hands and killing cows was enough for them to be righteous - THEN, they could commit evil and THINK they were good with God. They were establishing their own righteousness, when righteousness is a gift, not a wage...

Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt Romans 4:4

Those who follow the letter of the Law were obligating God, expecting payment, working and owed a debt by God (in the minds of these Jews). However, Paul clearly points out this drastic mistake. First, the Jews, according to the Psalms Paul cites in Romans 3, were not so righteous. Secondly, Paul describes pagans entering into eternal life while NOT having a written Law. Thus, the written dictates of the Law was not what saved. If so, then killing cows would be all we need to do to enter heaven. Not so. We need to have a life of faith in God - and we don't need to be Jewish to do those things (which was another key argument by Paul. Being Jewish was not a necessity to enter heaven, making the written law moot - although the SPIRITUAL INTENT remained. Jesus makes that clear with His sermon on the Mount.

"You have heard it said, but I say...". Jesus explains the TRUE meaning of the Law. It is not the externals, but the internal dispositions that matters to God. This was not new, the Minor OT prophets were constantly pointing out how God was disappointed with the sacrifices always before Him without the desired faith and trust that is supposed to make a sacrifice truly worthwhile.

Thus, to answer your question, Paul is pointing to the true meaning of the Law, the spiritual meaning, not the written application.

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. For he that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law. Romans 13:8

Paul continues with discussing the Decalogue.

The love of our neighbour worketh no evil. Love therefore is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13:10

THAT is the original intent of the Law given to the Jews, the spiritual disposition to love others and God from the heart, not merely following rules and having evil in the heart.

francisdesales - "Paul is certainly not advocating antimonialism."
Paul is certainly not against Law(1)[Post#279] - he is very much against Law(2) - the Law of works given in Gal 3:12.

He is against the works of the Law, which some have attempted to obligate God for what they did. "God now owes me because I sacrificed lambs". Also, "works of the Law" are only applicable to Jews. So pagans cannot be justified through that law, anyways.

francisdesales - "...God considers us just. The Law doesn't make that decision."
Could you clarify this w.r.t. para2 in post#280.

francisdesales - "Because people can "do" the dictates of the Law WHILE having hatred and anger in their hearts."
Could you clarify this w.r.t. para3 in post#280.

francisdesales - "We cannot attribute ANYTHING GOOD entirely to ourselves."
Could you clarify this w.r.t. the last para in post#280.

A person can "not commit adultery". The Jews had a number of oral traditions that defined what EXACTLY adultery was. They would specifically state which human acts were considered adulterous. Generally, penetration of the female organ with the male, if I may be so crude. Flirting, kissing, caressing, oral sex apparently did not fall within that interpretation. And so, a person could be enslaved by the sin of adultery, thinking he was following God's Law the whole time. Meanwhile, everyone is adversely affected AS IF he was having vaginal sex with a woman. Thus, Jesus explains the true meaning of the Law -

whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. Mat 5:27

Thus, the attempt by the Jews to "have their cake and eat it, too" was a failure. Trying to follow the letter of the Law was useless IF their was sin in the heart. This attempt to establish a human righeousness without the LIFE OF FAITH and trust in God was a twisting of the intent of God's Law. Now, Christians have been told the more deeper meaning of the Law that is still in force:

For he that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law Romans 13:8

Regards

 

[ivdavid]

Francisdesales,

francisdesales - "I'll do the best I can to answer your questions, but my time lately is limited...."
I'm sorry - I didn't mean to hurry you into replying. It's just that they were a part of a single topic split in two posts - so when you replied to only one of them, it seemed incomplete. I thought you might have missed the second part as the continuation.


I know both of us interpret Scripture according to our first premises and when we see some text that seems to contradict our first premises, we tend to search for another way to look at the text so that it could be reconciled with what we believe already. It would be practically futile for me to say that we ought to examine the validity of our own first premises instead of conforming the text to our presuppositions - because we can never convince ourselves against our own beliefs - for, our very believing it means we have convinced ourselves of that and hence convinced ourselves against any opposite inference.

I guess that's why any amount of apologetics cannot cure us against a false belief and that that work is done by God alone. Let's then commend each other to God and share each other's beliefs, resting on God to correct whichever belief of ours isn't true in His sight.

Regarding what the law of works is -
francisdesales - "Note the difference now, with the 'but'. It is a contrast..."
Supposing it's very obvious that
B is not C
then I could make the following statement to infer that ' A is not C ' -
A is not C, but B.
This amounts to the meaning - A is not C, on the contrary it[A] is B.
Which leads to the reasoning - A is not C, - because A is B, and it's given that B is not C.

francisdesales -
1) we must do them to live.
2) We must "live in them". Not just "do them".
I thought you got the understanding right the first time around - but then again, it is your prerogative to change your understanding as you see fit.


Anyway, you've now used the phrase as "live in them" - to refer to a kind of ingrained and personalized habit or principle formation.

Firstly, the phrase is an English one which need not be applicable in the greek and hebrew texts.

Secondly, the word "in" has been used as an independent preposition which could denote the efficient cause or instrumentality - thereby being translated "by" in most modern translations. This yields the meaning - "the man that does them shall live - by his doing them[instrumental cause for man's living]".

Thirdly, Gal 3:12b is a quote from Lev 18:5 -
Lev 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
"Which if a man do" is the conditional cause that must result in an effect - the effect "he shall live" being the logical one. It is also followed by the basis of his living - "in/by his doing them". Giving another imperative "man should live in them" as an effect doesn't seem to make sense.

Fourthly, the phrase does not describe an imperative command in the present tense but a descriptive statement in the future tense - "Man shall live" - and not "man must live".


Well, I numbered 5 questions to avoid ambiguity - if you could tell me which questions you agree with, which question you disagree with and which questions you're giving thought - then we could channelize our discussion accordingly. We could then avoid repetition of points that we agree upon, find out where exactly we disagree and give each other time to meditate on God's Word where we feel we need more understanding.

Now compare Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12,
Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
5. Would you agree - that Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12 are referring to the same quote?

francisdesales - "Both are describing the Jewish idea of establishing one's own righteousness, rather than living in faith..."
You state that it is describing the jewish idea - I am stating that it is quoting OT Scripture. Do you agree that Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12b are Scriptural quotes of Lev 18:5?
Besides Rom 10:5 is clearly stating that this Scriptural quote describes the righteousness of the law - the law which pronounces a curse upon all those under it - the law of works which does not justify because it isn't of faith. Which part of this do you sense ambiguity in?

francisdesales - "Note the "but" separating the two clauses in Gal 3:12 that you cite....It is a contrast. The former contrast is based upon...Romans 10:3 "
Okay, if Gal 3:12b is contrasted with Rom 10:3 "their own righteousness", and if Gal 3:12b is the same as Rom 10:5, then Rom 10:5 must also be contrasted against Rom 10:3 "their own righteousness". Rather - Rom 10:5 is sided with the same Rom 10:3 "their own righteousness" and is instead contrasted with the "righteousness of faith in Christ". How do you see this?

The Jews had a number of oral traditions..

I guess in your hurry, you haven't got what I was asking for. I am not asking what the jews took it as - I am asking what God meant it as.
Taking this example of adultery which is commanded against in the Law - when God gave Lev 18:5, did He mean it in the Spiritual sense or did He mean it in the sense that the jews took it as?
francisdesales - "Thus, Jesus explains the true meaning of the Law - "
From this, I take it that God meant Lev 18:5 to include man's internal disposition also. I am not concerned with the misinterpretations of man - I'm only asking how God meant Lev 18:5 when He gave it. Would you agree the commandments there expected internal disposition also as part of doing them?
In that sense, how could you say someone "did" the commandment without internal disposition - shouldn't you say that they "did not" do the commandment because there was no internal disposition - just as Jesus chastised these jews?


The same way, I ask how God meant Lev 18:5 to be kept - all by man himself or by what you call the cooperative response of man to God's first causes? I am not concerned with how man took it, but how God meant it in Lev 18:5.

Continued...

 

[ivdavid]

Francisdesales -

If "God does all good in us Himself", without us, then how are we held accountable? For what are we judged? Rather, God is judged in this paradigm - Did God do enough? Since it isn't my fault, my ability to obey God, even WITH His help, then clearly, you are holding God accountable, not the individual man. In addition, you say "I never implied we are no longer required (to obey the Law)", but you are saying just that, since we can't anyway! Correct me if I am misunderstanding your point of view, but there seems to be a logical disconnect here. WHO is being judged at the end of time, God or man?

Sequence of events.
Man is born in the flesh. God commands man to keep His commandments. Man is held accountable for his keeping God's commandments. Man is required to obey God. Man in the flesh is under the Law of works - if man keeps the commandments, he shall live, by his keeping the commandments - if man does not keep the commandments, he shall die. Sin in man's flesh deceives man into never keeping God's commandments. Therefore man in the flesh stands condemned into death, by the law, before God. Man is condemned because he is accountable - and has been found guilty by the law. His inability to keep the law does not change his being accountable because God did not in any way cause man's inability(sin).

Now God, by His grace, regenerates this man and gives him the hope of Christ as his justification, through faith. Christ is also this man's righteousness, sanctification, wisdom and redemption. This man is now redeemed from the law of works that brought condemnation - not from accountability. Man still is unable to work good in the flesh - but now God works good in him by His Spirit. God works His righteousness in this man and preserves him unto salvation. God need not do this - but that's grace. At no point is God obligated to do this work - God owes this man nothing - man deserves nothing but condemnation. But to show forth His glory to this man, God works His efficacious works in him unto the salvation of his soul.

francisdesales - "WHO is being judged at the end of time, God or man?"
There is no condemnation for those who continually believe in the sufficiency of God's righteousness worked in them by Him - for He who began a good work will perform it until the Day of Christ.

francisdesales - "Since it isn't my fault, my ability to obey God, even WITH His help, then clearly, you are holding God accountable, not the individual man."
Man is condemned by his own sins - he is saved by the grace of God out of His mercy and compassion. The absence of the mercy of God can never be the cause of one's condemnation because God has not caused man's sins and besides, He is not obligated to have mercy on anyone. This is like saying that the murderer was hanged because the sovereign king did not have mercy - No, the murderer will be hanged because of his committing murder and he will be set free because of the king's mercy. The king may have mercy and compassion on whom he wills and still is just - because mercy is apart from justice.

francisdesales - "you say "I never implied we are no longer required (to obey the Law)", but you are saying just that, since we can't anyway!"
"We can't" does not imply "We need not". A teacher teaches perfectly but sleep in a child may render the child unable to understand. Does this absolve the child from completing the work the teacher expects him to finish? The teacher in no way caused the sleep in the child.

Again, this is verbal gymnastics. Do you realize what the word "cooperation" means? It does not mean being passive during an action, doing nothing.

And when did I say cooperation meant that? I'm not the one who believes in the validity of man's cooperation in his salvation. If I don't believe in man's cooperation, how is this verbal gymnastics?

But what is the reason for one man accepting God's grace and the other rejecting it - does that not indicate an inherent goodness in man?

francisdesales - "Men are not all the same, what's the problem? "
When one accepts God's grace and the other doesn't, it is obvious that they are not the same - but what caused the difference? Is it some inherent goodness in man?
francisdesales - "....some are more likely to listen to that voice that seeks God while others choose not to..."
Yes - but how? What is the cause of one being more likely to listen and not the other? Is there something inherently more good with this first person than the other - or does it have to do with God working His righteousness in the first and not the other?

francisdesales - "What exactly is God judging when we stand before Him? Himself and His total work in us???"
We already are passed from condemnation when we were condemned by the law and were redeemed from its curse by Jesus. Through faith, we have passed from death into life. Who will condemn us on Judgement Day when Christ is our justification provided by God Himself?

francisdesales - "NO! He is judging our response to His grace."
And this response was caused by some inherent goodness in us? But shouldn't all good come from God - how can we then have some inherent goodness of ourselves?

francisdesales - "Why is it so difficult to comprehend that God moves in us the will to do good - and then we utilize that grace to awkwardly seek Him before regeneration?"
Comprehending what you're saying is not the problem - its truth is what is being discussed. Anyway, if the point of regeneration is to get us to start awkwardly seeking Him, how do we do that before regeneration? Or else, what is the point of regeneration?

Reply at your convenience...

 

[francisdesales]

I know both of us interpret Scripture according to our first premises and when we see some text that seems to contradict our first premises, we tend to search for another way to look at the text so that it could be reconciled with what we believe already...

I guess that's why any amount of apologetics cannot cure us against a false belief and that that work is done by God alone. Let's then commend each other to God and share each other's beliefs, resting on God to correct whichever belief of ours isn't true in His sight.

My beliefs are based on what I am taught by the Church, which I believe is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Relying on my own logic to determine the truth just doesn't work, so I place my trust in Christ's promises to His Church. My discussions are my understandings of what the Church teaches. I certainly could be wrong in my understandings of what is taught.

francisdesales -
1) we must do them to live.
2) We must "live in them". Not just "do them".

I thought you got the understanding right the first time around - but then again, it is your prerogative to change your understanding as you see fit.


Anyway, you've now used the phrase as "live in them" - to refer to a kind of ingrained and personalized habit or principle formation.

That's what I meant from the start, sorry if I didn't clarify that. Paul is stressing that we must "live in them", not just "do them". They SHOULD become part of our life, our way of thinking. Jesus calls for a total committment, not just lip service. In any case, the Law remains to be obeyed, at least the spirit of the Law. Love is equated to obeying the Law, a moot point if the Law no longer applies and Paul is making a statement that even the spirit of the Law is no longer applicable.

Thirdly, Gal 3:12b is a quote from Lev 18:5 -

Lev 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
"Which if a man do" is the conditional cause that must result in an effect - the effect "he shall live" being the logical one. It is also followed by the basis of his living - "in/by his doing them". Giving another imperative "man should live in them" as an effect doesn't seem to make sense.

God has always intended that man live by His Law, the spirit of it more so. Does it matter that Paul is citing Lev? He also cites Habakkuk when he speaks of faith as a life... I don't see the problem in Gal 3, if you view the Jewish keeping of the Law was usually for the sense of maintaining self-righteousness, although the Bible clearly has many exceptions of those who were righteous in God's eyes and were properly following the spirit of the Law. The fact that "the just shall live by faith" tells us that there were just people...

Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. Hab 2:4

therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. Romans 1:17

Fourthly, the phrase does not describe an imperative command in the present tense but a descriptive statement in the future tense - "Man shall live" - and not "man must live".

I don't see the problem. Shall = must in useage.

francisdesales - "Both are describing the Jewish idea of establishing one's own righteousness, rather than living in faith..."

You state that it is describing the jewish idea - I am stating that it is quoting OT Scripture. Do you agree that Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12b are Scriptural quotes of Lev 18:5?

Yes. The just shall live by faith and follow the Law. The Law does not give faith, but following the Law can be seen as an act of faith, when done in the right inner disposition. Do you agree that Paul is correct in Rom 13:8,10?

francisdesales - "Note the "but" separating the two clauses in Gal 3:12 that you cite....It is a contrast. The former contrast is based upon...Romans 10:3 "
Okay, if Gal 3:12b is contrasted with Rom 10:3 "their own righteousness", and if Gal 3:12b is the same as Rom 10:5, then Rom 10:5 must also be contrasted against Rom 10:3 "their own righteousness". Rather - Rom 10:5 is sided with the same Rom 10:3 "their own righteousness" and is instead contrasted with the "righteousness of faith in Christ". How do you see this?

You lost me...

"one's own righteousness" is done by following the Law and OBLIGATING God for it. The righteousness of faith is a response which leads to following the Law. The motives for "doing" the Law are different. Is righteousness from faith in God or from ourselves?

I guess in your hurry, you haven't got what I was asking for. I am not asking what the jews took it as - I am asking what God meant it as.

Paul describes it, as do OT prophets, esp. the Minor ones, such as Amos.

Taking this example of adultery which is commanded against in the Law - when God gave Lev 18:5, did He mean it in the Spiritual sense or did He mean it in the sense that the jews took it as?

What some Jews had in mind and God has in mind were two different things, although the outward obedience to the Law was present.

God desires mercy and forgiveness, not sacrifice. This means God does not desire the later without the former.

francisdesales - "Thus, Jesus explains the true meaning of the Law - "
From this, I take it that God meant Lev 18:5 to include man's internal disposition also.

Of course. Did God's ways change? While revelation became more clear with Christ, I maintain that God has ALWAYS desired man to live a life of faith.

In that sense, how could you say someone "did" the commandment without internal disposition -

I already explained the Jewish propensity to "set the bar" when adultery became adultery. Jesus said it begins in the heart.

shouldn't you say that they "did not" do the commandment because there was no internal disposition - just as Jesus chastised these jews?

They followed the letter, rather than the spirit.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales -

Sequence of events.
Man is born in the flesh. God commands man to keep His commandments. Man is held accountable for his keeping God's commandments. Man is required to obey God.

Which means that man has an ability, albeit one that absolutely requires Divine help, to cooperate and obey those laws. God is just, and does not require of men what they cannot do, even WITH God's help.

- if man keeps the commandments, he shall live, by his keeping the commandments - if man does not keep the commandments, he shall die.

A life of faith includes obedience to the commandments of God, whether written on stone or in one's heart.

Sin in man's flesh deceives man into never keeping God's commandments.

That's not correct. I realize that several Psalms speak this way, as poetry often does, but some of the very same Psalms make it clear that this was an exaggeration, a discussion of the wicked, not the righteous or just. Of course man can keep God's commandments (with God), otherwise, the "commandments" are pointless guidelines without any expectation of ever being met. Outside of the Psalms (or Paul citing them), does the Bible tell us unequivocally that man CANNOT obey the commandments?

Now God, by His grace, regenerates this man and gives him the hope of Christ as his justification, through faith. Christ is also this man's righteousness, sanctification, wisdom and redemption. This man is now redeemed from the law of works that brought condemnation - not from accountability. Man still is unable to work good in the flesh - but now God works good in him by His Spirit.

Upon regeneration, we become born from above. Thus, the regenerated are not under that condemnation - because we CAN obey the Law in Christ. There is no need to apply fallen man's state to the regenerated, nor is there a need to think that God does everything. Because we are regenerated, we can cooperate with God's grace.

God works His righteousness in this man and preserves him unto salvation.

This preservation depends upon man's cooperation. Otherwise, the command to "persevere to the end" is another pointless command. Is this command given to God??? No, it's given to man, the man who is a disciple of Christ. God gives grace to persevere, but without our decision, our response to Him, we will not persevere.

God need not do this - but that's grace. At no point is God obligated to do this work - God owes this man nothing - man deserves nothing but condemnation. But to show forth His glory to this man, God works His efficacious works in him unto the salvation of his soul.

Of course. But a man's salvation also depends upon a life of faith, a response to God.

There is no condemnation for those who continually believe in the sufficiency of God's righteousness worked in them by Him - for He who began a good work will perform it until the Day of Christ.

You didn't answer the question.

Man is condemned by his own sins - he is saved by the grace of God out of His mercy and compassion. The absence of the mercy of God can never be the cause of one's condemnation because God has not caused man's sins and besides, He is not obligated to have mercy on anyone.

According to Scriptures, man is judged by how he lives his life. To those who do good, eternal life, to those who do evil, eternal death. Now, if man cannot do good, then man can only do evil. Thus, there is no "judgment" properly understood. It seems to you that God is holding men to a standard that is impossible to achieve, and thus, it is NOT just. Who would state that killing someone because they cannot fly by flapping their arms is just? No one. By what means does God condemn some to hell and bring some to eternal life? The difference would be based upon God's own actions in man??? Nowhere does the Bible state that God is being judged based on how He acts in another man. Judgment is based upon our works, whether in God or not.

That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Mat 5:20

This is not saying "my righteousness ALONE", but it is mine nonetheless while in Christ because I am part of That Body. Thus, His aid to help me to do the good required by the Law becomes my righteousness, as well, as He is in me and I am in Him.

That is synergy. Cooperation. Man ALONE can do nothing good. But with Grace, we can do good. And at the end of time, we will be judged based upon how we cooperate with that grace. God will not be judged on whether He gave you enough grace for you. God's grace is sufficient for everyone. EVERYONE. What is being judged is not God, but man's response to Him.

This is like saying that the murderer was hanged because the sovereign king did not have mercy - No, the murderer will be hanged because of his committing murder and he will be set free because of the king's mercy. The king may have mercy and compassion on whom he wills and still is just - because mercy is apart from justice.

This conclusion is based upon a faulty premise, that the murderer could do nothing BUT murder. The sovereign king hangs the murderer because HE judged that the man could have done otherwise...

More properly to our case, it would be like saying the sovereign king hanged the man because he could not sprout wings and fly away.

"We can't" does not imply "We need not".

What's the point of a law if we cannot obey it? If you can't obey a law, how is it one can say we are required to obey it? That is semantics.

If I was king and said "you have to fly with your arms or sprout wings by next week by next week or you will die", would that be just? If I am bound to obey an impossible law, is the lawmaker just?

The solution is that man CAN obey the Law while seeking God. With God, nothing is impossible, so the Law is not impossible when God is at my side helping me.

A teacher teaches perfectly but sleep in a child may render the child unable to understand. Does this absolve the child from completing the work the teacher expects him to finish? The teacher in no way caused the sleep in the child.

Again, you are confusing the issue. We are speaking about being judged on impossibilities. Your example does not apply, because the fault is the child's for not being prepared and alert. The teacher is not being judged. Staying up all night is something that the child knows was wrong, but is now suffering the consequences.

In the example we are speaking of, man cannot obey the law without God. CANNOT. That means that if we analyze a man's obedience to the Law and find it lacking, would we blame God? In your case, yes, we would, since we cannot expect man to obey the law without God.

Men are judged based upon what we can do. We can say "yes" to God's grace.

And when did I say cooperation meant that? I'm not the one who believes in the validity of man's cooperation in his salvation. If I don't believe in man's cooperation, how is this verbal gymnastics?

You deny cooperation, which is a biblical concept. By denying its existence leads to God judging Himself.

When one accepts God's grace and the other doesn't, it is obvious that they are not the same - but what caused the difference? Is it some inherent goodness in man?

We were made in the image and likeness of God, correct?

We already are passed from condemnation when we were condemned by the law and were redeemed from its curse by Jesus. Through faith, we have passed from death into life.

Thus, when one is condemned, it is because God did not provide that man with any faith, the ability to obey the commandments??? If one is accorded eternal life, it is God who provided that man with faith. Thus, you are judging God, are you not??? Man's response is taken out of the equation here, so what is left is God. So when Hitler stands before God, it is God's fault for not providing faith to Hitler. Hitler has no inherent ability to obey God, so any lack of it is God's fault? Is that your contention?

Comprehending what you're saying is not the problem - its truth is what is being discussed.

Fair enough. Try to anwer my question and let your heart decide. Who is being judged, God or man?

Anyway, if the point of regeneration is to get us to start awkwardly seeking Him, how do we do that before regeneration? Or else, what is the point of regeneration?

Regeneration takes place when we have committed to following our Lord. In many people, this may take years. God leads us before that point of "accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior" and all of its implications.

Regards

 

[TruthSeeker2012]

James must be entirely read. He is talking about "faith without works is dead". A mere intellectual faith which doesn't change the life is not biblical faith. Biblical faith always demonstrates itself in works. See Ephesians 2:8-10 ... we are saved by grace not works, "In Order To Work".

Also, something very important most people miss, is that the demonstration of works in James is not works done to be witnessed by God but works done before men.. James says, "I will show you my faith by my works" [2:18] He is talking about demonstrating our works before humans and not God.

James does not say we need to work to be saved, but talks about the results of true Biblical faith in God will naturally produce works as a result of having been saved. He is talking about the genuine results of having been saved already and not to be saved.

Paul in Romans 3:28 talks about before salvation; and James in James 2:24 talks about after Salvation. Paul talks about the "root", and James talks about the "fruit" of salvation. When rightly understood, it is easy to see that they are in perfect harmony with each other.

James is saying that if you claim to have been saved by true faith and produce no fruit[works] as a result, then your faith is not true and is dead! But true faith will produce fruit naturally and we will produce works from the new heart and desire that comes from God and out of pure love.

Our works don't save us, but are a result of already been saved through Jesus' perfect sinless life and death.

If anyone wants to be saved by their own life and works etc, then they better have been born PERFECT and die PERFECT! Nothing less will do! But cause we are a sinner. [Rom 3:10,23], we now need to accept Jesus perfect life in place of our sinful life. If we don't we are in BIG TROUBLE at judgement wearing our own filthy robe.

I am only saved by Jesus perfect works and perfect life and death. My own life can never save me. But once I accepted Jesus' perfect life and death as a free gift, I lovingly desire to obey and walk with Him out of love, and Jesus produces works as a result through me, John 15:15.

Jesus said the doors are now open! He said its done, its finished![John 19:30] Those who claim that you have to add to salvation by your own works and life claim that Jesus atonement on the cross and His perfect and sinless life was NOT good enough!

We are all sinners, HOWEVER, once you trust Jesus you can be counted as if your perfect and sinless cause your now wearing the robe of perfection and righteousness that comes from Jesus.

Being saved by our own works is an invention of the Devil, and is in contradiction to Gods Word [Eph 2:8-9], and this claims that when Jesus said it is FINISHED[John 19:30] that Jesus lied!

Those who claim that any personal works will save them, are calling Jesus a liar, and have heard the Gospel and GOOD NEWS but have not understood or refused to!

The act of faith which thus secures our justification secures also at the same time our sanctification and thus the doctrine of justification by faith does not lead to licentiousness (Rom. 6:2-7). Good works, while not the ground, are the certain consequence, fruit and result of justification (6:14; 7:6)

If we are saved by any amount of work at all, then Jesus is not our 100% complete Savior and that would mean we save ourselves in addition to Jesus. But this raises serious questions..how much works is needed to be saved? And that also would mean there are many different gospels..one for the thief on the cross who DID NO WORKS but was saved by faith alone..and another gospel for us which is a mixture of faith + works..but Paul in Galatians 3 says that is a bewitching false gospel to begin with the Holy Spirit and to try to gain salvation goal by human effort.

 

[ivdavid]

Francisdesales,

I take it that God meant Lev 18:5 to include man's internal disposition also.

francisdesales - "Of course. Did God's ways change?"
ivdavid - "In that sense, how could you say someone "did" the commandment without internal disposition - shouldn't you say that they "did not" do the commandment because there was no internal disposition - just as Jesus chastised these jews?"
francisdesales - "I already explained the Jewish propensity to "set the bar" when adultery became adultery. Jesus said it begins in the heart. They followed the letter, rather than the spirit."
Alright, that's still not the point I'm making. I'm not asking how the jews thought they 'did' the law - I'm not talking about how they justified their actions. Not Jewish Erroneous Beliefs.
I'm talking about it from God's perspective. Applying Lev 18:5, would God say that those jews 'did' the law or would He say that they "did not do" the law since they missed out on the internal disposition part of the law?

The just shall live by faith and follow the Law.
Love is equated to obeying the Law, a moot point if the Law no longer applies and Paul is making a statement that even the spirit of the Law is no longer applicable.

I still don't think we've concurred on what we mean by the "Law" here? If you mean that man is always required to obey the commandments of God - I'll always agree to that. But I am not against the set of commandments - I am against the Law of works for our justification. I just don't believe that man's obeying the commandments has any role in his justification because man in the flesh is not able to cooperate in the least with God, to obey Him - rather God works His righteousness in man after justifying him through faith on the basis of what Jesus Christ did and what He did alone - all by grace.

I know you don't hold to this belief - and that's why we're discussing what the 'Law' is as mentioned in Gal 3:12 - to see where exactly we differ in our beliefs. There are always foundational beliefs that cause the differences - let's try and understand each others' such foundational beliefs.

You lost me...

francisdesales - "Note the "but" separating the two clauses in Gal 3:12 that you cite....It is a contrast. The former contrast is based upon...Romans 10:3 "
1. You say that Gal 3:12 contrasts against Rom 10:3.
2. And we find that Rom 10:5 is the same as Gal 3:12.
3. Then, from the above two, we must conclude that Rom 10:5 contrasts against Rom 10:3.
4. But we observe that Rom 10:5 is continuing the same side as Rom 10:3 instead of contrasting against it.
Which of these points do you disagree with and how do you see it?

"Which if a man do" is the conditional cause that must result in an effect - the effect "he shall live" being the logical one. It is also followed by the basis of his living - "in/by his doing them". Giving another imperative "man should live in them" as an effect doesn't seem to make sense.

From your response to this, I think my point has been missed.
In Gal 3:12, You said that "The man that doeth them shall live in them." refers to an imperative command - "Those who do the commandments - should also live in them."
But Lev 18:5 does not seem to be giving an imperative command - it's giving a cause-effect statement - "If a man does the commandments - then he shall live/have eternal life - [by/in/because of/on the basis of] his doing the commandments.
How do you reconcile this?

Fourthly, the phrase does not describe an imperative command in the present tense but a descriptive statement in the future tense - "Man shall live" - and not "man must live".

francisdesales - "I don't see the problem. Shall = must in useage."
The problem is not in "must" vs "shall" - the problem is in treating Gal 3:12 to be an imperative command in the present tense -
"Those who do the commandments - should also live in them[present tense imperative]."
vs seeing Gal 3:12 as a descriptive statement in the future tense -
"Those who do the commandments - shall live/have life [future tense descriptive]"
Gal 3:12 has a future tense descriptive reference - which indicates a cause-effect relation in man receiving life as a result of his keeping God's commandments and not the "live in them as a way of thinking" understanding - how do you reconcile this?

I don't see the problem in Gal 3, if you view the Jewish keeping of the Law was usually for the sense of maintaining self-righteousness

I know that's what those Jews did - they had a corrupt understanding of the law - but does that warrant Paul to speak against the law itself? Or does it require Paul to simply negate the corrupt thinking?

For eg: If I gave a 'Law of Traffic Lights' which states - "If a man jumps traffic lights except on matters of emergency, he shall be fined" -
and the people wrongly justified their being on time for their own personal commitments as 'matters of emergency' and skipped the lights - would I go and rail against their wrong way of thinking or would I speak against the 'Law of Traffic Lights' itself? Similarly, shouldn't we expect Paul to speak against the corrupt thinking alone and not the law as given in OT Scripture[Lev 18:5] itself? But that's what we see him doing. How do you reconcile this?

"one's own righteousness" is done by following the Law and OBLIGATING God for it.

Rom 10:3-5 state that following the law of works as stated in Lev 18:5 amounts to establishing one's own righteousness and adds nothing more to it -
so your quote is limited to - '"one's own righteousness" is done by following the Law[Lev 18:5]'
But you're saying that it's not Lev 18:5 that amounts to establishing one's own righteousness - rather it's a corrupt mindset of misinterpreting Lev 18:5 that amounts to it. Then why is Paul speaking against Lev 18:5 instead of the corrupt mindset alone? (Refer to the above Law of traffic lights case.)

Continued...

 

[ivdavid]

Francisdesales,

"We can't" does not imply "We need not".

francisdesales - "What's the point of a law if we cannot obey it? If you can't obey a law, how is it one can say we are required to obey it? That is semantics."
I really don't think we must be disagreeing on this. Laws are not made based on man's ability - they are made on ideals. Let's take the case of driving laws - "apart from circumstances, If one is the direct cause of danger to another while driving - then he shall be penalized." This is a law made independent of man's ability to drive safely - this is made on the ideal of safety. Let's say there's a person with naturally impaired vision and hence such a person cannot drive safely. This person is unable to keep this law while driving - and yet he is required to keep it. He cannot start driving, hurt people as an essential consequence of his inability and then say that he cannot be held up by the penalty of the law because anyway he did not have the ability. Such a person simply should not drive. That's what I'm saying - the predicament of a sinner is that he is one by natural impairment(caused by sin) - and the law which is independent of his ability to do good states that such a one can simply not enter the Kingdom of God. This is why we need a Saviour who does everything good in us because of our inability in the flesh to do good.

francisdesales - "If I am bound to obey an impossible law, is the lawmaker just?"
As long as the lawmaker is not the cause of your impossibility, he is just. Please let's refrain from defining a man-centered world. Laws are not framed based on what man is able to do - they are based on ideals that are independent of man - and which man is required to attain to, irrespective of whether he is able to or not - else it wouldn't be an ideal. In the above illustration, this would amount to suspending the law of safety for the visually impaired and saying that such people can go without penalty even if they hurt people along the way.
And since the lawmaker is not in any way the cause of this person's inability, he is absolutely just in passing an ideal as law.


You see, your argument should not be against the justice of a law in such circumstances - your argument should be whether man is in such a state of total inability or not. That's a separate topic which we shall discuss separately - but let's not disagree on such fundamental topics as the justice of a law based on ideals and not man's abilities.

A teacher teaches perfectly but sleep in a child may render the child unable to understand. Does this absolve the child from completing the work the teacher expects him to finish? The teacher in no way caused the sleep in the child.

francisdesales - "We are speaking about being judged on impossibilities. Your example does not apply, because the fault is the child's for not being prepared and alert. The teacher is not being judged. Staying up all night is something that the child knows was wrong, but is now suffering the consequences."
I am talking of an impossibility here - the impossibility of the child resisting sleep. And no, I'm not talking of sleep as an eventual passive consequence - as you've assumed here with the child not sleeping the previous night etc., none of which I've mentioned - but as an active causative agent in blinding the mind of the child. And no, it is still the child's fault because the teacher has expected ideals to be met which are not based on the child's ability at all(the above point of discussion) - and the teacher can never be blamed because the teacher was in no way the cause of the child's inability(sleep).

Again, your problem here is not the justice of the scenario - which is absolutely maintained - rather your problem is that you don't believe sin being a causative active agent that blinds us into disobeying God. We can discuss that separately and we may and may not agree there but let's not disagree on fundamentals as these.

Since it isn't my fault, my ability to obey God, even WITH His help, then clearly, you are holding God accountable, not the individual man.

ivdavid - "Man is condemned by his own sins - he is saved by the grace of God out of His mercy and compassion. The absence of the mercy of God can never be the cause of one's condemnation because God has not caused man's sins and besides, He is not obligated to have mercy on anyone. This is like saying that the murderer was hanged because the sovereign king did not have mercy - No, the murderer will be hanged because of his committing murder and he will be set free because of the king's mercy. The king may have mercy and compassion on whom he wills and still is just - because mercy is apart from justice."
francisdesales - "This conclusion is based upon a faulty premise, that the murderer could do nothing BUT murder. The sovereign king hangs the murderer because HE judged that the man could have done otherwise..."
Just taking your above second statement - again, let's not define a man-centered world. This law has nothing to do with man's ability but with the ideal of "one must not commit murder" - this ideal being independent of man. So the sovereign king hangs the murderer because the man committed murder and transgressed that ideal - that's it. It has no bearing on his ability - as long as the king is not the cause of that murderer's inability.

Now we're discussing how this man may have life given his inevitable transgression - and I'm saying that he has hope of life only if the king has mercy on him. This does not in any way imply the converse - that his death has its cause in the lack of the king's mercy - his death is because of his transgression. His life would be because of the king's mercy - given his crime. Now I know you don't believe in the total inability of man and that is something we will discuss but given it were so, the king's having mercy on the man would be that man's only hope to have life and yet the king's not having mercy would not amount to his being unjust - would you agree?
If anything, the king having mercy would be considered unjust - which God resolves through Jesus Christ taking up our condemnation.


Continued...

 

[ivdavid]

Francisdesales,

What exactly is God judging when we stand before Him? Himself and His total work in us???

ivdavid - "We already are passed from condemnation when we were condemned by the law and were redeemed from its curse by Jesus. Through faith, we have passed from death into life. Who will condemn us on Judgement Day when Christ is our justification provided by God Himself?"
francisdesales - "You didn't answer the question."
I believe I have answered this question as precisely as the question warranted. See, you're grouping both the judging and the very final verdict/sentence as one whole act of judgement - but they're not actually so. This is absolutely critical for you to understand because this is the substance of what I'm saying. You are absolutely entitled to reject its truth - but please do so after understanding it completely.

Going back to our illustration, the murderer stands guilty of his crime. The king is now judging him guilty of the crime. Who is being judged - the murderer. What is being judged - his transgressions. But then, the king decides to have mercy upon this guilty person - obviously not based on anything the murderer has done to merit such mercy but because the king wills to. By this mercy, this person's sentence/final verdict stands - 'freed as not guilty'. What is this final verdict based on - the king's mercy. You cannot call this a 'judging' because the 'judging' already was over with the murderer being pronounced guilty by the law. When mercy enters the picture, the law is over, its judging is over, its condemnation is over. Do you see this?

Similarly, when we are redeemed from the law - by God's mercy - we who are judged as guilty by the law are now declared 'free as not guilty' by His mercy. His mercy then proceeds to sustain us after having acquitted us from condemnation of destruction. What were we judged upon - our transgressions. What was the sentence to be under the law - guilty and condemned unto destruction. But how do we have life now - by God's mercy. Is that equivalent to God judging Himself - that makes no sense, because mercy is after judging and is not 'judging' itself.

I am saying that God decides to acquit us by His mercy - through the further process of regenerating us, gifting us faith, granting us repentance and sanctifying us by working His righteousness in us - not for further judgement but as acts of grace by His mercy. These are a product of His mercy - how can they be liable for judgement then? Mercy cannot be judged - it does not conform to justice under the law of works - because it is by definition the suspension of this law that condemns and its justice.

So, I'm saying that it is man, totally depraved, who is being judged based on his works and is condemned as guilty by the law - but it doesn't end there. God has mercy upon such a man and this man is deemed to be saved - God further acting out His mercy by all the good we see in the regenerated believer in Christ. These works of good that are worked in man are not for judgement - they are post judgement, and out of mercy.


So,
francisdesales - "According to Scriptures, man is judged by how he lives his life. "
Absolutely True. This is the basis of judging man - and every judging is as per a law - here, the law stated in Lev 18:5.

francisdesales - "To those who do good, eternal life, to those who do evil, eternal death. "
I don't see this quote the same way you do - but I'll go with it as I think you see it - where you mean it in the same way as Lev 18:5 - "If a man does good, he shall live" - and by inference, "if he does evil, he shall die". This is what we've been discussing - as to whether Paul was against this itself or not.

francisdesales - "Now, if man cannot do good, then man can only do evil."
True - man can never do good in the flesh. This is what I am stating and which you do not agree to.

francisdesales - "Thus, there is no "judgment" properly understood."
I didn't quite get this. What I'm stating about judgement is this - The law states that "if a man does good, he will have eternal life and if he does evil, he will receive eternal death". Man in the flesh does evil. The judgement is to be - eternal death. None attain unto eternal life. Straightforward. After this is where mercy comes into the picture.

francisdesales - "It seems to you that God is holding men to a standard that is impossible to achieve, and thus, it is NOT just."
As I've stated in my previous post, God can hold men to an ideal standard irrespective of man's ability as long as He isn't the cause of that inability - and He would remain just.

francisdesales - "Who would state that killing someone because they cannot fly by flapping their arms is just? No one."
You make it sound like a valid point by being dramatic but this isn't an ideal anyone would hold to.
"Who would state that condemning a murderer is just when it is impossible for him to not murder?" - I guess everyone with a moral ideal as a standard to hold on to.

francisdesales - "By what means does God condemn some to hell and bring some to eternal life?"
By His mercy alone upon whom He wills based on the work of Christ on the cross alone.
By what means does a sovereign king free a guilty murderer brought before him - by his own mercy, isn't it? Where your problem lies is in even trying to work out something to deserve such mercy - but mercy can never be deserved - since it is applicable only post-judging us as guilty.

francisdesales - "The difference would be based upon God's own actions in man???"
The difference would be in God's having mercy and not having mercy. "God's own actions" are a part and product of such mercy.

francisdesales - "Nowhere does the Bible state that God is being judged based on how He acts in another man."
True. Because God's actions in man are not liable for judgement - because these are out of His mercy which is post-judging our actions in the flesh - which are found to be continually against Him.

francisdesales - "Judgment is based upon our works, whether in God or not."
Judgement is based upon our works - which ends in the verdict 'Guilty', justification is based on God's mercy and Christ's works alone - which ends in the verdict 'Freed as not guilty'. This mercy further acts out His righteousness in us - not for the sake of justification, we already having received it by the works of Christ alone on the cross - rather to show forth His power and grace towards us, His people, in enabling us to fulfill the spiritual intent of the law.

Continued....

 

[ivdavid]

Francisdesales,

francisdesales - "Thus, when one is condemned, it is because God did not provide that man with any faith, the ability to obey the commandments???"
We've got to be very specific in language. When one is condemned, it is because of his own sins. His condemnation is however evidential of God not having mercy upon him but God's absence of mercy in no way was the cause of that man's condemnation.
Secondly, both of us don't mean "faith" in the same way. Faith to me is relying completely on God's works and zero reliance on our own abilities in the flesh. What you state amounts to justification by faith in God AND faith in ourselves among other causative factors that you may hold.
Thirdly, it is misleading to say that God did not give man the ability to obey His commandments - I'd say that sin enslaved man and impaired his ability in the flesh. And I'm not saying God restores this ability in the flesh - no, God regenerates man into being born in the spirit - where He works out His righteousness in man, therein we say man now obeys God in the spirit. God shows effectively how the flesh profits nothing but that the Spirit is life.

francisdesales - "If one is accorded eternal life, it is God who provided that man with faith."
This is correct. When one receives life, God has causatively given it out of His mercy.

francisdesales - "Thus, you are judging God, are you not??? Man's response is taken out of the equation here, so what is left is God. So when Hitler stands before God, it is God's fault for not providing faith to Hitler."
How can it be God's fault for not being merciful - He is not obligated in the first place by any sense of justice to be merciful to anybody - Because no law can ever judge over mercy, - mercy being the very suspension of law. He is merciful because He wills to be so. And His absence of mercy is not the cause of Hitler's condemnation if we so choose to assume that Hitler died a sinner and not a saint - Hitler's own transgressions are the cause of his condemnation.
This is important - do you realize that mercy requires no convincing reason from the person being judged - rather depends wholly on the person judging.

francisdesales - "Hitler has no inherent ability to obey God, so any lack of it is God's fault? Is that your contention?"
Refer above to what I've stated about Ideals of the law being independent of man's ability. And it can never be God's fault because He is not the cause of such inability.

francisdesales - "That means that if we analyze a man's obedience to the Law and find it lacking, would we blame God? In your case, yes, we would, since we cannot expect man to obey the law without God."
W.r.t. our being able to obey, our reliance is on God's mercy - which cannot be demanded as some basic right we are entitled to. So, God can never be blamed for His not having mercy.

You deny cooperation, which is a biblical concept. By denying its existence leads to God judging Himself.

As you can see from what I've written, when I deny that any part of our good works is out of our cooperation - therein saying God does all good in us - I am saying that it is all out of His mercy - post-judging us. This in no way leads to God judging Himself over His own mercy - mercy not being liable to come under any judgement.

There is no need to apply fallen man's state to the regenerated

Are you saying that the regenerated do not experience the influences of the flesh? Are you also saying that the flesh is no longer evil because of sin in it? If not, then the fallen man's state is still as it is in the regenerated - what's changed is that this man's soul has been born again in the spirit - while it was in the flesh until that point of regeneration.

Because we are regenerated, we can cooperate with God's grace.
Regeneration takes place when we have committed to following our Lord.

Aren't you being contradictory in your beliefs on this? If regeneration needs to take place for us to cooperate with God's grace, how are we to cooperate in committing to following the Lord for such regeneration itself to take place? Why must man always be the final deciding factor - isn't that a man-centric worldview?

This preservation depends upon man's cooperation. Otherwise, the command to "persevere to the end" is another pointless command. Is this command given to God???

I'll take this to encompass the question - "why must God give commandments to man if anyway man cannot keep them in the least cooperative bit?"
You think that the purpose of the commandments is only for man to obey them in a causative way. And when I say that man by the flesh can never obey them, the purpose seems defeated.
But what if the purpose was for increasing the knowledge of God and His nature in man? What if the purpose was for revealing the enslaving nature of sin in man's flesh? Then it's purposes are being served in the Christian even when man's cooperation is denied.

When one accepts God's grace and the other doesn't, it is obvious that they are not the same - but what caused the difference? Is it some inherent goodness in man?

francisdesales - "We were made in the image and likeness of God, correct?"
Let's not get into a never-ending spiral here. If all of us are made in the image and likeness of God equally, and yet we differ in our responses to God's grace, there must be some other differentiating good in us with which one exercises the inherent goodness that God placed within all of us equally while another doesn't - where did that differentiating goodness come from, if not from God? Then what happens to the statement - "All good is from God alone"?

Of course man can keep God's commandments (with God), otherwise, the "commandments" are pointless guidelines without any expectation of ever being met.

There is no expectation of ever keeping the commandments in the flesh - it can be expected only in the spirit by God's working His righteousness in us.

Sin in man's flesh deceives man into never keeping God's commandments.
Outside of the Psalms (or Paul citing them), does the Bible tell us unequivocally that man CANNOT obey the commandments?

This is a chief point that seems to dictate many of our other beliefs. But our posts are already covering many topics and are getting to be long and unwieldy. Let's finish discussing certain points and then come to this - if it's okay with you. My references for discussion would start with Romans 7, 8:1-14 .

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales,

...

Ivdavid,

I cannot hope to answer all of these questions, many of which seem to be repetitious. I will not be able to reply for several days, maybe by the weekend, so I ask you, during that time, to compile a more succinct post (singular) that addresses what you feel is pertinent to our conversation. Feel free to cut and paste, but as-is, I think we are going too long in our responses to make conversation effective using this medium.

Regards,

 

[ivdavid]

Francisdesales,

You're right - we need to break it up into smaller parts for discussion. You could treat each of the sections under a 'quote' in posts#291,#292 as a single point for discussion and respond at your convenience to any one of them. We could complete that single point before heading on to other points or perhaps, our discussion itself would effectively lead us across all other points eventually.