This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
But do read Rom. 2:13 (even see verse 14-15) or Rom. 13 that covers only one table of stone, that God alone penned, the second ones duty to man. 
What seems clear to you is not clear to me - I'd request you to factor in these limitations into our discussion here. Hence the need for clarification - and usually it's got to do with what we mean by a word. When you say that the law doesn't justify us AND in the same breath say we could be considered righteous by obedience to it - it only seems like a contradiction to me. Please try and see it from my perspective to help resolve my conflict.
He did keep the law as the flesh saw it but when he saw the law as being spiritual after his regeneration, he died by it - because he saw himself condemned(=not considered righteous) by it. How can one keep the law and still be condemned - it goes against Lev 18:5. Or are we not looking at the same thing here?
We'll have to finish discussing the previous point on the Law to come to this. I see Lev 18:5 given by God and yet no man is able to receive life by it. How can I then conclude that God commanding something implies we have the ability to do it? I mean, Rom 7:14 and Rom 8:7 only seem to imply that the unregenerate man can never keep God's Law. Isn't that the very purpose - to reveal God's will through a Law that none can keep in order to show the sinfulness of sin in them that prevents them from doing so - and in turn pointing them to Christ who works in them what they themselves ought to and cannot, only because of His grace and mercy.
Agreed. Only, when I refer to 'grace alone' - I count it also as God's grace in preparing the ground to be good.
I believe the Bible is a sufficient source to give us the knowledge of God - but I'm not against hearing what other sources have to elaborate on this - I'd test what they say with Scripture and if it isn't contradicted, I'd accept it gladly.
I never implied otherwise - I don't believe God works in me as if my sentience does not matter. I've elaborated further in the following points.
I would never consider proof texting as having any validity in a discussion. I am not trying to prove anything here - and I do agree that there are many verses that make men operative.
It is out of this intent that I brought up Ezekiel 36. I reconcile the operations of man as being wrought by the superseding operation of God - God is not dependent on man's cooperation for His working. And yet, He does not nullify the working of man - He just sets the stage right to induce man to work out what God wants him to work out. For eg: man does not seek God by himself. God gives him a new heart (God's act, in which man plays no role), and with this new heart, man willingly wants to seek God(man's act). Man still is conscious of what he does but that operation has been influenced by God to execute His own operation. If I had the desire to do a good deed and I had the mind to tell me to do it - I would end up doing it. So when our desires are the will of God wrought by the Spirit and we have the mind of Christ, what cooperating role are we in, apart from being a conscious recipient of grace.
I believe most parts of this. This implies that those who reject God's grace could not see the complete attractive power in it - Because of sin hardening their hearts and the devil blinding their minds. I go further and believe that God's grace reaches out further to nullify these obstacles and shines forth as that irresistible attraction - that moves man, (through but not by, his own operation) to obey God.
I am quite hesitant to discuss predestination here, not because of the doctrine itself, but because of how we end up applying it. With respect to man, it makes more sense looking back, never looking forward.
This is not a denial of the importance of good works in relation to justification. It is a denial that the works of the Jewish Law of Moses justify.
I believe this analysis is bang-on correct and I only wish other readers would objectively explore how seeing "the law" in this way makes so much sense in context that there is little doubt that this is at the heart of what Paul is referring to by the term "law".
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.