Is belief "works"?

[Butch5]

I think from what you've written so far, you see it this way -
1) belief = a set of facts, held as true.
2) works = any Act of obedience
3) alive faith = belief + works
4) dead faith = belief only and no works
5) dead faith = existent but not alive faith

6) alive faith is required for justification
and 7) works are required for alive faith [from (3)]
hence 8) works are required for justification as per James 2

And hence you argue against the "faith only, without works" camp as
9) alive faith - works = dead faith [from (3)]
10) dead faith cannot generate works to result in alive faith ie (7)
hence 11) works are independently required for "alive faith"

and 12) dead faith does not justify
thereby 13) faith only without works cannot justify.
14) Implying works are independently necessary for justification. [From (6) and (11)]

Have I gotten any of the above wrong? Actually, my plant-flower analogy was solely to address this argument of yours - but you feel it hasn't been sufficiently dealt with. I shall attempt to present my argument here -

1) belief = a set of facts, held as true.
2) works = any Act of obedience
3) alive faith = belief in the sufficiency of someone/something to fulfill what they've promised or what's expected of them, given their nature/abilities.
4) dead faith = lack of such belief
5) dead faith = non-existent faith [from (4)]

6) alive faith is required for justification
7) alive faith naturally brings forth/produces works and consequentially, where there are no works, there is no existence of alive faith ie faith is dead.
hence 8) works are required for justification as much as the faith that produces such works are required - given (7).

A common cause can be solely attributed, instead of including all that arise subsequently from it.
Therefore, faith alone can be said to be required for justification - instead of including the works too, that anyway necessarily arise from such faith. This is the position of the "faith only" camp - where they too exclude works of the law, not the works that arise out of such faith.

From the above, we seem to mainly differ on points (3),(5) and (7) - and since point (5) is dependent on (3), I'd boil it down to just (3) - what Scripture refers to as faith and (7) - does faith produce works or are they independently done.



I think the analogy works, given the aforementioned presupposition.


It's not a flaw in my argument - it is actually a part of my argument, contained as a presupposition. So, I suppose the argument itself is consistent - If I'm able to prove the presupposition. [The earlier point (7)]


Your concept of an existent dead faith arises out of your definition of faith in point (3) - you apply James 2:17 to your point (3), and you still are left with 'belief' as part of what makes up "faith" - hence, the need to uphold faith's existence even when there are no works. But faith according to my points (3) and (7) - is strictly mapped to its corresponding works and one's existence implies the other's existence too, likewise with their non-existence.

Faith is a particular form of believing - it is an act of believing in the sufficiency of a causal agent to fulfill an expected or promised task. To include works in the definition of faith itself, requires some elaboration from your side. Works of faith indeed brings to completion or fulfillment the faith that has borne it - but that doesn't make works a part of faith itself.

As to how faith produces works, could you go through the part on strict mapping between faith and works that I'd written in the first post of our discussion here. I'd also like you to consider the following statements that I want the reader to believe -
a) Any man who is stranded in the midst of the ocean, will struggle to stay afloat.
b) You are stranded in the midst of the ocean now.

One could believe the first statement and not need to Do anything about it. Whereas if one says he believes the second statement, he must necessarily flap about, trying to stay afloat. And if he doesn't Do so, it's evident that he didn't believe the second statement at all - that his claims to believing it are false and effectively dead without the acts that such a belief is supposed to produce. This is the sense in which I state that faith must necessarily result in works of such faith - as also seen in Abraham's works and in Rahab's works.

Hi ivdavid,

I understand your position, I just don't think it sufficiently addresses the text of James 2. Let me first say that I agree with your definition of faith, that it requires trust in someone or thing, that is the definition of Pisteuo. I don't necessarily believe that dead faith exists but was using the term as an example. Belief alone is not faith, I was simply using it that way to make the point as I believe that is how James was using it. Here what I see as flaw in your argument. If faith without works is dead, it cannot produce anything at all, it's dead. According to James it must have works in order to be alive. It must be alive before it can produce anything, thus works "must" precede a living faith. If they precede any production from the faith they themselves cannot be the product of that faith. It would be equivalent to me saying my father is the product of my mother and my father, it simply can't be. As I see it the entire argument boils down to this point. This is just purely logical, I don't see anyway to get around this issue. We can discuss the definition of faith, belief, works, etc. We can discuss different scenarios etc. however, I think it's always going to come back to this point. If you can see some way to logically work around this issue I'm all ears.

 

[Butch5]

Yes. But did you have a look at the usage 3 (Lev 18:5 law) too - as used contextually in Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12? The outward ordinances of the Mosaic Law that you refer to, are contained as a necessary subset of the Lev 18:5 law. So while you are correct in referring to these outward ordinances as the law - limiting only them to be the law(as referred to by Paul) would not reconcile his usage of it in Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12.

It's quite understandable that Paul refers mainly to circumcision and other outward ordinances whenever he wants to specifically refer to the works of the law - given the fact that these outward ordinances are the most easy to observe and comment upon - and also the fact that these are indisputably works by the flesh while obedience to the commandments to not steal or murder could be a work by the flesh or by the Spirit. It makes sense that Paul would choose the most unambiguous of works to make his point that works by the flesh can never justify(Gal 3:2-3).

Hi ivdavid,

I would like to ask how familiar you are with the issue of the Judaizers so as to get an idea of where you're thinking is on this issue. I am aware of the Law in the passages you've mentioned. This goes to the issue that Paul was dealing with in his day. I've shown the passages from Acts 15 showing that certain Jews were teaching the Gentile Christians that it was necessary to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. In order to understand Paul's argument we need to look at what was being taught to these Gentiles. I think we can surmise that these Jews were not teaching the Gentiles that they needed to love their neighbor and care for widows and children. Jesus gives us some insight into the teachings of the day.

KJV Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Mat 23:23 KJV)

38 And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,
39 And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:
40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.
41 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living. (Mar 12:38-44 KJV)



We can see that it was the outward appearances that they were concerned with. I contend that this is what was being taught to the Gentiles as necessary to be saved, and that it was this that Paul is arguing against. I believe that's Paul says no one is justified by the "works" of the Law. He didn't no one was justified by the Law, but rather, no one is justified by the works of the Law. By the works of the Law I mean circumcision, ritual washings, clean and unclean foods, and things along this line.

 

[savedbygrace57]

b5

Correct, that's why God credits one's faith as righteousness.

Then that means one has their own Righteosness and not the Righteousness of Jesus Christ. I posted on that here:

Not having mine own righteousness !


Phil 3:9

9 And
be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but
that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by
faith:

Paul here is stating that he be not found of God having his own
righteousness which is of the Law !

Now many false teachers teach,
because of ignorance of God, that God counts a man's own faith as his
Righteousness because of their perversion of Rom 4:3,9

3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto
him for righteousness.


9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the
circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith
was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

These perverter's insist
without considering no alternatives, that by Abraham's subjective act of faith
or believing, that God because of that reckons him Righteous based upon that
act ! Now if this is true, Abraham is found having his own righteousness,
produced by his own act or deed !

This however is opposed to Phil
3:9
because faith as our act, as done by us, is obedience to the Law
of God Matt 23:23

23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and
anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law,
judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not
to leave the other undone.

So the conclusion is very simple and quite
reasonable, if one is made righteous or justified by their own faith, then they
are made righteous by their doing the Law of God, and that is scriptural
!

For by deeds of the Law, none are Justified before God, which Faith is
! Rom 3:20

Therefore by the deeds of the law
there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the
knowledge of sin.

Again, if this is true, and we still believe that one
is Justified in God's sight by their faith, or act of believing,then they claim
being Justified by the deeds of the Law that should have been done Matt 23:23

23 Woe unto you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have
omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and
faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other
undone.

Not having mine own righteousness ! cont

The Righteousness that the
True Believer has, and that was revealed to them by the Gospel Rom 1:16-17, that Righteousness is Christ Himself 1 Cor 1:30

30 But of him are ye in Christ
Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and
sanctification, and redemption:

Note: Christ as our Righteousness before
God is not something that the Elect know by nature, it must be revealed to them
by the Gospel !

And so Our Righteousness which is our Life is in Heaven
with Christ Col 3:4

4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also
appear with him in glory.


Also their Inheritance is there 1 Pet 1:3-4

3 Blessed be the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us
again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead,

4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that
fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,


And this Hope
they heard in the Gospel Col 1:5

5 For
the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard
before in the word of the truth of the gospel;


Now a
Righteousness of God that belongs to us, and the Eternal Inheritance, all in
Heaven belongs to all for whom Christ died for, and it is made known to them
via the Gospel, and so they believe the Truth of the Gospel of their Salvation
Eph 1:1-14,18; Now this is all of
God's Own Sovereign doing, all the Riches of His Grace towards His Chosen in
Christ Eph 1:4 !

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=36931&p=748994&highlight=#post748994

 

[Butch5]

I am trying to understand yourposition here. I hope that we both concur on the fact that in Gen 15:6 -Abraham's believing in God was the "it" that was imputed unto him forrighteousness. Where does Gen 15:6 seem to even indirectly include any earlierobedience as part of this believing and consequent justification? I do notinsist that every doctrine must be explicitly stated everywhere for it to betrue, but where is the implicit connection at least between Abraham's obediencein Gen 12 and Abraham's believing in Gen 15?

Well, let’s go back to you own analogy of the man in theocean. You said, if he does noting it proves he doesn’t believe. God toldAbraham to leave his father’s house and go to the land that God would show him.If Abraham believes he’ll go, if not he won’t. We know he went, thus hebelieved God. This all happened before he was declared righteous in Genesis 15. By the time we get to Genesis 15 Abrahamhas already believed and obeyed God.

In Genesis 12 God said to Abraham,

KJV Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thycountry, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that Iwill shew thee:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3 And I will bless them that blessthee, and curse him that curseth thee: and inthee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

(Gen 12:1-3 KJV)

7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land:and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him. (Gen 12:7KJV)

He said told Abraham to go to theland that God would show him and He would make him a great nation and all thefamilies of the earth would be blessed. We can see how God would fulfill thispromise in Genesis 15

3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed:and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

4 And, behold, the word of the LORDcame unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shallcome forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

5 And he brought him forth abroad,and said, Look now toward heaven, andtell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shallthy seed be.

6 And he believed in the LORD; andhe counted it to him for righteousness. (Gen 15:3-6 KJV)

I think it’s evident that there wasa lot of obedience prior to his being deemed righteous.

James also quotes Genesis 15 when hedeclares that Abraham was justified by works.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without worksis dead?

21 Was not Abraham our fatherjustified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wroughtwith his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, andit was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend ofGod.

24 Ye see then how that by works aman is justified, and not by faith only.

(Jam 2:20-24 KJV)

So James saw obedience in thedeclaration that Abraham was counted righteous. This passage also says thatworks make faith complete. Without works faith is incomplete. It also shows whythis discussion should not even exist. He plainly states that man is not justified by faith alone.

Besides, Abraham's works of obedience in Gen 12 are themselves said tobe by faith(Heb 11:8-9) - am I to infer from what's given that faith precedesworks or am I to infer from what's not given that there were preceding worksbefore Gen 12 that led to Abraham's faith in Gen 12?

Yes, they are, however, look how Paul defines faith in thisinstance.

Now faith is the substance of thingshoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Heb 11:1 KJV)

So, we know exactly how he is usingthe term.

Yes exactly, just as the injection induces my sleep or my sweat or myalleviation of temperature or whatever else that's required - faith too in likemanner "induces" works. I can't quite see why that's a problem in my conclusion.

As I see it, you believe that works are produced by faith,correct? I don’t, I believe that works are a part of faith. Above you said, “amI to infer from what's given that faith precedes works”. This leads me tobelieve that you understand faith existing apart from works, I don’t.

As to whether God gives faith or not, I derived it primarily from Eph2:8. Perhaps you have a different understanding on that. And even if I were toconcede everyone having the ability to have faith if they chose, I'dargue that not everyone has the ability to Choose to do so(Rom 7:15).

I don’t think the argument that faith is the gift inEpehsians 2:8 can stand up grammatically. I don’t think the Greek will allowthat and I think Salvation is the subject of the sentence not faith. I don’tthink Romans 7 would support the idea that one cannot choose to have faith, butthat’s another thread.

How would you credit man's effectual working according to Php 2:13? I donot exclude man out of God's working - for God works in man and causes him tobring forth good works. While the works are effected out of man alone and inthat sense could be called his works - they are caused by God and hence are notcredited to man. Consider this as the corresponding flips side of Rom 7:17.

It seems to me that your understanding of the Philippians 2runs contrary to the context of the passage. If it God doing the works why isPaul admonishing his readers to do those things? Regarding Romans 7 I thinkthat would derail the thread. To get into that would take a bit of time andexplanation. I don’t see it as a problem though.

Lev 18:5 is the imperative command from God to man - and no created man inthe flesh has kept it, neither can he(Gal 3:10,Rom 8:7). Now, we are God'sworkmanship, regenerated and created in Christ unto good works that He causesus to walk in(Eph 2:10, Eze 36:26-27).

When you say no man can keep them I am not sure to what degreeyou are referring. However, we do have to consider Luke’s words.

5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, acertain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was ofthe daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

6 And they were both righteousbefore God, walking in all thecommandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. (Luk 1:5-6 KJV)

I’m not so sure that the passagefrom Eze 36 can be applied. Verse 28 seems to indicate that it is either toIsrael or for a later time.

28 And ye shalldwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people,and I will be your God. (Eze 36:28 KJV)

Any and every good work. Giving alms to the poor, not committingadultery, giving your coat when sued for your shirt etc.

Is it your contention that God makes Christians do these? If that is the case it would appear to me that there are not many Christians in the world. Now, I realize that is not evidence to the contrary but is simply anobservation, however, it is telling. But, I’m still not certain that God forces Christians to do these as I don’t think the above passages require that.

 

[mdougie]

Belief is works in that one has to work at maintaining belief. At least I do. It didn't come miraculously nor do I find that it stays miraculously. Also, one isn't present with out the other. If one has faith it is evident by works and conversely I have met no one who consistently does good works with out having faith.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Belief is works in that one has to work at maintaining belief. At least I do. It didn't come miraculously nor do I find that it stays miraculously. Also, one isn't present with out the other. If one has faith it is evident by works and conversely I have met no one who consistently does good works with out having faith.

Faith is an action, thats why Paul says This 1 Tim 6:12

Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Originally Posted by Jethro Bodine
If you think James is using 'justified' in the exact same way Paul uses it then you, too, have no choice but to believe that James is saying we are justified by works of the law, for he uses examples of upholding the law to demonstrate the faith that is alive and able to save.

How so?

Here's one example:

14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

(James 2: NIV1984)


I think this encapsulates his whole 'faith with out deeds' argument very well. As we see, keeping the law found in Deuteronomy 15:7-8 is what James says is an action that shows faith to be alive and able to save. IOW, this example of law keeping (satisfied through the new way of the Spirit, of course) is a work that justifies a man. Now, you can either insist that 'justified' as James uses it in his teaching means to MAKE one righteous as Paul uses that word, or you can see right from the passage that he means it in it's other meaning which is to SHOW one to be righteous ("I will show you my faith by what I do" vs.18). If you choose the former then you are setting up the very contradiction between Paul and James that we in the church insist can not possibly be there. But if you choose the latter you reconcile the two quite comfortably.

This is just one example of works of the law that James uses to illustrate his 'faith without deeds', or 'faith alone' argument and how a man is justified by what he does.

 

[Davies]

Hi Davies,

What I meant was the things I do are what is going to be declared righteous or unrighteous. I did say we are not righteous, but rather we are counted as righteous based on belief in Christ and our obedience. Sorry for the confusion.

Hi Butch5,

I'm trying to be careful with my words, Butch5, so I hope you will take what I say in the spirit of at least trying to understand your position. You say, "...things I do are what is going to be declared righteous or unrighteous, " and, "I did say we are not righteous." If as you say, "we are counted as righteous based on our belief in Christ and our obedience," how can you say that when you claim you are not righteous by disobedience?

This is where the confusion lies. This is what I can say: I can say I'm a sinner, an unrighteous man by what I have believed and done. I am no longer able to attain to the legal status of perfection, righteousness, justified by my own deeds. If I hold to my own deeds to be justified, I stand by my righteousness and unrighteousness, and God would judge me accordingly. But now that my faith is in Jesus, I will stand in His righteousness which is perfect, righteous, and able to justify the sinner because he paid for my sin and the whole world. I do not pay for my sin. Because His life and death was found acceptable to the Father, it is His righteousness that justifies. Faith is the means by which God works in a person to acquire the gifts of His righteousness and eternal life, Romans 5:17. If we say His righteousness is a gift, then any work we do for it would, whether faith or obedience, be works righteous faith and will not justify (attain a legal status of right standing with God) and render the gift wages, merited by us. When you say, "we are counted as righteous on belief in Christ and our obedience," I see justification in faith in Jesus and sanctification in our obedience. I see these two as different. To cover all the bases, we can't take credit for our faith as well, because Jesus is the author of our faith, Hebrews 12:2.

Ephesians 2:10

New King James Version (NKJV)

10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.


We are created in Jesus for good works, not because of our good works.


- Davies

 

[Davies]

Here's one example:

14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

(James 2: NIV1984)


I think this encapsulates his whole 'faith with out deeds' argument very well. As we see, keeping the law found in Deuteronomy 15:7-8 is what James says is an action that shows faith to be alive and able to save. IOW, this example of law keeping (satisfied through the new way of the Spirit, of course) is a work that justifies a man. Now, you can either insist that 'justified' as James uses it in his teaching means to MAKE one righteous as Paul uses that word, or you can see right from the passage that he means it in it's other meaning which is to SHOW one to be righteous ("I will show you my faith by what I do" vs.18). If you choose the former then you are setting up the very contradiction between Paul and James that we in the church insist can not possibly be there. But if you choose the latter you reconcile the two quite comfortably.

This is just one example of works of the law that James uses to illustrate his 'faith without deeds', or 'faith alone' argument and how a man is justified by what he does.

Jethro,

This was an excellent post. I like it. I like it a lot.

- Davies

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch5,

I'm trying to be careful with my words, Butch5, so I hope you will take what I say in the spirit of at least trying to understand your position. You say, "...things I do are what is going to be declared righteous or unrighteous, " and, "I did say we are not righteous." If as you say, "we are counted as righteous based on our belief in Christ and our obedience," how can you say that when you claim you are not righteous by disobedience?

This is where the confusion lies. This is what I can say: I can say I'm a sinner, an unrighteous man by what I have believed and done. I am no longer able to attain to the legal status of perfection, righteousness, justified by my own deeds. If I hold to my own deeds to be justified, I stand by my righteousness and unrighteousness, and God would judge me accordingly. But now that my faith is in Jesus, I will stand in His righteousness which is perfect, righteous, and able to justify the sinner because he paid for my sin and the whole world. I do not pay for my sin. Because His life and death was found acceptable to the Father, it is His righteousness that justifies. Faith is the means by which God works in a person to acquire the gifts of His righteousness and eternal life, Romans 5:17. If we say His righteousness is a gift, then any work we do for it would, whether faith or obedience, be works righteous faith and will not justify (attain a legal status of right standing with God) and render the gift wages, merited by us. When you say, "we are counted as righteous on belief in Christ and our obedience," I see justification in faith in Jesus and sanctification in our obedience. I see these two as different. To cover all the bases, we can't take credit for our faith as well, because Jesus is the author of our faith, Hebrews 12:2.

Ephesians 2:10

New King James Version (NKJV)

10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.


We are created in Jesus for good works, not because of our good works.


- Davies

Hi Davies,

Please don't take anything I say here as an offense if it seems that way. I don't mean to offend. I used to believe much of what you stated above. For me to explain the changes would take quite a bit of time. As I stated earlier, I don't find anything in Scripture that teaches Christ's righteousness being applied to Christians. When I began being taught contradicting teachings on the same subject from churches, I realized quickly that they could not both be right. As such I began my own investigation to see what the Scriptures said. In looking around I came across a pastor who made a point that made perfect sense to me. By trade that pastor was a title attorney. He explained that in his profession he was instructed to read title deeds and determine what they said. In this determination he was not allowed to do anything more than determine what the document actually said. He couldn't say, I think the author meant this or that, He wasn't allowed to give his opinion, and he wasn't allowed to add to or take away from the document. He went on to explain that it occurred to him that he should approach the Scriptures the same way. As I said, that made perfect sense to me. So, I began to look at the actual words on the page. I put aside, as best I could, my presuppositions and just looked at the words on the page. For instance, many claim one is justified by faith alone. However, Paul never says those words. Therefore I don't see that doctrine in Paul's teaching. Then I look at James' words and I see that he says a man is justified by works and not faith alone. So, I have in actual print an apostle saying a man is justified by faith, a man is justified by works, and a man is not justified by faith alone. Now, none of this is inference, but rather the actual words on the page. I don't have to say well, I think Paul meant this or James meant that, I have actual Scripture that plainly states my belief that faith and works, and not faith alone, justify a man.

Having taken this approach and looking at historical background information has shown me that much of what is taught in the Church today is simply not Christian. I'm not saying this to knock anyone's doctrine or belief, but rather to say that so much of what is believed today is based solely on inference and is not explicitly stated in Scripture. That's not to say that all inference is wrong, it's not, however, it is still an inference and not an explicit statement. Inferences can be wrong. One can look at facts and draw and incorrect or untrue conclusion based on true facts. For instance, It's cloudy outside and the grass is wet. I see those two facts and conclude that it has rained. That is a logical inference, however, it may or may not be true. It could be that it didn't rain but rather the sprinkler turned on and wet the grass. So, just because we start out with two true facts, it doesn't necessitate that our conclusion will be true. I think this is one of the big problems with making inferences from Scripture, especially since we're 2000 years removed.

So you see, I try very hard not to use inferences whenever possible in forming doctrine. If an inference is involved in the doctrine I will only consider it a possibility and not a certainty.

As I said, I used to hold many of the same positions you've mentioned, however, over time and study of the Scriptures I've found that many of them are not stated in Scripture but rather are inferences. And, as I've pointed out above many times I have found clear statements to the contrary as with the works issue.

 

[Butch5]

Here's one example:

14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

(James 2: NIV1984)


I think this encapsulates his whole 'faith with out deeds' argument very well. As we see, keeping the law found in Deuteronomy 15:7-8 is what James says is an action that shows faith to be alive and able to save. IOW, this example of law keeping (satisfied through the new way of the Spirit, of course) is a work that justifies a man. Now, you can either insist that 'justified' as James uses it in his teaching means to MAKE one righteous as Paul uses that word, or you can see right from the passage that he means it in it's other meaning which is to SHOW one to be righteous ("I will show you my faith by what I do" vs.18). If you choose the former then you are setting up the very contradiction between Paul and James that we in the church insist can not possibly be there. But if you choose the latter you reconcile the two quite comfortably.

This is just one example of works of the law that James uses to illustrate his 'faith without deeds', or 'faith alone' argument and how a man is justified by what he does.

Hi Jethro,

I don't see any contradiction in what I said because I believe Paul is talking about the works of the Law, not the Law itself. I've covered that is post 441. I believe it is the position that you hold that actually has the problem with the contradiction. Not just between Paul and James, but also between Paul's own words. How do you reconcile Ephesians 2:8 with Romans 2:5-10?

 

[ivdavid]

In your example above, did the King cause/force the men to be murderers against their will or did they choose to murderers of their own choice? They chose to be murderers of their own choice and therefore culpable for their own actions.

This is what I believe happens here too. And yet, according to the analogy, the king was 100% in control over whether each murderer lived or died - with them having no choice in the matter, after their guilt was determined. Would you then accept this conclusion for us too with respect to God - where each of us are culpable for our own actions that we chose to do ourselves - are hence found guilty unto condemnation - and are in a position where God has 100% control over whether we live or die, we having no choice in the matter, our guilt having been determined?

Yet some here have God causing/forcing men to be sinners against their will....

Does God cause/force men to be sinners or is that enslavement caused solely by sin in the flesh(Rom 7:13,20)?

If God forces one to obey who may not want to obey, then God is forcing obedience upon him.

Let me put it this way - God does not cause anyone to obey against his will. Whenever God works in man, He effects man to will and do according to His good pleasure(Php 2:13)

But consider the unregenerate man in the flesh - he is not subject to the Law of God, neither can he be(Rom 8:7). What would the response of his hardened heart be if God were to wait for his permission to effect His ordained good works in him - which is precisely why this hardened heart is replaced with a new heart and a renewed spirit, by which regenerated man in the spirit is able to love God and be caused willingly to walk in His ways(Eze 36:26-27).

Yes, one is condemned because of HIS OWN TRANSGRESSION THAT HE OF HIS OWN WILL CHOSE TO COMMIT.

Which is far different from one being a transgressor because God made/forced him to be a transgressor from birth unto death with that person never having any choice in being obedient during his life for God locked him, forced him into disobedience.

A person never having any choice is far different from a person always having the choice given by God and never making it, wouldn't you say? Then we'd have a person who is Disobedient from Birth, BECAUSE of his own transgressions that he of his own will chose to commit.

So is a man a sinner as a result of his own choosing to disobey by committing sins
or
is man a sinner for God predetermined him before the world began to be a sinner and therefore God causes/forced him into a position where he can never be able to choose to believe/obey?

If your question is asking what the Cause is for man in the flesh to be condemned a sinner ie a transgressor of God's law - it is definitely his own choosing to disobey. But neither can man in the flesh ever be subject to the law of God - and this is not caused/forced by God, it's forced by sin in the flesh - and we know God is not the cause of sin in the flesh.

If God alone 100% determines who will and who will not have faith and man has no choice or control over this issue, then those that are faithless and lost is God's culpability. Again, how is it my fault if the only way I can have faith is if God gives it to me yet God does not give it to me?

Let's split man's life into 3 parts for our understanding.

Part 1 : Man is judged guilty because of his own choosing to disobey.
God commands man to obey His law. Man disobeys. Man is found guilty here. Further, God commands man to repent and believe in Him for justification from the above guilt. Man still disobeys. Man is found all the more guilty, having disobeyed God's provision to be redeemed from the earlier condemnation of the law.

Part 2 : Man before the Sovereign King for condemnation or mercy.
Having determined man's guilt because of his own acts of disobedience, God now is in the position of the sovereign king - who can either reserve the just condemnation to guilty man Or can show mercy upon this guilty man. God has mercy upon whom He wills.

Part 3 : God's grace working out in those He has had mercy upon.
Having willed to show mercy upon man, God, by grace, now works within such a man to fulfill all His requirements - repentance, faith, loving obedience and all else that He has ordained in His workmanship, from regeneration through sanctification.

So, faith as a criteria for justification serves 2 purposes, depending on which part it is being used in. Under Part 1 of determining guilt, it is set forth as a Conditional criteria which must be satisfied by man in the flesh - to indisputably show to man the sinfulness of sin in the flesh and the fact that such flesh is in enmity against God. Under the third part of God's grace working in man, faith is an evidential criteria that indisputably shows that these are the workmanship of God.

Hence, to answer your question, God is not at fault for man's own choosing to not have faith in God under part 1. And God is not at fault for not giving faith by grace to those who are not His workmanship under part 3 - since such efficacious grace proceeds forth to only those He has mercy upon And He has mercy upon whom He wills.

 

[Davies]

since such efficacious grace proceeds forth to only those He has mercy upon And He has mercy upon whom He wills.

Hi ivdavid,

You explained this better than I have, excellent post. I must admit that I have struggled over the 'God will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy' passages. The reason being, the Bible tells us that God desires all men to come to repentance. To concede such a vulnerability when it pertains to eternal life and death is frightening, especially in the light of our sins. I think this shows the preciousness of Jesus' righteousness, His life and death and the importance of putting our faith in Him. What is a person to conclude if God does not grant faith to a person? What God does is right, and His choice is His own.

- Davies

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch5,

I'm trying to be careful with my words, Butch5, so I hope you will take what I say in the spirit of at least trying to understand your position. You say, "...things I do are what is going to be declared righteous or unrighteous, " and, "I did say we are not righteous." If as you say, "we are counted as righteous based on our belief in Christ and our obedience," how can you say that when you claim you are not righteous by disobedience?

This is where the confusion lies. This is what I can say: I can say I'm a sinner, an unrighteous man by what I have believed and done. I am no longer able to attain to the legal status of perfection, righteousness, justified by my own deeds. If I hold to my own deeds to be justified, I stand by my righteousness and unrighteousness, and God would judge me accordingly. But now that my faith is in Jesus, I will stand in His righteousness which is perfect, righteous, and able to justify the sinner because he paid for my sin and the whole world. I do not pay for my sin. Because His life and death was found acceptable to the Father, it is His righteousness that justifies. Faith is the means by which God works in a person to acquire the gifts of His righteousness and eternal life, Romans 5:17. If we say His righteousness is a gift, then any work we do for it would, whether faith or obedience, be works righteous faith and will not justify (attain a legal status of right standing with God) and render the gift wages, merited by us. When you say, "we are counted as righteous on belief in Christ and our obedience," I see justification in faith in Jesus and sanctification in our obedience. I see these two as different. To cover all the bases, we can't take credit for our faith as well, because Jesus is the author of our faith, Hebrews 12:2.

Ephesians 2:10

New King James Version (NKJV)

10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.


We are created in Jesus for good works, not because of our good works.


- Davies

Hi Davies,

I'm not sure what you're asking in the first paragraph can you restate it? I would like to clarify what I think may be a cause of confusion. I believe that Paul was dealing with an issue specific to his day, that being the Jews insistence on the observance of the ordinances of the Law of Moses. For instance, when he says "not seeking my own righteousness which is of the Law" I don't believe he speaking of feeding the poor and caring fro widows. I believe he's speaking of being circumcised, ritual washings, and the like. There is a moral aspect of the Law and a physical one, I believe Paul is addressing the physical aspect. The Jew thought he was righteous before God by being circumcised, doing ritual washings etc. and Paul argues he's not. I don't believe the moral aspects of the Law enter into Paul's argument and I believe it is these moral aspects the will be counted as righteousness to those who do them. I hope that helps explain it better.

You see, the bottom line is that we've got reconcile all of the passages that deal with the issue works in order to come to the correct teaching on the issue.

 

[dadof10]

I'm pretty sure Ernest says our works are what literally justify us (MAKE us righteous before God).

I think there is a nuance there you are not seeing, but he can speak for himself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you define the works themselves as the grace of God that justifies. That's equivalent to those works making you righteous before God.

No. I said "What justifies is the Grace of God alone. This Grace is made manifest in "works" of obedience. It is the "works and the will" to do the works that is all Grace."

Grace is what justifies, our cooperation with that Grace is also a Grace in and of itself. Again, it is exactly the same principle as your view of faith.

You MUST perform the ACT of "accepting" Jesus to be saved, correct? You, rightly, see this as all Grace, God calls us (Grace), then He gives the will to accept (Grace), we cooperate by accepting and then He saves us (Grace). Just explain how this is different from helping someone in need, for instance. God calls us to help (Grace), gives us the will to help (Grace), we cooperate by ACCEPTING His Gift and this act effects our salvation (Grace). If we refuse to "accept Jesus", we aren't saved, correct? If we "walk by the person in need and say "farewell..."", this act will negatively effect our salvation, also.

It's the same concept. If you see the ACT of helping as a "righteous work" incapable of effecting salvation, then you must see faith as a "righteous work" also.

For grace to manifest in, and become equivalent to, works of righteousness makes ALL righteous work God presently commands required for justification.

How so? I have already proved beyond a doubt that to Paul "works of righteousness" refers to works of the Mosaic law. You have ignored this point twice, so I guess you agree. I can repost the verses if you want to respond here.

That's the damnable 'works' gospel that Paul fought against in the church.

That "damnable" doctrine is spoken of in Acts 15 and has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with good deeds, only works of the law. Otherwise, he would not have written this:

But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.

Obviously Paul does not mean the 'work' of believing he is contrasting works with when he says justification is by the 'work' of faith "apart from works".

Obviously not. He obviously doesn't mean ALL DEEDS either, otherwise there would be at least a passing reference to some "work" other that "works of the law" or circumcision, but there isn't, is there?

Believing--trusting in God's forgiveness--is the only way a man can be made legally righteous. He can't earn it. He can't buy it. Unrighteousness can only be removed by it being removed through forgiveness and replacing it with a righteousness outside of himself. That is what the blood of Christ does. And Paul plainly says faith (not faithfulness) is how that grace is accessed (Romans 5:2). And James says that faith should be seen in what it does, or it may not be faith at all.

Yes, thank you. I know what you believe.

But somehow that has to mean to some people that the action of faith itself is what does the justifying. I'm pretty sure Ernest is one of those. He continually quotes James 2:24 to defend that contention.

Well, if it's not the ACTION of faith, what is it? You're not "one of those" who believe those truly damnable doctrines of "unconditional election" and "irresistible Grace", are you?

 

[ivdavid]

I understand your position, I just don't think it sufficiently addresses the text of James 2....
Here what I see as flaw in your argument. If faith without works is dead, it cannot produce anything at all, it's dead. According to James it must have works in order to be alive. It must be alive before it can produce anything, thus works "must" precede a living faith.

Well, I still believe I have addressed this sufficiently - and so, your feeling otherwise only implies I need to better communicate what I've already stated so far.

If faith without works is dead, it cannot produce anything at all, it's dead.
It must be alive before it can produce anything.

Dead faith cannot produce works - I agree. Only alive faith produces works.

....If you can see some way to logically work around this issue I'm all ears.

Template :
Causative condition : If causative act occurs, then its effect will occur.
Evidential condition : If effect does not occur, then causative act has not occurred.

Example:
Causative condition : If I eat fish, then I will have a rash.
Evidential condition : If I do not have a rash, then I have not eaten fish.

Position 1:
Causative condition : If faith is alive, then it will have works that it produces.
Evidential condition : If faith does not have works that it produces, then it is dead.

Position 2:
Causative condition : If faith does not have preceding works, then it is dead.
Evidential condition : If faith is alive, then it does have preceding works.

Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Interpretation 1: If "works" here in James 2:17 refers to "works that faith produces" - then it is found in the Evidential condition of Position 1.
OR
Interpretation 2: if "works" here refers to "preceding works" - then it is found in the Causative condition of Position 2.

Butch5 - "According to James it must have works in order to be alive".
Your above statement is the Evidential condition of Position 2 - thereby forming a consistent system of premises if you interpret James 2:17 to be a Causative condition, given the presupposition that "works precede and result in alive faith". Obviously, when I state my presupposition that "alive faith precedes and results in works", you ask me to reconcile the contradiction that arises against the Position 2 that you hold.

But I do not need to reconcile my presuppositions against your position - they only need to be reconciled with the position I hold, in order to form a consistent system of premises. My presupposition is consistent with Position 1 and so is James 2:17. Position 1 is an alternate interpretation to James.

And I've already stated this and you've already acknowledged it as an alternate interpretation to James 2 and you've declared that it simply doesn't work - and the reason you've given is that - preceding works are necessary to result in faith - which is the presupposition of the interpretation you hold. But the alternate interpretation does not include this presupposition at all - James 2 does not unambiguously give rise to your presupposition alone, it could just as well hold true to the alternate interpretation - while being consistent too.

As to which of the presuppositions are actually true, we could discuss that in future posts. But the intent of this post is to acknowledge 2 interpretations with their own presuppositions that are consistent with Scripture and logic. If you would disagree with this, could you point out the inconsistency in Interpretation 1 and Position 1 as measured on their own merit and not against Interpretation 2 and Position 2.

 

[ivdavid]

By the time we get to Genesis 15 Abraham has already believed and obeyed God.

I agree that Abraham believed God and obeyed Him in Gen 12 - well before Gen 15. What I want to know is - what's the connection between the Gen 12 faith and obedience with respect to Abraham's faith that was imputed unto him for righteousness in Gen 15:6? Is it borne out of your position where works necessarily form a preceding part of justifying faith - hence the connection between the Gen 12 works having to form a preceding part of the Gen 15:6 justifying faith?

I find these equations quite technical, and am unable to see any meaning behind them. What is the relation in practical terms between an act of obedience borne out of a corresponding preceding faith(Gen 12) - and an independent later faith(Gen 15) that has its own corresponding works(Gen 22) borne out?

I think it’s evident that there was a lot of obedience prior to his being deemed righteous.

Yes. But does Gen 15:6 refer to all that prior obedience when Abraham's faith is imputed unto him for righteousness? How do you make that connection and infer that? I am unable to read that in - except perhaps if I were to begin with the presupposition that works necessarily precede and result in alive justifying faith. But what is the basis for this presupposition? This same presupposition formed the basis for your James 2:17 interpretation too. What is the basis? I should think that the evidence for faith preceding and resulting in works is more apparent in James and other parts of Scripture - especially Heb 11.

So James saw obedience in the declaration that Abraham was counted righteous.

Of course James saw obedience in the Gen 15:6 justification of Abraham's faith - but what obedience is he referring to - acts of obedience that preceded his Gen 15:6 faith or acts of obedience that were borne later, out of such faith? I should think James 2:21 makes it quite clear that it's the latter, complemented by Heb 11:17 which states that such obedience was by faith.

This passage also says that works make faith complete. Without works faith is incomplete.

I too would say the same thing - only referring to works as those that proceed from faith - not those that precede and result in faith.

It also shows why this discussion should not even exist. He plainly states that man is not justified by faith alone.

This seems unfair on your part. Did I not write -
ivdavid - "A common cause can be solely attributed, instead of including all that arise subsequently from it.
Therefore, faith alone can be said to be required for justification - instead of including the works too, that anyway necessarily arise from such faith. This is the position of the "faith only" camp - where they too exclude works of the law, not the works that arise out of such faith."

Yes, they are, however, look how Paul defines faith in this instance.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Heb 11:1 KJV)
So, we know exactly how he is using the term.

I didn't understand this point of yours. My contention from Heb 11 was that every act of obedience was preceded by faith - and hence I felt it lent support to my presupposition that faith precedes and results in works. And I asked if we were supposed to read into Scripture some preceding works to the Gen 12/Heb 11:8-9 faith - in order to uphold your presupposition that works precede and result in faith.

And your response is on how "faith" is used in Heb 11. Is it your contention that "faith" used in Heb 11 is not the same used in Gen 12 or Gen 15 or James 2 - if so, why? I know this is not a valid point in itself, but doesn't a simple practical reading of Heb 11, without the technicalities and inferences, tell you it's the very same faith referred to in all the other verses we've referred to here? Anyway, Heb 11:1 is not a definition of faith - it is a description of faith. Scripture has maintained consistently, what it refers to as faith - I have never come across any discrepancy. Point out the ambiguities that you find in the usage of faith in Scripture - especially the differences between its usage in Heb 11 and say, James 2.

As I see it, you believe that works are produced by faith,correct?

Yes.

I don’t, I believe that works are a part of faith.

Yes, I got that.

This leads me to believe that you understand faith existing apart from works, I don’t.

Yes, I do believe that faith initiates apart from works - but requires the works that it will necessarily and naturally produce for it to be fulfilled or completed. These works are the evidence of an existent alive faith from which they have proceeded forth - and the absence of such works are the evidence of a faith that is dead ie non-existent. And I know given your position, you do not believe so. Is it that you believe works initiate apart from faith?

If it God doing the works why is Paul admonishing his readers to do those things?

This might require a lengthy explanation and some discussion on it alone. Could we take this up after we clear the current points of discussion?

When you say no man can keep them I am not sure to what degree you are referring.

In the absolute degree. No created man in the flesh has ever kept the Lev 18:5 imperative - for if he had kept it, he wouldn't be under the curse of the law - but we know every single created man in the flesh is under the curse of the law, and can be redeemed only by dependence upon Christ's sacrifice.

However, we do have to consider Luke’s words.

There is no indication in Luke 1 that John's parents were walking blameless in the flesh. It is my contention that they were regenerated and were worked upon by God to walk in His ways by the Spirit and not by the flesh.

I’m not so sure that the passage from Eze 36 can be applied. Verse 28 seems to indicate that it is either to Israel or for a later time.

Most passages quoted in the New Testament would be addressed to Israel in the Old Testament from where they are quoted. And are we not the Spiritual Israel(Rom 2:29)?

Also, Eze 36:28 is not of a future promise that is yet to happen - it is the New Covenant that has replaced the Old Covenant(Jer 31:33) which has already come into force with Christ(Heb 8:10). I'd clarify further reservations, if any, to applying the Ezekiel passage.

 

[Davies]

Hi Davies,

I'm not sure what you're asking in the first paragraph can you restate it? I would like to clarify what I think may be a cause of confusion. I believe that Paul was dealing with an issue specific to his day, that being the Jews insistence on the observance of the ordinances of the Law of Moses. For instance, when he says "not seeking my own righteousness which is of the Law" I don't believe he speaking of feeding the poor and caring fro widows. I believe he's speaking of being circumcised, ritual washings, and the like. There is a moral aspect of the Law and a physical one, I believe Paul is addressing the physical aspect. The Jew thought he was righteous before God by being circumcised, doing ritual washings etc. and Paul argues he's not. I don't believe the moral aspects of the Law enter into Paul's argument and I believe it is these moral aspects the will be counted as righteousness to those who do them. I hope that helps explain it better.

You see, the bottom line is that we've got reconcile all of the passages that deal with the issue works in order to come to the correct teaching on the issue.

Hi Butch5,

Here is the question asked a bit better: If you claim you are not righteous, and that "we are counted as righteous based on our belief in Christ and our obedience," then how can you be justified? Our obedience can never be sufficient to account for justification. It was Jesus' righteousness that was found acceptable to the Father, not ours. If we have sin, then there is nothing we can do to merit forgiveness, salvation, or eternal life. Even though we put our faith in Jesus, that doesn't mean that God has to forgive us. Our 'work' of faith merits nothing just as works of the law merit nothing because we have sinned. But we do have the promises of God to forgive us if our faith is in Jesus, because Jesus' righteousness is worthy of justification. Anything we do that God says is righteous is only part of the sanctification process, not justification. Jesus' righteousness is given to us, Romans 5:17. You could argue that the gift of righteousness in Romans 5:17 is the ability God gives you to do right things, or Jesus' righteousness, but either way... righteousness remains a gift.

I'm not sure how you can separate actions whether it be the Temple laws or doing kind things for others, or even thinking because Jesus said the whole law is wrapped up in loving your neighbor as yourself, Galatians 5:14. So, I think feeding the poor and caring for widows can be included in trying to be righteous by the law. Even James said that was perfect religion. It's stated properly in James 1:27. Violating the 10th Commandment is not a physical act, yet it is still law. The law was explained by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount that it not only included the physical but was spiritual as well. Righteousness includes both aspects. We are told to do the works of God, we should believe on Jesus, yet our faith is authored by Jesus and He perfects our faith, Hebrews 12:2.

- Davies

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...I believe Paul is talking about the works of the Law, not the Law itself. I've covered that is post 441.

We know Paul is not talking about just the ceremonial law, like circumcision, when he says works of the law can not justify. Right in Romans 3 he qualifies the law he's talking about as that which convicts of sin.

"20 ...no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (Romans 3:20 NIV1984)

The very law he says can not declare a person righteous (justify them) is also the very standard of righteousness upon which mankind is convicted as sinners. But it is Paul himself who teaches us the laying aside of the first covenant of worship, and how it's requirements for Temple, priesthood, and sacrifice are no longer needed to draw near to God, and are no longer the basis for condemnation for not keeping them.

So, how can Paul only be talking about the worship stipulations of the law that have been laid aside in favor of this New Covenant and the new way of drawing near to God when he says it is that very law--the law that can't justify a person--that we are still held accountable to and are convicted by as sinners?

 

[dadof10]

We know Paul is not talking about just the ceremonial law, like circumcision, when he says works of the law can not justify. Right in Romans 3 he qualifies the law he's talking about as that which convicts of sin.

"20 ...no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (Romans 3:20 NIV1984)

The very law he says can not declare a person righteous (justify them) is also the very standard of righteousness upon which mankind is convicted as sinners. But it is Paul himself who teaches us the laying aside of the first covenant of worship, and how it's requirements for Temple, priesthood, and sacrifice are no longer needed to draw near to God, and are no longer the basis for condemnation for not keeping them.

So, how can Paul only be talking about the worship stipulations of the law that have been laid aside in favor of this New Covenant and the new way of drawing near to God when he says it is that very law--the law that can't justify a person--that we are still held accountable to and are convicted by as sinners?

The verse says "we become conscious of sin", not "we are still held accountable to and are convicted by as sinners", nor does it "qualify" which law. I think you are erroneously stretching this verse to make a point. If the "law" he's talking about is qualified by it's ability to make us conscious of sin, many actions would not fit here, like honoring father and mother, prayer or charity.