Is belief "works"?

[Butch5]

Hi Butch5,

If we are not righteous, then by whose righteousness are we justified? Ifrighteousness is imputed, then it would follow that our obedience wasn'trighteous to begin with. What does the Bible say about our righteousness?

Romans 3:10-12

New King James Version (NKJV)

10 As it is written:
“There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”[a]

I think I’ve already answered this. Paulsays that Abraham’s faith was the basis for his justification and James pointsto Abraham’s works being a basis for his justification.

Romans 3:21-26

New King James Version (NKJV)

God’s Righteousness Through Faith

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, beingwitnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God,through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[a] who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all havesinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by Hisgrace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth asa propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness,because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previouslycommitted, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that Hemight be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


The righteousness apart from the law is being demonstrated by God so that Hemight be be just and the justifier. What was Jesus' righteousness foundacceptable for? Propitiation. Redemption. Why was Jesus death necessary forthose two things? They were necessary because all have sinned.

This is one of those areas where we’regoing to be in different worlds. I don’t buy into the Penal model of theatonement so I don’t see it the way you do. Hilasterion, is translated mercyseat with a few exceptions in the NT were the translators used the wordpropitiation. However, mercy seat fits in each of those places. So, it seems tome that if one comes to the text with the idea they may be able to see, but Idon’t believe it is required, as mercy fits in those passages also.
If you look closely at the passage youposted it doesn’t speak of Jesus’ righteousness. It speaks of God the Father’srighteousness.

Isaiah 64:6

New King James Version (NKJV)

6 But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away.


Notice the emphasis at the end of this verse. "Our iniquities...have takenus away." The reason why our righteousness has no effect for justification,not to be confused with sanctification, is because of our sins. Our sinscontaminate our righteousness so that the Father does not accept our paymentfor sin, and the reason why eternal condemnation is eternal. Our sins,committed against an eternal God, requires an eternal sacrifice. Only God,Himself, could provide such a sacrifice in the second Person of the Trinitydecided upon before the foundation of the world.

Here again, I don’t hold the penal model ofthe atonement. The passage you quoted is not God speaking but rather Isaiah. Itis a plea to God for forgiveness for Israel’s sin. It is not a universalstatement about mankind, the context shows that. I also don’t agree with theidea of a payment to God for sins. There is nothing in Scripture that teachesman must make a payment to God for sins. Paul said the wage of sin is death.Wages are something earned, not something paid.

Our sins were placed on Jesus thesame way His righteousness is placed on us when our faith is in Him.

Isaiah 53:6

New King James Version (NKJV)

6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.


"...The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Those areglorious words, because in them, we know our sins have been paid for, andjustice is upheld by the Holy God.

Isaiah 53:11

New King James Version (NKJV)

11 He shall see the labor of His soul,[a] and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.


Again, who does the justifying?; not our obedience. It is Jesus who does thejustifying, and it is done by His righteousness because "He shall beartheir iniquities." When we are in Him, our sins are accounted to Him. Onthe cross Jesus paid for our sins satisfying the righteous requirements of thelaw, and now the righteousness apart from the law has been revealed, "eventhe righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and onall[a] who believe." Without Jesus' righteousness, the wrathof the Father would not be satisfied because of our sins. It is not ourrighteousness that propitiation is accomplished. We don't pay for our sins, andwe are not accounted righteous by what we do, but by what Jesus has done. Faithis a work of God, lest any man should boast. Jesus is the author and perfecterof our faith, Hebrews 12:2. If we our found in Jesus, we have peace withGod.

Jesus didn't die for the righteous, but He died for the ungodly, Romans 5:6.

Davies, nothing here says that Jesus’ righteousness isapplied to the Christian, you’ve simply inferred that. Firstly, these passagesaren’t dealing with obedience so they wouldn’t apply to obedience. Secondly,where does Scripture say that our sins are accounted to Him? You also said wedon’t pay for our sins, if that is the case then why do Christians die? Paulsaid the wages of sin is death.

Again in this section I see the idea of a payment to God,Jesus’ righteousness. Again, I see nothing in Scripture about a payment to God.Additionally, payment and forgiveness of the same debt are mutually exclusive.If your sins were paid for then they weren’t forgiven. However, we know thatthe Scriptures are replete with statements about forgiveness. I’m not familiar withScriptures requiring payment.

Another problem I find with the Penal model of the atonementis that sins are paid for twice. The Christian dies and Christ supposedly diedfor the same sins. If one argues that it is eternal death they still have a problemin that Christ did not die eternally. That leaves asking the question whatexactly was paid for? You see, I find somany problems with the Penal model of the atonement that I can’t accept it. Iwonder how Anselm started the idea or why the Reformers didn’t reject it.

Another thing to consider is the copy of Isaiah 53 that youare reading. I give more credence to the LXX than the Masoretic text, since itis the LXX that Jesus and the apostles used. It reads a little differently thanMasoretic text in Isaiah 53

LXE Isaiah 53:1 O Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has thearm of the Lord been revealed?

2 We brought a report as of achild before him; he is as a root in a thirsty land: he has no form norcomeliness; and we saw him, but he had no form nor beauty.

3 But his form was ignoble, andinferior to that of the children of men; he was a man in suffering, andacquainted with the bearing of sickness, for his face is turned from us:he was dishonoured, and not esteemed.

4 He bears our sins, and is painedfor us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and inaffliction.

5 But he was wounded on account ofour sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of ourpeace was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed.

6 Allwe as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and theLord gave him up for our sins.

7 And he, because of hisaffliction, opens not his mouth: he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and asa lamb before the shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.

8 In his humiliation hisjudgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation? for his life istaken away from the earth: because of the iniquities of my people he was led todeath.

9 And I will give the wicked forhis burial, and the rich for his death; for he practised no iniquity, nor craftwith his mouth.

10 The Lord also is pleased topurge him from his stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shallsee a long-lived seed:

11the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew himlight, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one whoserves many well; and he shall bear their sins.

12 Therefore he shall inherit many,and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered todeath: and he was numbered among the transgressors; and he bore the sins ofmany, and was delivered because of their iniquities. (Isa 53:1-12 LXE)

Notice the two verses you quotedread differently. In verse 6 rather than saying the Lord laid sins on Christ itsays God gave Him up for sins.

As I said, in one of the otherposts, I used to understand the Scriptures the way you do, however, afterextensive study have come to new conclusions. Much of what we are going to discusswill need to be taken apart piece by piece do to a fundamentally differentunderstanding of the meaning of individual verses

 

[Davies]

Thank you, Butch5, for your admissions. I think it's good that everyone understands your position. If you don't have faith in the penal substitution, then it's no wonder you think your works justifies you, even though you confess you are not righteous. God does not declare unrighteousness righteous. He forgives for a reason, and doesn't forgive for nothing.

- Davies

 

[Butch5]

Thank you, Butch5, for your admissions. I think it's good that everyone understands your position. If you don't have faith in the penal substitution, then it's no wonder you think your works justifies you, even though you confess you are not righteous. God does not declare unrighteousness righteous. He forgives for a reason, and doesn't forgive for nothing.

- Davies

Hi Davies,

I don't know why but the words in posts seem to be running together. I read over that post and it was fine. I have studied the Penal model of the Atonement in depth after learning of the Ante-Nicene writings and seeing that they didn't hold it. Actually, they didn't' know it. As I began to study it I began to see some serious difficulties with it and it's ability to be supported by Scripture. However, that is probably another thread. But thanks for the discussion.

 

[ivdavid]

With all due respect I think this turning into a game.

If my assuring you has any value, I can only state that I am here with the most serious of intentions. I have attempted different ways of putting across my beliefs and arguments - and I'd persist too - but this has become a one-sided discussion, where your position is somehow deemed the default one while the burden of proof lies upon me. Quite some arguments that I thought were valid received no response from you - hence, to proceed further, I have ordered 5 arguments A-E each requiring responses R1-5. If these are responded to, we might make some progress in this already long drawn out discussion.

Can you please show where this is taught in the Scriptures?

I have already presented 3 points thus far :

Point1. James 2:17 - this has been rejected by you, not on the merit of my interpretation but based on the contradictions that you've seen arise when it's stood against your own interpretation.

Point2. James 2:21, Heb 11:17 - This has not been addressed by you yet.

Point3. Heb 11 - This has not been clarified/justified by you yet.

Elaboration on the above points follow -

Point1. James 2:17 - according to my position, works are not the preceding cause of alive faith - rather, they are evidence of a preceding alive faith.
You have presented, in your last post, an argument to refute this position of mine. I am addressing it by showing the points of conflict in your argument.

Logic dictates that if dead faith cannot produce anything it must be made alive or complete "BEFORE" it can produce.

Argument A:
The part in bold needs to be justified. Firstly, I do not believe "make alive"="complete"(refer Argument B). Besides, you seem to be using the word "complete" as in Luke 14:28 (complete/finish). I contend that "complete" or "perfect[kjv]" in James 2:22 is used in the sense of John 19:28 - where the fulfilling/completing event happens AFTER the part that is to be fulfilled/completed.
R-1 : Why cannot then James 2:22 be read similar to John 19:28 - as the fulfilling/completing event(Works) happening AFTER the part(Faith) that is to be fulfilled/completed?

Argument B:
And of course, while I agree that faith has to be "alive" for it to produce anything - I don't agree that faith has to be "completed/fulfilled" for it to produce works. "Complete" is not equal to "make alive".
R-2 : Do you have any Scriptural basis to undeniably show that in James 2, "complete/fulfill" = "make alive/cause to be alive"?

[Faith is made alive causatively by the regenerative act of God and not by works - and then such alive Faith gives rise to Works and is a fellow-labourer with Works - which bring Faith to fulfillment/completion. I stated my position again only to make sure you know where I'm coming from - I expect no response to this.]

According to James it is works that make faith alive or complete.

Argument C:
I agree that James says it is by works that faith is fulfilled/made "complete". Where does James say that by works is faith made "alive"?
James says -
1. if no Works, Faith is not alive(ie dead).
2. Works complete/fulfill Faith.
You say -
3. Works make Faith alive. (I assume you have derived/inferred this from premise1)

But what is the valid inference from premise1 - only that "works" are a necessary condition for an "alive faith" - and even so, that necessary condition need not be a causative one, it could be evidential. Compare above premise1 with this conditional -
If no swelling, no fracture.
Am I to then likewise infer that "swelling causes fracture" - rather than note that swelling is only an evidential condition necessary for fractures and not a causative condition?

I contend that faith can be made alive by other causes and Not Works - though it is by works that faith is completed/fulfilled, where "complete" and "make alive" are not the same action.

R-3 : In your derivation of "works cause faith to be alive"(premise3) from James' premise1, How have you unambiguously determined that works are a necessary Causative condition and not an Evidential condition(such as in the analogy above)?

Your repeated argument has been this -
i) Faith has to be made alive for it to produce anything, especially the works that I keep alluding to in my position. [I agree].
ii) Works cause Faith to be alive. [I disagree - Argument C].
iii) Hence, works must precede faith. [I disagree - given disagreement on (ii)]

An alternate, perhaps indirect argument of yours has been -
i) Faith has to be made complete for it to produce anything, especially the works that I keep alluding to in my position. [I disagree - Argument B].
ii) Works complete Faith. [I agree - though not in the same sense. Argument A.]
iii) Hence, works must precede faith. [I disagree - given disagreement on (i)]


Point 2:
Argument D:
In James 2:22, he asks us to see how by "Works", "Faith" is fulfilled/made complete. And James shows us how with the example of Abraham. So, what part of Scripture does James refer to as "Works" in the Abraham example - his sacrificing of Isaac(James 2:21 , Gen 22). What part of Scripture does James refer to as "Faith" in the Abraham example - his justification by imputed righteousness(James 2:23, Gen 15:6).
R-4 : According to James' illustration, does Faith precede Works or do Works precede Faith?

Point 3:
Argument E:
Heb 11 lists multiple occasions of Works being done - by Faith - showing that faith precedes works. You mentioned that "Faith" was defined differently in Heb 11:1 and hence used differently here - I disagreed and stated that Heb 11:1 only described Faith. It is used here in the same sense as in other related parts of Scripture as seen between James 2:21 and Heb 11:17.
R-5 : How do you clarify/justify Heb 11 implying Faith precedes Works?

 

[Butch5]

If my assuring you has any value, I can only state that I am here with the most serious of intentions. I have attempted different ways of putting across my beliefs and arguments - and I'd persist too - but this has become a one-sided discussion, where your position is somehow deemed the default one while the burden of proof lies upon me. Quite some arguments that I thought were valid received no response from you - hence, to proceed further, I have ordered 5 arguments A-E each requiring responses R1-5. If these are responded to, we might make some progress in this already long drawn out discussion.


I have already presented 3 points thus far :

Point1. James 2:17 - this has been rejected by you, not on the merit of my interpretation but based on the contradictions that you've seen arise when it's stood against your own interpretation.

Point2. James 2:21, Heb 11:17 - This has not been addressed by you yet.

Point3. Heb 11 - This has not been clarified/justified by you yet.

Elaboration on the above points follow -

Point1. James 2:17 - according to my position, works are not the preceding cause of alive faith - rather, they are evidence of a preceding alive faith.
You have presented, in your last post, an argument to refute this position of mine. I am addressing it by showing the points of conflict in your argument.



Argument A:
The part in bold needs to be justified. Firstly, I do not believe "make alive"="complete"(refer Argument B). Besides, you seem to be using the word "complete" as in Luke 14:28 (complete/finish). I contend that "complete" or "perfect[kjv]" in James 2:22 is used in the sense of John 19:28 - where the fulfilling/completing event happens AFTER the part that is to be fulfilled/completed.
R-1 : Why cannot then James 2:22 be read similar to John 19:28 - as the fulfilling/completing event(Works) happening AFTER the part(Faith) that is to be fulfilled/completed?

Argument B:
And of course, while I agree that faith has to be "alive" for it to produce anything - I don't agree that faith has to be "completed/fulfilled" for it to produce works. "Complete" is not equal to "make alive".
R-2 : Do you have any Scriptural basis to undeniably show that in James 2, "complete/fulfill" = "make alive/cause to be alive"?

[Faith is made alive causatively by the regenerative act of God and not by works - and then such alive Faith gives rise to Works and is a fellow-labourer with Works - which bring Faith to fulfillment/completion. I stated my position again only to make sure you know where I'm coming from - I expect no response to this.]


Argument C:
I agree that James says it is by works that faith is fulfilled/made "complete". Where does James say that by works is faith made "alive"?
James says -
1. if no Works, Faith is not alive(ie dead).
2. Works complete/fulfill Faith.
You say -
3. Works make Faith alive. (I assume you have derived/inferred this from premise1)

But what is the valid inference from premise1 - only that "works" are a necessary condition for an "alive faith" - and even so, that necessary condition need not be a causative one, it could be evidential. Compare above premise1 with this conditional -
If no swelling, no fracture.
Am I to then likewise infer that "swelling causes fracture" - rather than note that swelling is only an evidential condition necessary for fractures and not a causative condition?

I contend that faith can be made alive by other causes and Not Works - though it is by works that faith is completed/fulfilled, where "complete" and "make alive" are not the same action.

R-3 : In your derivation of "works cause faith to be alive"(premise3) from James' premise1, How have you unambiguously determined that works are a necessary Causative condition and not an Evidential condition(such as in the analogy above)?

Your repeated argument has been this -
i) Faith has to be made alive for it to produce anything, especially the works that I keep alluding to in my position. [I agree].
ii) Works cause Faith to be alive. [I disagree - Argument C].
iii) Hence, works must precede faith. [I disagree - given disagreement on (ii)]

An alternate, perhaps indirect argument of yours has been -
i) Faith has to be made complete for it to produce anything, especially the works that I keep alluding to in my position. [I disagree - Argument B].
ii) Works complete Faith. [I agree - though not in the same sense. Argument A.]
iii) Hence, works must precede faith. [I disagree - given disagreement on (i)]


Point 2:
Argument D:
In James 2:22, he asks us to see how by "Works", "Faith" is fulfilled/made complete. And James shows us how with the example of Abraham. So, what part of Scripture does James refer to as "Works" in the Abraham example - his sacrificing of Isaac(James 2:21 , Gen 22). What part of Scripture does James refer to as "Faith" in the Abraham example - his justification by imputed righteousness(James 2:23, Gen 15:6).
R-4 : According to James' illustration, does Faith precede Works or do Works precede Faith?

Point 3:
Argument E:
Heb 11 lists multiple occasions of Works being done - by Faith - showing that faith precedes works. You mentioned that "Faith" was defined differently in Heb 11:1 and hence used differently here - I disagreed and stated that Heb 11:1 only described Faith. It is used here in the same sense as in other related parts of Scripture as seen between James 2:21 and Heb 11:17.
R-5 : How do you clarify/justify Heb 11 implying Faith precedes Works?

Hi ivdavid.

I've not read this entire post. Can you show me where Scripture teaches that works are the product of faith. I'm not asking you to lay out an argument, I'm simply asking where can I find this teaching in Scripture? I know what your argument is. Since you're arguing that works are evidence of faith please explain how death faith produces these works.

You are correct, I haven't addressed several points in argument. The reason is that I don't see how your argument can exist. If you can show me how it exists I'll address the points, however, I feel like I'd be addressing points that are just speculation.

You've questioned if my rejection of your position is based on my interpretation. I tried to point out to you that it is dictated by logic. I thought you agree that dead faith couldn't produce anything, if that is the case where are these works coming from that you speak of? It's not that I don't want to address your questions, it's just that I believe your interpretation is based on an assumption that cannot be proven from Scripture.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Hi ivdavid.

I've not read this entire post. Can you show me where Scripture teaches that works are the product of faith.

"We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thessalonians 1:3 NIV1984)

"5 Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith." (Romans 1:5 NIV1984)

Sorry, but I just had to jump in here.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There's no mistake. If works played no role then doing them would not be seeking eternal life. That's simple logic.

There you go again...thinking the role of works in salvation can't be anything else in the life of the Christian but the means by which a person is justified (MADE righteous).

James and others teach the reason why we are to seek eternal life through a determined and vigorous dedication to do right. And it's not in order to be made righteous by doing right.

I don't believe you'll be able to show that. Acts 15:1 clearly shows what he was dealing with.

NKJ Acts 15:1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (Act 15:1 NKJ)

Circumcision is not the only thing they insisted had to be done to be saved.

5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5 NASB)

It's just that circumcision to the Israelite was the foundational obedience to God required of his people and the epitome of being in covenant with God. To them nothing else mattered if you were not circumcised. And why not? It's portrayed that way by God himself (Genesis 17:10-14). It's just that God had in mind the real mark in the flesh that signifies being in covenant with God--circumcision of the fleshly, sinful nature. A circumcision--a putting off of the flesh--done by the Holy Spirit, not by the hands of men. That circumcision is the required signature of being in covenant with God, not because it puts you in covenant with him, as the Israelites thought, but because it's the necessary and expected sign that you really are in covenant with him...by faith, the way Abraham entered into covenant with God.

 

[Butch5]

"We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thessalonians 1:3 NIV1984)

"5 Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith." (Romans 1:5 NIV1984)

Sorry, but I just had to jump in here.

I suspect you've researched those passages and found that the NIV is the only version to translate it that way. If you look at the Greek text you'll see the translator bias.

 

[Butch5]

There you go again...thinking the role of works in salvation can't be anything else in the life of the Christian but the means by which a person is justified (MADE righteous).

James and others teach the reason why we are to seek eternal life through a determined and vigorous dedication to do right. And it's not in order to be made righteous by doing right.



Circumcision is not the only thing they insisted had to be done to be saved.

5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5 NASB)

It's just that circumcision to the Israelite was the foundational obedience to God required of his people and the epitome of being in covenant with God. To them nothing else mattered if you were not circumcised. And why not? It's portrayed that way by God himself (Genesis 14:10-14). It's just that God had in mind the real mark in the flesh that signifies being in covenant with God--circumcision of the fleshly, sinful nature. A circumcision--a putting off of the flesh--done by the Holy Spirit, not by the hands of men. That circumcision is the required signature of being in covenant with God, not because it puts you in covenant with him, as the Israelites thought, but because it's the necessary and expected sign that you really are in covenant with him...by faith, the way Abraham entered into covenant with God.

Then that would include all of those that Jesus rebuked and called children of the devil right? Were they all of the faith of Abraham also?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Then that would include all of those that Jesus rebuked and called children of the devil right? Were they all of the faith of Abraham also?

Not sure what you're trying to say.

If I think I know what you're saying it actually helps my position, not yours.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I suspect you've researched those passages and found that the NIV is the only version to translate it that way. If you look at the Greek text you'll see the translator bias.

The NASB says 'work of faith', and 'obedience of faith'.

How's that different?

Work and obedience come from faith. They are the manifestation of faith:

"...faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6 NASB)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I look forward to you breakdown.

Beginning in Romans 3:9 Paul tells the church at Rome how he has just made the case that all people, Jew and gentile alike, are unrighteous and under sin. Only those who keep the law--all of it (along with their coveted circumcisions)--will be declared righteous by the law. Partial, inconsistent, or selective law keeping can't justify a person. IOW, you have to keep ALL of the law to be declared righteous by that law (Romans 2:13)...but no one does that...so everyone stands condemned by the law, not declared righteous by it. James echoes this same thought about keeping ALL of the (moral) law in James 2:10-11.

In the James passage I just shared he names very specific commands of the law that if not kept make us law breakers, today, now, after the resurrection of Christ, not just before during the 'time of the law' as some people call it. John also says that to sin is to break the law (1 John 3:19). Again, confirming the law in this New Covenant as the standard by which unrighteousness/ righteousness is determined and people are held accountable to God.

"19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law (condemned by the law, as he just pointed out everyone is), so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God" (Romans 3:19 NASB)

The law that both, Paul and James, are speaking about post-resurrection is not the ceremonial law but the law that continues as that which condemns men as unrighteous. The ceremonial law does not do that anymore. Paul says elsewhere that law has been laid aside and no longer required to be literally fulfilled. So, because the law they are talking about continues as the standard by which men are determined to be sinful and unrighteous we know they're talking about the moral law, not the ceremonial law. And to the point, Paul says this law, the law that presently condemns men, the moral law, can not justify men:

"20 because by the works of the Law (the law that presently condemns--the moral law) no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20 NASB)

Then Paul goes on to say where righteousness does come from, apart from the (moral) law. He calls it God's righteousness, a different source of righteousness than that which comes from keeping the law, but a righteousness that comes through faith in Christ:

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe..." (Romans 3:21-22 NASB)

Then Paul tells the Romans that we don't nullify the (moral) law that can't declare us righteous by this NEW and DIFFERENT source of righteousness (faith in Christ), but rather we uphold it by this new and different source of righteousness, faith in Jesus Christ (not moral works of the law).

"31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." (Romans 3:31 NASB)

Again, this law that Paul has been talking about, that we don't nullify by faith in Christ but rather uphold (keep, satisfy, etc.), can not justify a man.

 

[dadof10]

Where does it say he was justified by his faith in Genesis 12?

The author of Hebrews says he was:

"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go." (Heb. 11:8)

This episode happened in Gen. 12.

 

[dadof10]

Well, actually he does say that:

"9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin." (Romans 3:9 NIV1984)

"19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God." (Romans 3:19 NIV1984)

So, somehow 'the law', and 'the law', separated by a mere two words in the context of a single thought and breath suddenly do not mean the same law????

"20 Therefore 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)

You're unreasonable. Completely and totally unreasonable.

You attack me as unreasonable because I don't think "conscious of sin" proves that Paul means ALL law? Really?

Using your example, when you do not honor your father and mother you sin and are convicted by the law as a law breaker. Anything the law says to do, but don't do (or do what the law says not to do), makes you a law breaker and guilty of sin. This is so fundamental to the Christian faith I wonder why anyone would dare try to challenge it.

Notice I gave three examples, and you only picked out the COMMANDMENT of the Mosaic Law to argue with? Why didn't you attack prayer and charity? Maybe because it's the MOSAIC LAW that makes us "conscious of sin", not ALL LAW, which, if you'll remember, is your point here.

Even Paul uses the requirements of the law to show that not keeping the law convicts a person of sin and keeps them out of the kingdom:

"Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9 NIV1984)

Where does he mention any "requirements of the law" here? The very next verse destroys your argument:

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

"The law" is not even in his mind. He is telling his readers to refrain from sin because now they were justified. Any port in a storm, huh? Will just ANY verse do?

And John comes right out and says sinning is breaking the law:

"4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness." (1 John 3:4 NIV1984)

No, John comes out and says "sin is lawlessness". The NIV is not faithful to the Greek, here. All other translations use some form of "Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness."

The (moral) law is in fact the measure of sin. I've never, ever heard that to be in dispute in the church. Never.

I'm not disputing it either, because it's a distraction to the point. What I'm disputing is that PAUL means the "moral law" when he says "works of the law" or references "the law". Look no further than the Romans 3:19-20, which you posted above:

"Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law,..." (Rom. 3:19)

"Under" the "moral law"? Please show me where this term has EVER been used ANYWHERE. I can show you where the term "under the law" has been used in relation to the law of Moses. Does this count as a "qualifier" as to what law Paul is talking about, or will you ignore this HUGE clue?

Paul says "whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law". Is there anyone who is not "under" the moral law? Another "qualifier". Let's keep reading.

"...so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. (Rom. 3)

The "moral law" and the prophets???? Humm....Haven't heard that before, although I have heard the "law and the prophets" used in reference to the Mosaic Law many times. Yet another clue....

What is NOT the measure of sin in the law anymore are the worship stipulations like circumcision.

That's not what Paul's audience thought. Read Acts 15. If everyone was in agreement, there would have been no council. Paul's letters are REJECTING the notion that Gentile converts had to keep the MOSAIC LAW.

Which brings me back to my point. The law Paul is talking about is the law that shows us to be sinners. Circumcision is no longer one of those laws that does that (Romans 2:27).

According to Paul, yes. According to you and me, yes. Not according to the Judiaizers of Acts 15. They believed that circumcision was NECESSARY for salvation, which is what Paul was reacting to. He didn't live in a bubble and his letters were written to REAL people.

That circumcision doesn't "show us to be sinners" is a moot point anyway because the "law" Paul is talking about in Rom 3:20 is OBVIOUSLY the law of Moses, which includes circumcision. This has been proved beyond any doubt above.

Your contention that Paul is talking about the ceremonial law only when he refers to 'works of the law' is ungrounded because the law he is talking about is the measure of sin in his post resurrection teaching.

That's not my contention. My contention is that Paul means "works of the Mosaic law", which includes the ceremonial law of Judaism. Again, Paul's audience knows what specifically he means. Whatever "works" the Judaizers were pushing as salvific, and definitely circumcision. What he DOESN'T mean are ALL actions but faith.

 

[ivdavid]

I've not read this entire post. Can you show me where Scripture teaches that works are the product of faith.

That's what I'd written in the post you didn't read. I even quoted your "Can you please show where this is taught in the Scriptures?" - and I followed it with a summarizing "I have already presented 3 points thus far :" followed by the 3 Scriptural contexts that I'd based my position on. I really need to be told what more I should have done.

Again, I derived it primarily from Heb 11 and from James 2:21-23. Please refer to Points 2 and 3 of my previous post for elaboration.

You are correct, I haven't addressed several points in argument. The reason is that I don't see how your argument can exist.

All the arguments of my last post were arguing for its existence - I don't quite see why they have to be left unaddressed. It's not some peripheral issue that I've been arguing about.

You've questioned if my rejection of your position is based on my interpretation. I tried to point out to you that it is dictated by logic.

And I tried to point out to you that you've fed your presuppositions into your system of logic. Refer Point 1 of my previous post for elaboration.

Okay, you've tried not responding to what you strongly feel are only speculative arguments. I truly respect that - And we've gotten nowhere with that. So, how about this - why don't you grit your teeth, and respond to the 5 questions I've asked in my previous post - and I'll apologize now for your time that would get wasted on dealing with these speculations(If I could do anything more, I would). I know this is going to come across as a sarcastic request on the page - but if you were here in person, you'd know that my mood is of a genuine plea to try getting somewhere beyond this deadlock.

I thought you agree that dead faith couldn't produce anything...

Yes - I have already made clear my position on this - dead faith cannot produce anything. And to clarify further - dead faith to me is a false faith, a non-existence of the true justifying faith. You could liken this to the dead righteousness of the Pharisees - they were doing many right things such as praying and giving alms and fasting - but they were not doing it right(Matt 6). Their righteousness was not true 'alive' righteousness by the Spirit - rather it was legalistic dead righteousness ie non-existent true righteousness. That's the way I look at dead faith - as a non-existence of true faith.

..if that is the case where are these works coming from that you speak of?

Take some time off to only reflect on this quote of yours. This encapsulates the communication gap we're having now. Why do you think that my position is implying that works are being produced by dead faith? Is it not because of what faith is and what the relation between faith and works is - according to you? Please refer to the attached pictures for a visual representation of the communication gap. Point out what Scriptures I need to reconcile with my model. Has your fundamental issue been resolved in my model?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The author of Hebrews says he was:

"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go." (Heb. 11:8)

This episode happened in Gen. 12.

And so I ask again, where in the Bible does it say Abraham was justified in Genesis 12?

 

[dadof10]

And so I ask again, where in the Bible does it say Abraham was justified in Genesis 12?

Did Abraham have obedient faith in Gen. 12, yes or no? Is obedient faith "saving faith", yes or no? Does "saving faith" justify, yes or no?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You attack me as unreasonable because I don't think "conscious of sin" proves that Paul means ALL law? Really?

No, not really. (I'm waiting for the spin to stop on your quote so I can answer, lol.)

You are unreasonable because you think that somehow the meaning of 'law' changed without warning in the same thought and breath and context about the law in a single verse of scripture (Romans 3:20).

There's nothing wrong with raising reasonable doubt. It's a legitimate defensive tactic. But it still has to be reasonable.

Notice I gave three examples, and you only picked out the COMMANDMENT of the Mosaic Law to argue with? Why didn't you attack prayer and charity?

Various prayers and charity are commanded in the law. What are you ranting about?????

Praying to God, and doing acts of charity no more make you righteous before God than going to church makes you righteous. Only the 'labor' of trusting in the blood of Christ can set a person free from the guilt of their sins and make them legally righteous before God.

If you stop to understand WHY that is true of that 'labor' exclusively you'd stop making these unreasonable cases for other works making a person legally righteous before God. The argument is any other work, in or out of the law, outside of the 'work' of trusting the blood SHOWS you to believe in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sin. Trusting in the blood of Christ is the only 'work' that has the power to forgive sins making you righteous and free of your unrighteousness. Everything else SHOWS you to have that trust in the blood.

Maybe because it's the MOSAIC LAW that makes us "conscious of sin", not ALL LAW, which, if you'll remember, is your point here.

The point is it's impossible that Paul is only talking about circumcision, as you contend, as that which can not justify because he speaks of that very same law (which you say is only the law of circumcision) as being the law that convicts mankind of sin.

He's saying this post-resurrection, when circumcision is ruled out by Paul himself as a literal requirement of God in this New Covenant. How can Paul possibly be telling the Romans that unbelievers are still convicted as sinners by the law of circumcision by the use of 'law' in Romans 3:20 when he is the very one who teaches the churches that we are not responsible to and convicted by the law of circumcision anymore????? I think I'm making my point very clearly. Do I need to explain more?

Just tell me how the law that convicts sinners of their sin after the resurrection can only be talking about the law of circumcision that doesn't convict anyone of sin anymore. Okay? No twisting, no sidebars, no distractions, no subtle attacks...just tell me.

Where does he mention any "requirements of the law" here? The very next verse destroys your argument:

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

How does someone now being a believer (if they really are--the point of his rant) somehow make his list of things that condemn suddenly not from the law of Moses anymore??? We know from James, especially, that when a believer sins they are still breaking the law of Moses and are convicted as lawbreakers.

"The law" is not even in his mind. He is telling his readers to refrain from sin because now they were justified. Any port in a storm, huh? Will just ANY verse do?

Is Paul somehow not talking about the law of Moses when he lists the things that condemn in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10? How do we know these things condemn except that the law of Moses told us? If these are not references to the law what are they????

No, John comes out and says "sin is lawlessness". The NIV is not faithful to the Greek, here. All other translations use some form of "Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness."

Now explain how 'lawlessness' is not breaking the law of Moses. Remember, reasonable doubt has to be reasonable.

I'm not disputing it either, because it's a distraction to the point. What I'm disputing is that PAUL means the "moral law" when he says "works of the law" or references "the law". Look no further than the Romans 3:19-20, which you posted above:

"Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law,..." (Rom. 3:19)

"Under" the "moral law"? Please show me where this term has EVER been used ANYWHERE. I can show you where the term "under the law" has been used in relation to the law of Moses. Does this count as a "qualifier" as to what law Paul is talking about, or will you ignore this HUGE clue?

The moral law IS the law of Moses. I showed you this. But somehow you are sure Paul is not including all of the law of Moses when he speaks of the law that condemns mankind. That is ridiculous. The law of Moses is how we know what moral sin is! And you're going to argue the point?

If you are convicted by anything in the law of Moses you are under that law. That means it presides in judgment over you. Only those who have that conviction removed through the 'work' of trusting in the blood of Christ are no longer under the law. No other work, in or out of the law, can do that. Only faith in Christ can remove us from the conviction of the moral law of God found in the law of Moses.

Paul says "whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law". Is there anyone who is not "under" the moral law? Another "qualifier". Let's keep reading.

"...so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. (Rom. 3)

The "moral law" and the prophets???? Humm....Haven't heard that before, although I have heard the "law and the prophets" used in reference to the Mosaic Law many times. Yet another clue....

That's not what Paul's audience thought. Read Acts 15. If everyone was in agreement, there would have been no council. Paul's letters are REJECTING the notion that Gentile converts had to keep the MOSAIC LAW.

According to Paul, yes. According to you and me, yes. Not according to the Judiaizers of Acts 15. They believed that circumcision was NECESSARY for salvation, which is what Paul was reacting to. He didn't live in a bubble and his letters were written to REAL people.

That circumcision doesn't "show us to be sinners" is a moot point anyway because the "law" Paul is talking about in Rom 3:20 is OBVIOUSLY the law of Moses, which includes circumcision. This has been proved beyond any doubt above.

If the law, as Paul uses it, doesn't include the law of circumcision as far as condemning a person (which it does not) then what parts of the law are left? The point we've been arguing is that the law in Romans 3:20 doesn't include the law of circumcision in regard to being condemned. Are you acknowledging that now(?)

That's not my contention. My contention is that Paul means "works of the Mosaic law", which includes the ceremonial law of Judaism. Again, Paul's audience knows what specifically he means. Whatever "works" the Judaizers were pushing as salvific, and definitely circumcision. What he DOESN'T mean are ALL actions but faith.

Prove that to me from anywhere in the Bible. That's all you have to do. I showed you it does mean all righteous work outside of the grace given us to believe in the blood (Titus 3:5, Galatians 5:6, 2 Timothy 1:9). You have to redefine 'grace' to make your view true. That's entirely unreasonable and unacceptable. Grace is the unmerited favor of God--that's what the ability to believe in Christ for the forgiveness of sins is--grace. We may do lots of things BY grace, in and out of the law, but it is only faith in the blood that is the very conduit of that grace into our lives (to then do righteous things)--"8 ...by grace...through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8 NASB).


The Bible plainly says we are not made righteous by any work we do except the 'work' of believing in the blood for the removal of unrighteousness. There is no work besides that that removes sin guilt. All other work SHOWS us to have the trust in the blood of Christ that justifies all by itself.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Did Abraham have obedient faith in Gen. 12, yes or no?

Yes.

Is obedient faith "saving faith", yes or no?

No. Not categorically.

It's not a 'yes' or 'no' question.

I was obedient to go to church and learn how to be saved when I was still in my sins. I was reaching out in faith, a very real faith, much like Abraham venturing out of his homeland in response to the Word of God, but simply acting in faith in that way did not justify me one iota. It was not until I heard about, and believed in the promise of the Son that I was justified by that faith.

It was Abraham's faith in the promised son, given to him in Genesis 15, that justified him, just as that is true for us, too. A general, all around 'faith' that gets you up in the morning to go to church, or give some money to charity is NOT the faith that justifies. It may SHOW you to have the faith that justifies--faith in the promised Son--but it is not in and of itself the faith that justifies. Only the 'labor' of faith in the promised Son, Jesus, does that.

Does "saving faith" justify, yes or no?

Yes, that is the very definition of 'saving faith'. But only faith in Christ is the faith that justifies. Not the faith, in and of itself, to go to church, give to the poor, get circumcised, etc....

 

[dadof10]

No, not really. (I'm waiting for the spin to stop on your quote so I can answer, lol.)

You are unreasonable because you think that somehow the meaning of 'law' changed without warning in the same thought and breath and context about the law in a single verse of scripture (Romans 3:20).

There's nothing wrong with raising reasonable doubt. It's a legitimate defensive tactic. But it still has to be reasonable.

What spin? When did I EVER say the meaning of the word "law" in ANY of Paul's letters was ANYTHING other than the law of Moses? Please paste my words or apologize for setting up yet another straw-man. I find it really hard to believe this is a simple misunderstanding. We have been on this topic for...what, a year, on various threads? This is a purposeful distortion of my position.

Here is my interpretation of Rom. 3:20:

"For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the [Mosaic] law, since through the [Mosaic] law comes knowledge of sin."

My words:

"The verse [Rom. 3:20, the WHOLE 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."

Where in these simple words do you get that I "think that somehow the meaning of 'law' changed without warning in the same thought and breath and context about the law in a single verse of scripture (Romans 3:20)."? Where do I say, or even HINT at any change in the word "law"? What am I trying to change it to? The words "knowledge of sin" don't QUALIFY the word "law". Paul is simply giving one attribute, among many, of the Mosaic law, it shows sin. That's it.

You are trying desperately to prove that by "law", Paul means ALL law that shows "knowledge of sin", including the moral law, which is now the same thing as the Mosaic law to you, I guess. You are failing miserably, otherwise you would be able to deal with my actual words instead of the constant parade of ad hom's, Red Herrings, and straw men I am getting from you.

Praying to God, and doing acts of charity no more make you righteous before God than going to church makes you righteous. Only the 'labor' of trusting in the blood of Christ can set a person free from the guilt of their sins and make them legally righteous before God.

If you stop to understand WHY that is true of that 'labor' exclusively you'd stop making these unreasonable cases for other works making a person legally righteous before God. The argument is any other work, in or out of the law, outside of the 'work' of trusting the blood SHOWS you to believe in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sin. Trusting in the blood of Christ is the only 'work' that has the power to forgive sins making you righteous and free of your unrighteousness. Everything else SHOWS you to have that trust in the blood.

Thanks again for restating your position. Too bad restating is not proving.

The point is it's impossible that Paul is only talking about circumcision, as you contend, as that which can not justify because he speaks of that very same law (which you say is only the law of circumcision) as being the law that convicts mankind of sin.

Just tell me how the law that convicts sinners of their sin after the resurrection can only be talking about the law of circumcision that doesn't convict anyone of sin anymore. Okay? No twisting, no sidebars, no distractions, no subtle attacks...just tell me.

You can't be serious. When have I EVER said Paul is only talking about circumcision? Tell me, just tell me!!!

In this very post, which you quote below, I AGAIN clarify my position to you, as I have been doing for over a year, on and off. Here it is again:

"That's not my contention. My contention is that Paul means "works of the Mosaic law", which includes the ceremonial law of Judaism. Again, Paul's audience knows what specifically he means. Whatever "works" the Judaizers were pushing as salvific, and definitely circumcision. What he DOESN'T mean are ALL actions but faith."

What part of this says I believe Paul is talking about ONLY CIRCUMCISION??? You quote this below, then COMMENT ON IT, that's why your straw-man response here is, sadly, purposeful.

Same offer as above, either paste my quotes that say I believe Paul is talking about ONLY circumcision when he talks about the "law" or apologize.

You, Jethro, have no credibility whatsoever. After completely mis-characterizing TWO OF my positions in one post, you have the nerve to accuse ME of twisting, sidebars, attacks and DISTORTIONS??? This is laughable. If you can't respond to my actual points, just go away like you did before. At least you will leave with some semblance of honor.

He's saying this post-resurrection, when circumcision is ruled out by Paul himself as a literal requirement of God in this New Covenant. How can Paul possibly be telling the Romans that unbelievers are still convicted as sinners by the law of circumcision by the use of 'law' in Romans 3:20 when he is the very one who teaches the churches that we are not responsible to and convicted by the law of circumcision anymore????? I think I'm making my point very clearly. Do I need to explain more?

No, you need to PROVE that by "through the law comes knowledge of sin", Paul means "I am qualifying what I mean by 'law'. Any 'work' that gives us 'knowledge of sin' is a 'work of the law' to me." You are assuming that this is a QUALIFIER TO PAUL. I reject this notion. I think Paul is simply giving an attribute of the Mosaic law, that it gives us knowledge of sin.

How does someone now being a believer (if they really are--the point of his rant) somehow make his list of things that condemn suddenly not from the law of Moses anymore??? We know from James, especially, that when a believer sins they are still breaking the law of Moses and are convicted as lawbreakers.

Is Paul somehow not talking about the law of Moses when he lists the things that condemn in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10? How do we know these things condemn except that the law of Moses told us? If these are not references to the law what are they????

What a stretch. References to the MORAL LAW, not the Mosaic law. Do you really think we needed the "law of Moses" to tell us these things are sins? The context shows he is speaking of how to handle believers who break the SECULAR LAW. They were not to hand the offender over to secular courts for judgment, but to hold court themselves.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; 10 not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber -- not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you."

He is talking about those who bear "the name of brother", yet indulge in sin. He is teaching his readers not to associate with "immoral men", even if they are "brothers", but even to drive the sinner from "among you", into the world.

6 1 When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life! 4 If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren."

Here, it is obvious he is telling his readers to settle their disputes among themselves, not go to "unbelievers" to settle anything. Why would these "brothers" take their disputes to "unbelievers" if these sins were in the context of the "law of Moses"? If you will notice, most of things mentioned are ILLEGAL in the Jewish/Roman world. It is OBVIOUS that there were sinners among the "brothers" who were being sent to secular courts to be judged. Paul is saying to "judge them yourselves" In that context, he writes the following:

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

You used to DO THESE THINGS, but are now "sanctified" and "justified" and capable of judging the "unrighteous". This doesn't even come close to bolstering your point, which is that "even Paul uses the requirements of the law to show that not keeping the law convicts a person of sin and keeps them out of the kingdom". Just because he lists sin here doesn't mean he is tying these sins to "the requirements of the law". Again, he isn't speaking to the subject.

The moral law IS the law of Moses. I showed you this.

And I didn't fawningly accept it as Gospel??? What's wrong with me?

I really don't remember you "showing" me this. If you did, please paste it in your next post and I'll deal with it then.

But somehow you are sure Paul is not including all of the law of Moses when he speaks of the law that condemns mankind. That is ridiculous.

I never said this either. I'm not speaking to this subject of what "condemns all mankind", I'm speaking to the subject of what Paul means by "the Law", more distractions.

I'm saying the list of sins in 1Cor. 6 doesn't have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with "the law" Paul mentions elsewhere. This isn't Paul's point. He's not speaking to the subject we are discussing. He is speaking of how to handle "brothers" who engage in un-Christian behavior. You twist Scripture in an attempt to prove that Paul means all law by "law", and assume the conclusion. This is what is ridiculous.

If the law, as Paul uses it, doesn't include the law of circumcision as far as condemning a person (which it does not) then what parts of the law are left?

Of course Paul's use of "the law" includes circumcision. Paul says it over and over. Your view of Rom. 3:20 is wrong, as explained above. Another example of begging the question.

The point we've been arguing is that the law in Romans 3:20 doesn't include the law of circumcision in regard to being condemned.

No it isn't. Begging the question yet again. You haven't come CLOSE to convincing me that Rom. 3:20 is a qualifier for "law". This is what we are arguing about, not whether circumcision "condemns".

Again, "knowledge of sin", is an ATTRIBUTE of the MOSAIC LAW, not a "qualifier". This is where we disagree and what you keep assuming as your conclusion, as if your view is irrefutable. It isn't.