Sola Scriptura

[Thinkingstuff]

Just because something is inseparable from something else does not mean they are the same or that there is no specific cause and consequence relationship between them. The scriptures do not see justification by faith and sanctification as the same. Nor does the scriptures see justification by faith and good works as the same as the Scriptures clearly state that the "ungodly" is justified by faith WITHOUT WORKS.

If you INCLUDE your good works within justification BEFORE GOD that is "another gospel" which Paul says is "accursed." If that is the gospel you believed in then you are as lost now as you were as a Roman Catholic because that is ESSENTIALLY the very position of Rome. I said "essentially" because they incoporate good works/sacraments with justification as inseparable from each other. Don't give me no technical rebuttal in regard to Rome because your technical rebuttal does not change the PRACTICAL reality that this is how the normal Roman Catholic perceives the doctrine of Justificaiton through sacraments which are "good" works.

The scriptures

24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone

I don't think it makes the distinctions you have. You created distinctions not in scripture.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The scriptures I don't think it makes the distinctions you have. You created distinctions not in scripture.

Thank you for finally clarifying exactly where you stand on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, I realize what your position is and what you really beleive. I realize you fully believe that what you have embraced is the true gospel of Jesus Christ just as the Roman Catholic truly beleives, the mormon, the JW, the SDA, etc. I know what I am dealing with now.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thank you for finally clarifying exactly where you stand on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, I realize what your position is and what you really beleive. I realize you fully believe that what you have embraced is the true gospel of Jesus Christ just as the Roman Catholic truly beleives, the mormon, the JW, the SDA, etc. I know what I am dealing with now.

You're dealing with someone who believes in living by the scriptures which I quoted directly. You seem to hold to a creed

every Baptist confession of faith

which is not baptistic. Hmmm. Interesting turn of events.

 

[Andre]

Justification by faith is WITHOUT WORKS entirely and altogether. Zip, nada!

No. Paul is clear that ultimate salvation is accorded based on the works that a person manifests in their life:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

This is not a denial of justification by faith - it one aspect of the Pauline view of justification which is essentially this: Through faith and faith alone, a person is given the Spirit. The Spirit then acts to transform that person into one who does the good works needed to "pass" the above judgement.

So when Paul talks about "justification by faith" he is to be understood as saying "those who place faith in Jesus in the present will indeed be justified by their works at the end, precisely because of the transforming action of the Holy Spirit"

 

[DHK]

Note Ethiopians that claim to go back to the Ethiopian Eunich are Copts. India doesn't have proto-baptist either. I've said successionism isn't true in fact thats been my point all along. No proto-baptist but an ever changing and developing church.

What kind of churches would Thomas have started in India?
They would have looked like those that are Baptist today, not Orthodox, not RCC, not denominational.
What happened when Carey went to India? The churches he started were independent--no denomination.
What about John Hyde (Praying Hyde) who worked in the area now considered to be Pakistan. The resulting churches were independent though Hyde himself was a Presbyterian.

It was only when the RCC and the Church of England came over did they begin denominations and ecumenism which in turn resulted in successionism. The Church of England, apostate as it was, combined with other churches that had become liberal in their theology: Methodist, Scottish Presbyterian, and Lutheran which then became the apostate Church of Pakistan, one of the larger churches in Pakistan.

But the evangelical churches remained separate from these liberal monstrosities and preached the true gospel of Christ. They were not successionist. They were independent of each other. They rose up wherever the gospel preached, whether by native preachers or by foreign missionaries.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You're dealing with someone who believes in living by the scriptures which I quoted directly. You seem to hold to a creed which is not baptistic. Hmmm. Interesting turn of events.

Below are the two most widely used Baptist Confessions of Faith in American History. The Second London Confession was adopted by the Philadelphia Baptist Association and adopted by the associations that came out of her. The New Hampshire Confession is the basis for the SBC Baptist Faith and Message Confession of Faith. Both confession make a clear distinction between the righteousness of Christ whereby we are justified by faith and the righteousness imparted in regeneration and manifested in our lives.


SECOND LONDON CONFESSION OF FAITH:

1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing Righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their Persons as Righteous; not for any thing wrought in them or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone, not by imputing faith it self, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their Righteousness; but imputing Christ active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death, their whole and sole righteousness, they receiving, and resting on him, and his Righteousness, by Faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

2. Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ, and his Righteousness, is the alone instrument of Justification: yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving Graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.


NEW HAMPSHIRE CONFESSION OF FAITH

Of Justification We believe that the great gospel blessing which Christ (26) secures to such as believe in him is Justification (27); that Justification includes the pardon of sin (28), and the promise of eternal life on principles of righteousness (29); that it is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but solely through faith in the Redeemer's blood (30); by virtue of which faith his perfect righteousness is freely imputed to us of God (31); that it brings us into a state of most blessed peace and favor with God, and secures every other blessing needful for time and eternity (32).


The phrase "unto good works" necessarily follows having been created in Christ Jesus rather than inclusive of being created in Christ Jesus. To deny this distinction is to preach a gospel that marries Christ's works with your good works as the basis not only for justification but for regeneration as well. This is ROMANISM not Baptist doctrine. The Bible distinguishes and separates "our good works" clearly and distinctly from regeneration without denying they are the consequences of regeneration. The Bible distinguishes and separates "our good works" clearly and distinctly from justification by faith (Romans 4) without denying they are the consequences of justifying faith (James 2).

Failure to make this distinction leads to including them in regeneration and justification by faith and that is the error of Romanism.

 

[Dr. Walter]

My friend, you have a dillemma on the other thread dealing with this very thing you have not been able to respond to. You can't just skip over that dilemma and continue as if it does not exist. That is precisely what you are doing in this post. The Jews believed no such thing as you have accredited to them and therefore Paul is not refuting something that no one believed. The Jews believed they were justified by doing "good" as defined by God's standard of what is "good" - the law. This is exactly what Paul is refuting and contrasting "justification by faith" unto. Paul is denying that anyone is justified by "good" works now or in the future.

No. Paul is clear that ultimate salvation is accorded based on the works that a person manifests in their life:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

This is not a denial of justification by faith - it one aspect of the Pauline view of justification which is essentially this: Through faith and faith alone, a person is given the Spirit. The Spirit then acts to transform that person into one who does the good works needed to "pass" the above judgement.

So when Paul talks about "justification by faith" he is to be understood as saying "those who place faith in Jesus in the present will indeed be justified by their works at the end, precisely because of the transforming action of the Holy Spirit"

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The phrase "unto good works" necessarily follows having been created in Christ Jesus rather than inclusive of being created in Christ Jesus.

You are saying the same thing in two fashions. Whats the difference practically speaking? And James is very clear as I've quoted you are adding to both Paul and to James.

 

[Andre]

My friend, you have a dillemma on the other thread dealing with this very thing you have not been able to respond to. You can't just skip over that dilemma and continue as if it does not exist. That is precisely what you are doing in this post. The Jews believed no such thing as you have accredited to them and therefore Paul is not refuting something that no one believed.

No. My argument is solid. We can see from the very content of the context that surrounds Paul's repudiation of "justification by works" that his critique is squarely aimed at the Jew who might think that only Jews are candidates for justification. This is the only reasonable explanation why Paul follows this statement:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. ...

....with this statement:

Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

Let's be clear. If we actually take Paul seriously in the fine-grained details of what he actually wrote, and not what our traditions tell us, we cannot help but conclude that Paul is telling the Jew this:

"Look, justification is achieved apart from the Law of Moses, which is for we Jews only. And the reason this is so is precisely because God is God of the Gentiles too. If justification was by doing the works of the Law of Moses, then, of course, the Gentile, who is not under the Law of Moses, could obviously not be justified by it. But God cares about Gentiles too, and so it is for this reason that you Jews need to understand that you cannot be justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses."

When we actually look at the "justified apart from works of the law" in actual context, we see that Paul must be making an argument about how the Jew erred in seeing the Law of Moses as an ethnic delimiter which kept the Gentiles out.

The Jews believed they were justified by doing "good" as defined by God's standard of what is "good" - the law. This is exactly what Paul is refuting and contrasting "justification by faith" unto. Paul is denying that anyone is justified by "good" works now or in the future.

Even if some Jews did believe that they were justified by doing what the law asked of them, such a belief is clearly not at the heart of what Paul is critiquing. As is clear from the Romans 3 text, and others, is that Paul is critiquing the belief that only those who the works of the Law of Moses have any hope of being justified, that is, the Jews.

 

[Dr. Walter]

you think so because you believe that the Judaic law does not manifest the righteousness of God but some other standard of righteousness peculiar to the Jew. Justification by definition has to do with being righteous before God.

The Jew believes that the Law given by God defines what God means and what God requires to be righteous in God's sight. If the Law reveals the righteousness of God then it equally reveals what is the knowlege of what is unrighteous before God. Therefore the "deeds" or "works" of the law are understood by the Jew as responses necessary to be righteous before God.

You know fully well this law includes the ten commandments and there is no way you can regulate this law to the Jew only but you must admit it is definitive of what righteousness and what sin is for ALL MANKIND - Jew and Gentile.

The stupidity here as I see it, is to imagine that civil law is based upon something othe rthan the Moral law! That is simply marvelous and sublime intellectual stupidity as that would result in AMORAL civil laws. No, the civil law is simply the application of the Ten commandment to the judicial branch of Jewish government.

This leaves the ceremonial law and the same stupidity that assumes that there is an AMORAL basis for RELIGIOUS law. Every commanded FORM of ceremonial law is designed by God as an OBJECT Lesson to teach MORAL truths that are mostly found in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and His life and death.

In other words my friend, the Judic law is the most comprehensive manifestation of God's righteousness to man in every day application to every aspect of his life. If the Jew cannot be justified by the "works" and "deeds" of the Judaic law - NO FLESH can be justified by any kind of "works" or "deeds" as no other Law gives a more comprehensive demonstration of THE RIGHTEOUSENSS OF GOD.

Therefore to claim that phrases "without works" and "NO FLESH can be justified by the law" refers only to the Jews is profound perversion of Paul's words and profound ignorance of God's righteousness. Paul is contrasting the "ungodly" an "uncircumcised" gentile Abraham who "served other God's" as a "SYRIAN" with the generation of mankind that was given the greatest and most comprehensive definition of the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD and what God requires to be righteous in his sight. If the most blessed of men with the greatest light of right and wrong cannot be justified by their works the NO FLESH can as NO FLESH has been given more light, more blessings, more opportunity than the Jews.

The argument of Paul is from greater to lessor. If the jew cannot be justified by works then justification must be "without works" for all who would be justified.

More importantly, the standard of justification is THE RIGHTEOUSENSSS OF GOD not the flimsy relative righteousness that you sin filled life produces by your best works. Your doctrine of justification rejects THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD for its standard of justification and must as you can produce no such righteousness in your miserable sin filled life. Hence, you are of those in Romans 10:3 going about to establish THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS which is inferior, sublevel, relative in kind because it consists of "your works." That is the best you can do but what God demands to satisfy His standard for justification is the best God can do.

No. My argument is solid. We can see from the very content of the context that surrounds Paul's repudiation of "justification by works" that his critique is squarely aimed at the Jew who might think that only Jews are candidates for justification. This is the only reasonable explanation why Paul follows this statement:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. ...

....with this statement:

Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

Let's be clear. If we actually take Paul seriously in the fine-grained details of what he actually wrote, and not what our traditions tell us, we cannot help but conclude that Paul is telling the Jew this:

"Look, justification is achieved apart from the Law of Moses, which is for we Jews only. And the reason this is so is precisely because God is God of the Gentiles too. If justification was by doing the works of the Law of Moses, then, of course, the Gentile, who is not under the Law of Moses, could obviously not be justified by it. But God cares about Gentiles too, and so it is for this reason that you Jews need to understand that you cannot be justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses."

When we actually look at the "justified apart from works of the law" in actual context, we see that Paul must be making an argument about how the Jew erred in seeing the Law of Moses as an ethnic delimiter which kept the Gentiles out.


Even if some Jews did believe that they were justified by doing what the law asked of them, such a belief is clearly not at the heart of what Paul is critiquing. As is clear from the Romans 3 text, and others, is that Paul is critiquing the belief that only those who the works of the Law of Moses have any hope of being justified, that is, the Jews.

 

[Andre]

you think so because you believe that the Judaic law does not manifest the righteousness of God but some other standard of righteousness peculiar to the Jew. Justification by definition has to do with being righteous before God.

I have never ever said anything like this. In particular, I have never written anything that can be reasonably understood as suggesting that I think that any standard peculiar to the Jew manifests the righteousness of God.

But Paul does indeed clearly asserted that the fundamental act of God's righteousness - the cross - does not involve the Law of Moses:

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify

Hence, you are of those in Romans 10:3 going about to establish THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS which is inferior, sublevel, relative in kind because it consists of "your works."

Clearly untrue - I am not a Jew. Romans 10:3 is another example of Paul's critique of the Jew for thinking that God's graces are limited to them:

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

This is not a universal human principle that can be applied to, for example, me. It is a specific critique levelled by Paul at the nation of Israel for their belief that justification was limited to the Jew.

This is what happens when context is ignored. Romans 9-11 is largely about the plight of Israel and their story. You universalize 10:3 to apply it to a non-Jew living 2000+ years later.

Romans 10:3 does not universalize - it is a pointed critique of the Jewish belief that God's graces were limited to them and them alone.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No, you didn't say it word for word but that is your position because you isolate the Judaic law to the Jew.

Paul says nothing of the kind in Romans 3:22. If you carefully look at the text it is saying that IN ADDITION to the law and the prophets the righteousness of God is manifested in the Person of Christ. To use this text to say the cross has nothing to do with the judaic law is to completely disregard Galatians 3:14-15 that says the cross brought him under the curse of the Judaic law.

Still you can't see the obvious. If the Jew who has all the advantages including the GREATEST revelation of the righteousenss of God that defines more clearly than any other light given to man what God requires to be righteous in His sight and still cannot be justified by these works then NO FLESH can be justified in the sight of God and THE WHOLE WORLD is condemned and EVERY MOUTH is shut.

It is extremely simple to see if you have eyes that have sight.

I have never ever said anything like this. In particular, I have never written anything that can be reasonably understood as suggesting that I think that any standard peculiar to the Jew manifests the righteousness of God.

But Paul does indeed clearly asserted that the fundamental act of God's righteousness - the cross - does not involve the Law of Moses:

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify


Clearly untrue - I am not a Jew. Romans 10:3 is another example of Paul's critique of the Jew for thinking that God's graces are limited to them:

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

This is not a universal human principle that can be applied to, for example, me. It is a specific critique levelled by Paul at the nation of Israel for their belief that justification was limited to the Jew.

This is what happens when context is ignored. Romans 9-11 is largely about the plight of Israel and their story. You universalize 10:3 to apply it to a non-Jew living 2000+ years later.

Romans 10:3 does not universalize - it is a pointed critique of the Jewish belief that God's graces were limited to them and them alone.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You are saying the same thing in two fashions. Whats the difference practically speaking? And James is very clear as I've quoted you are adding to both Paul and to James.

GE:
No, Thinkingstuff. You must go think about this; Dr Walter is here ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
The phrase "unto good works" necessarily follows having been created in Christ Jesus rather than inclusive of being created in Christ Jesus.

....'evangelically', absolutely correct.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

GE:
No, Thinkingstuff. You must go think about this; Dr Walter is here ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
The phrase "unto good works" necessarily follows having been created in Christ Jesus rather than inclusive of being created in Christ Jesus.

....'evangelically', absolutely correct.

You're going to have to explain the distinction.

 

[Andre]

No, you didn't say it word for word but that is your position because you isolate the Judaic law to the Jew.

OK my mistake. I misunderstood your post. But I am entirely scriptural in asserting that the written code of the Law of Moses was given to Jews only. As Leviticus 20 says - the Law of Moses was given to the Jews to set them apart from the nations. I suggest that it is clear from numerous places that the Law of Moses was given to the Jews and the Jews only. I am surprised that you appear to be arguing otherwise. Yes, the rest of humanity is indeed given an "inner sense of morality from God", that is what Romans 1 says. But the Law of Moses was given to the nation of Israel only. They were the ones at Sinai, not Gentiles. And it is clear, as I have already shown, that Paul thinks the Law of Moses applied to Jews only.

Paul says nothing of the kind in Romans 3:22. If you carefully look at the text it is saying that IN ADDITION to the law and the prophets the righteousness of God is manifested in the Person of Christ. To use this text to say the cross has nothing to do with the judaic law is to completely disregard Galatians 3:14-15 that says the cross brought him under the curse of the Judaic law.

My wording was not good. I entirely believe that the cross and the Law of Moses are intimately connected. But this does not challenge my argument.

Still you can't see the obvious. If the Jew who has all the advantages including the GREATEST revelation of the righteousenss of God that defines more clearly than any other light given to man what God requires to be righteous in His sight and still cannot be justified by these works then NO FLESH can be justified in the sight of God and THE WHOLE WORLD is condemned and EVERY MOUTH is shut.

I have argued in detail, using Paul's own words that Paul's critique of the Jew in relation to the Law of Moses was not that they thought that "good works" were necessary for justification, but rather that they thought that justification was limited to Jews alone. I do not see that you have successfully engaged those arguments.

Besides, the Romans 3 text you are alluding to is, by overall context, clearly a description of the state of affairs of humanity apart from the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.

People do odd things with Romans 3. Many, as you are doing, invoke it to demonstrate the impossibility of ultimate salvation by deeds. And yet, in so doing, they have to ignore Romans 8 which makes it clear that the situation described in the first two thirds of Romans 3 is that of the human being who is not in Christ. With the Spirit, however, we can indeed go "good works" and thereby pass the Romans 2 judgement.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Look, you seem to be a reasonable person and I appreciate that. I certainly agree that the Mosaic law was given to the Jews only. However, why was it given to the Jews only? It was to separate them as a people zealous of "good works" a "holy" and "peculiar" people unto the Lord. They are the epitomy of what it means to be separated (set apart) and dedicated to doing "good works" among all other people of the world. Therefore, to be a "Jew" is synonomous with being a COMMANDMENT KEEPER - a doer of GOOD WORKS. The Jew is the apex of this kind of person within the world of humanity.

To become a "jew" is to become a person that is characterized by obedience to God's Word in the greatest details of conformity. This is the GOOD WORKS humanity within and among worldlings.

Second, the Jews did not regard every Jew as justified or justifiable but this is what your position depends upon and demands. The whole cult of the Pharisees was to distinguish the "pious" from the ungodly Jews. The whole cult of Sadducees was to scorn the "piety" of the Pharisees as they were the most worldy and liberal among the Jewish sects.

By Paul proving that the Jew and all his works cannot be justified under the most comprehensive revelation of the righteousness of God given among mankind is to prove that NO FLESH can be justified under the law's standard of righteousness and thus will "SHUT EVERY MOUTH" and condemn the "WHOLE WORLD" because if the JEW cannot do it no flesh can do it.

The Justified man isn't trying to do it as that would be repudiation of the very grounds of his faith in the PERFECT WORKS of Jesus Christ for justification before God. The work of the Holy Spirit IN and THROUGH the justified man is not to be confused with justification by faith or the finished work of Jesus Christ. This is what you are doing.

OK my mistake. I misunderstood your post. But I am entirely scriptural in asserting that the written code of the Law of Moses was given to Jews only. As Leviticus 20 says - the Law of Moses was given to the Jews to set them apart from the nations. I suggest that it is clear from numerous places that the Law of Moses was given to the Jews and the Jews only. I am surprised that you appear to be arguing otherwise. Yes, the rest of humanity is indeed given an "inner sense of morality from God", that is what Romans 1 says. But the Law of Moses was given to the nation of Israel only. They were the ones at Sinai, not Gentiles. And it is clear, as I have already shown, that Paul thinks the Law of Moses applied to Jews only.


My wording was not good. I entirely believe that the cross and the Law of Moses are intimately connected. But this does not challenge my argument.


I have argued in detail, using Paul's own words that Paul's critique of the Jew in relation to the Law of Moses was not that they thought that "good works" were necessary for justification, but rather that they thought that justification was limited to Jews alone. I do not see that you have successfully engaged those arguments.

Besides, the Romans 3 text you are alluding to is, by overall context, clearly a description of the state of affairs of humanity apart from the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.

People do odd things with Romans 3. Many, as you are doing, invoke it to demonstrate the impossibility of ultimate salvation by deeds. And yet, in so doing, they have to ignore Romans 8 which makes it clear that the situation described in the first two thirds of Romans 3 is that of the human being who is not in Christ. With the Spirit, however, we can indeed go "good works" and thereby pass the Romans 2 judgement.

 

[Andre]

I certainly agree that the Mosaic law was given to the Jews only. However, why was it given to the Jews only? It was to separate them as a people zealous of "good works" a "holy" and "peculiar" people unto the Lord. They are the epitomy of what it means to be separated (set apart) and dedicated to doing "good works" among all other people of the world. Therefore, to be a "Jew" is synonomous with being a COMMANDMENT KEEPER - a doer of GOOD WORKS. The Jew is the apex of this kind of person within the world of humanity.

I happen to disagree with this and believe that the Law of Moses was given to make the Jew more sinful, not less, although this a whole issue that has not come up in our discussions yet. And yes, I am quite serious. But, again, I am only following Paul:

The Law came in so that the transgression would increase;

Who gave the Law? God. Why did He give it? To make Israel more sinful.

Here is the big picture:

1. God's covenant with Abraham promised that Israel would be "blessing for the nations";

2. In Romans, Paul is deeply concerned with arguing that God has indeed been faithful to this promise - that God has indeed used Israel to bless the nations;

3. However, as per Romans 3, Paul recognizes that the way Israel will bless the nations cannot be through "showing them how wonderful the Law of Moses is". In Romans 3, he is pretty clear – the Law of Moses cannot be a blessing to the world in this way.

4. To put a finer point on this, Paul sees that the Jew, like the Gentile, is in Adam. So while the Law of Moses is good, it is operating on a Jew who is as fallen as the Gentile.

5. How then can God use the Jew to bless the world and be faithful to his promise?

6. Answer: God uses Law of Moses to make Israel draw the sin of the world onto itself. As per a line of reasoning you get in Romans 5, 7, ,9, and 11, Paul argues, cryptically perhaps, that God is using the Law of Moses as a kind of "sponge" to soak of the sins of the world into the nation of Israel.

7. Why would God do this? Answer: to collect sin together into "one place" (national Israel) so that this sin can then be focussed down into one person - Jesus. And then, sin is condemned on the cross (Romans 8:3)

8. By using Israel as this "sponge for sin", God has indeed been faithful to the Abrahamic promise. Law of Moses has, strangely, been used in this "dark" manner - making Israel more sinful, not less - for the ultimate benefit of us all.

9. Since the purpose of Law of Moses was to "lure sin into Israel" and then into Jesus, the condemnation of sin on the cross brings the task of Law of Moses to a close.

10. Since its task has been completed, the Law of Moses is then retired with honour.

But let's say that I agree with you about the Law of Moses. That does not change the fact that the nature of Paul's argument against justification by "works of the Law", in places like Romans 3 and Romans 4, is really an argument against ethnic exclusivity in respect to justification - it is not a denial that "good works" are required for justification.

If how we lived were not an issue in respect to justification, why would Paul write this?:

for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live

 

[Andre]

Second, the Jews did not regard every Jew as justified or justifiable but this is what your position depends upon and demands.

My position does not demand this. I may have been unclear about this up to a point, but in a recent post (in either this thread or the other one), I have explained that my position does not regard every Jew as being guaranteed justification.

 

[Andre]

However, why was it given to the Jews only? It was to separate them as a people zealous of "good works" a "holy" and "peculiar" people unto the Lord.

For the sake of the argument, let's say that I agree with you on the above (even though I actually do not). But even if what you are saying is true, this does not exclude the possibility that the Jew would mistakenly come to believe that the Law of Moses set them apart as the only people who get justified.

I think it is clear that this is precisely the thinking that Paul is reacting to. So even if the Law was given for the reasons you cite, this does not mean that the Jew has not misunderstood the purpose of the Law and instead latched on to it as a charter of national privilege.

 

[DHK]

My position does not demand this. I may have been unclear about this up to a point, but in a recent post (in either this thread or the other one), I have explained that my position does not regard every Jew as being guaranteed justification.

The Jews could not be justified by works; they had to be totally dependent on God's grace. Works failed them every time. Works and grace are totally exclusive of each other. Paul puts it this way:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

If it is by grace, it is not by works.
If it is by works, it is not by grace.
You cannot have both.