Jesus & Salvation By Faith ALONE

[Alive in Christ]

Regarding justification by faith in Christ ALONE:

though nowhere in the bible will you find that phrase stated in that manner.

Thinking Stuff...

Concerning the truth that salvation is by faith in Christ alone, you said...

Stated in that manner

Thats nothing but a silly response.


Where in the scriptures does it clearly say, in this manner....

"God is a Trinity"

It doesnt...so do you deny the truth?

Of course you dont, because the whole of the scriptures testify to the truth that God is Triune in nature. Because of that we know it is true.

Same with justification by faith in Christ ALONE

 

[Andre]

You go to an awful lot of trouble to deny the obvious. "The law" is the same law written upon the conscience of gentiles- the same law except in a condensed unwritten form. This fact destroys your whole argument.

No. The law here in Romans 3 is the Law of Moses, as my argument shows and as particularly shown by the statement in 3:27-29, where it is clear beyond doubt that the Law of Moses is indeed in view, not some kind of law that is available to everyone.

The law that has been written on the heart of the Gentile is not the Law of Moses, but rather is this "second law" that Paul, at various places (e.g. Romans 3:31 and Romans 9:30) asserts that is still in place and applies to all.

You have not really engaged my argument about how we should see "law" in Romans 3:19-20 as the Law of Moses, which applies only to Jews.

I have repeatedly proven over and over again in numerous posts that are yet unanswered, that

1. Jesus reduced what he calls "the law and the prophets" or the WHOLE MOSAIC JEWISH COVENANT down to two succinct statements which are merely summary expositions of the first and second tablet of the TEN COMMANDMENTS.

I may have denied this at one point, but I now agree with you. But the fact that this is so does not undermine my argument that Paul, in denying the justifying power of the Law of Moses, is not contradicting his Romans 2 statement that people will be ultimately justified by good works. I have promised you a more detailed argument to this effect and I will indeed provide it.

6. This is the same exact law in Romans 2:

For when the Gentiles, which have not the (Mosaic) law, do by nature the things contained in the (Mosaic) law, these, having not the (Mosaic) law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the (Mosaic) law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

No. Paul cannot be referring to a writing of the Law of Moses per se onto the heart of the Gentile here in Romans 2. At the end of Romans 3, Paul says that justification cannot be by works of the Law and then says "Is God not also God of the Gentiles".

This is absolutely fatal to the view that Paul thinks that the Law of Moses applies to Gentiles, whether in written form, or "written on the heart". If Paul believes that the Law of Moses were really written on the heart of the Gentiles, he would never write this:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

If Paul really believes that the Law of Moses is on the heart of Gentile, then he would never have had to write verse 29. I cannot emphasize this enough: while there are a lot of complexities here, this one snippet to text rules out one possibility: that Paul thinks the Law of Moses in any sense applies to Gentiles.

Having stated that one cannot be justified by the Law of Moses, Paul immediately asks the questions "Is God the God of the Jews only?" This makes it crystal clear that he understands the Law of Moses to applies to only Jews - which should never be in doubt anyway - and that if one could be justiifed by the Law of Moses, this would mean that the Gentile is out of luck.

So I really see no way to sustain any argument that Paul thinks the Law of Moses applies to Gentiles in any sense.

Yes, there is indeed a "law" written on the heart of the Gentile, but it is not the Law of Moses. I shall have to get to that later.

 

[Andre]

Again about this idea that the Gentile is any sense under the Law of Moses:

Paul says this toward the end of Romans 3:

27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Paul is clearly talking about a law that only applies to Jews here, as evidenced by verse 29, a verse which makes no sense if the Gentile were in any sense "under" the Law of Moses, but makes perfect sense if the "law" is something only the Jew can perform:

29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

Paul is amplifying the implications of verse 27 and 28 and is clearly focusing on how the Jew and Gentile are both members of God’s family. In verses 27 and 28, he has written that “works” do not justify. In verse 29, it becomes clear that these are the works of the Law of Moses since, obviously, it is by doing the works of the Law of Moses that the Jew could boast "God is God of the Jews only". What marks out the nation Israel from the Gentile? Possession and doing of the Law of Moses, of course. Not good works.

I shall try to explain this another way later, if time permits.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I think you are misinterpreting my argument. I am not maintaining there is no clear distinction between the law written on the conscience of the Gentile and that written by Moses. They are different in many ways. The latter is far more detailed and explicit and external. However, when it is reduced to its LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR it is the exact same law written on the conscience of the Gentile and Jesus proves this by reducing it to a LOWER common denominator than 611 commandments summaried in two succinct statments that demand the Ten commandments represent all the law in its greater extended form as well as the law reduced to its lowest common denominator.

However, the Jew did not reduce it to that lower common denominator but insisted that the Gentile become a Jewish proselyte to the Mosaic form and this is the argument Paul is denying in Romans 2:29 as the Gentiles did not have that form but they did have the same law in its reduced form.

Moreover, in Romans 2:27 he contrasts only TWO laws not three or four. The "law of works" is the response to God's Law in either form, condensed or expanded because the product is the same "works." However, the law "of faith" has been expounded from Romans 3:22-26. The "law of faith" is the principle that justification is obtained through faith in God's provision or the GOOD WORKS and DEATH of a Substitute - Jesus Christ and thus justifying faith is always "IN" the gospel. It is this object of faith that ESTABLISHES the law through CHRIST AS OUR SUBSTITUTE who is "the end of the law for righteousness to all that believe.

Faith establishes the Law by satisfying its full demands through Christ. In addition faith establishes it when under the leadership of the Spirit we express the life of Christ through us in regard to progressive sanctification. However, progressive sanctification is not for justification in the sight of God as that would invalidate justification by Christ (Rom. 4:23-25).

No. The law here in Romans 3 is the Law of Moses, as my argument shows and as particularly shown by the statement in 3:27-29, where it is clear beyond doubt that the Law of Moses is indeed in view, not some kind of law that is available to everyone.

The law that has been written on the heart of the Gentile is not the Law of Moses, but rather is this "second law" that Paul, at various places (e.g. Romans 3:31 and Romans 9:30) asserts that is still in place and applies to all.

You have not really engaged my argument about how we should see "law" in Romans 3:19-20 as the Law of Moses, which applies only to Jews.


I may have denied this at one point, but I now agree with you. But the fact that this is so does not undermine my argument that Paul, in denying the justifying power of the Law of Moses, is not contradicting his Romans 2 statement that people will be ultimately justified by good works. I have promised you a more detailed argument to this effect and I will indeed provide it.


No. Paul cannot be referring to a writing of the Law of Moses per se onto the heart of the Gentile here in Romans 2. At the end of Romans 3, Paul says that justification cannot be by works of the Law and then says "Is God not also God of the Gentiles".

This is absolutely fatal to the view that Paul thinks that the Law of Moses applies to Gentiles, whether in written form, or "written on the heart". If Paul believes that the Law of Moses were really written on the heart of the Gentiles, he would never write this:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

If Paul really believes that the Law of Moses is on the heart of Gentile, then he would never have had to write verse 29. I cannot emphasize this enough: while there are a lot of complexities here, this one snippet to text rules out one possibility: that Paul thinks the Law of Moses in any sense applies to Gentiles.

Having stated that one cannot be justified by the Law of Moses, Paul immediately asks the questions "Is God the God of the Jews only?" This makes it crystal clear that he understands the Law of Moses to applies to only Jews - which should never be in doubt anyway - and that if one could be justiifed by the Law of Moses, this would mean that the Gentile is out of luck.

So I really see no way to sustain any argument that Paul thinks the Law of Moses applies to Gentiles in any sense.

Yes, there is indeed a "law" written on the heart of the Gentile, but it is not the Law of Moses. I shall have to get to that later.

 

[Andre]

I think you are misinterpreting my argument. I am not maintaining there is no clear distinction between the law written on the conscience of the Gentile and that written by Moses. They are different in many ways. The latter is far more detailed and explicit and external. However, when it is reduced to its LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR it is the exact same law written on the conscience of the Gentile and Jesus proves this by reducing it to a LOWER common denominator than 611 commandments summaried in two succinct statments that demand the Ten commandments represent all the law in its greater extended form as well as the law reduced to its lowest common denominator.

Fair enough - the above is a clear expression of your position and I think I entirely agree with it. I will hace to get back to you on this. To be fair to ourselves, and all other persons in this thread, I think that Paul's model of the Law is exceedinlgy complex and subtle. So it is no picnic to clearly articulate a position on the status of "law" that honours all that Paul says about law.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Fair enough - the above is a clear expression of your position and I think I entirely agree with it. I will hace to get back to you on this. To be fair to ourselves, and all other persons in this thread, I think that Paul's model of the Law is exceedinlgy complex and subtle. So it is no picnic to clearly articulate a position on the status of "law" that honours all that Paul says about law.

:thumbs: I can't disagree with your analysis

 

[steaver]

1. Andre asserts that denial of justification by the Law of Moses does not deny justification by good works;

2. Steaver argues, appealing to Galatians 5:14 that the demonstration of love fulfills the Law of Moses.

3. However this does not necessarily mean that the converse is true, namely that doing the law of Moses is necessarily an act of love.

4. And it also does not mean that the only way to demonstrate love is to do the Law of Moses.

5. Therefore Paul can indeed say that love fulfills the Law of Moses and yet also deny that doing the Law of Moses justifies someone and also embrace the position that love (as an example of good works) indeed does justify.

Give us an example of demonstrating love that is not given us in the law of Moses.

 

[steaver]

1. Assume that Paul denies justification by following the Boy Scout code and does not deny justification by doing "good works";

2. We know that Boy Scout code contains prescriptions about "good works";

3. Therefore to deny justification by doing the Boy Scout code also denies justification by "good works"

4. Therefore, to deny justification by following the Boy Scout code implies denial of justification by doing "good works"

Do I really need to explain what is wrong with this kind of argument? The problem is that to follow the Boy Scout code entails doing all the weird "non good works" stuff - wearing the funny hat, doing the funny salutes, doing the secret handshakes, etc. So if someone denies "justification by following the Boy Scout code", they are not necessarily denying justification by doing good works - they are denying justification to those who do all the stuff in the code.

Or put another way, imagine that someone made this kind of argument in a context where to graduate from Harvard, you need to get a score of > 80 % on a national exam (which could indeed be case):

1. I deny that being a Harvard graduate is the criteria for being hired by Law firm X;

2. Being a Harvard graduate entails scoring more than 80 % on the national exam;

3. Therefore to deny that graduating Harvard is the basis for being hired by Law firm X also means you are also denying that scoring 80 % is the criteria for being hired by Law firm X.

This is simply invalid reasoning. And substitute "doing the works of the Law of Moses" for being a Harvard grad, and "good works" for scoring > 80 %, and "justification / salvation" for being hired by law firm X and you can see the problem.

One can perfectly coherently deny justification by doing the works of the Law of Moses without necessarily denying justification by the more general category of "good works", even though the Law of Moses does indeed prescribe "good works".

Jesus and Paul did not make any of these distinctions you have "assumed" and injected into the scriptures.

The "Law" is the "Law".

Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Gal 5:14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

[Andre]

Jesus and Paul did not make any of these distinctions you have "assumed" and injected into the scriptures.

The "Law" is the "Law".

Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Gal 5:14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

As per another line of discussion with Dr. Walter, it appears that you both do not like my claim that one can coherently deny ultimate justification by works of the Law of Moses and also affirm ultimate salvation by good works.

As I have told Dr. Walter, I plan to provide a much more robust argument for this as soon as time permits.

 

[Dr. Walter]

As per another line of discussion with Dr. Walter, it appears that you both do not like my claim that one can coherently deny ultimate justification by works of the Law of Moses and also affirm ultimate salvation by good works.

As I have told Dr. Walter, I plan to provide a much more robust argument for this as soon as time permits.

You cannot agree with my definition of "the law" as you previously professed to agree with and at the same time claim to be ultimately justified through good works as that is a direct contradiction of both Galatians 3:10-13 and Romans 3:19-21 where our agreed definition of the "law" occurs. To do so, is the same as to call black as white. In other words, you cannot have it both ways. These texts say that "no flesh" and "no man" can be justified by the works of the law in the sight of God but you are claiming the very opposite. These texts say that "the law" is not "of faith" when it comes to justification before God but you are claiming it is. What kind of mental gynastics are you going to require to prove such an antithetical claim?

 

[Andre]

You cannot agree with my definition of "the law" as you previously professed to agree with and at the same time claim to be ultimately justified through good works as that is a direct contradiction of both Galatians 3:10-13 and Romans 3:19-21 where our agreed definition of the "law" occurs. To do so, is the same as to call black as white. In other words, you cannot have it both ways. These texts say that "no flesh" and "no man" can be justified by the works of the law in the sight of God but you are claiming the very opposite. These texts say that "the law" is not "of faith" when it comes to justification before God but you are claiming it is. What kind of mental gynastics are you going to require to prove such an antithetical claim?

I just somehow lost a long response to your post here. And I simply am not willing to reproduce it all again - I do not know if you guys have this same trouble where, somehow, you lose your post. And I am not willing to take the time to copy and save as I complete each sentence.

So I will give you an overview response: I can understand that, given the way that I have argued the matter to this point, it does indeed appear that I am embracing contradiction. You have, correctly I would suggest, argued that the content of the Law of Moses hinges on the commands to love neighbour and love others. Fine.

So, quite naturally, you think that I am being inconsistent since to embrace ultimate salvation by good works is to embrace salvation by doing the very essence of the Law of Moses. And yet, you have correctly discerned that I agree with you that the Law of Moses cannot save anyone.

So I fully understand why you see inconsistenty on my part.

I think, though, I have an explanation that rescues my position. And it is this: the reason why Paul says that the Law of Moses cannot save is because, when he makes such statements, he is implicitly (and explicitly at times) understanding that it is acting on "unregenerated" human beings (Jews in particular)

In other words, the Law cannot be followed by a human being who has not become a new creation through the transformative action of the Holy Spirit.

So here is a restatement of my position:

1. The Law of Moses cannot save the Jew because, like everyone else, the Jew has inherited the Adamic sinful nature and fundamentally cannot obey the Law of Moses in the fundamental sense that God intened (i.e. love God and love neighbour).

2. Once a person, Jew or Gentile, places faith in God, that person is indeed transformed to be able to become the kind of person the Law of Moses was always trying to create, but could not since the person it was acting on was in a fallen state.

So I assert that my position is indeed rescued from inconsistency. The key thing is new creation and the gift of the Spirit.

Now I realize that there is a lot more I would need to say to make this argument more robust, but you guys have not, yet anyway, produced any kind of argument why Paul does not mean exactly what he says in Romans 2:6-7 and Romans 8. Romans 8 is particularly clear - I see no argument as to how the following is not a statement that ultimate salvation is not contingent on "living by the Spirit":

11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. 12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14

 

[Dr. Walter]

I completely understand your view as it is the common SDA position. However, if the law was given to justify only regenerated persons then that would have to be included in the stated purposes for God giving the law to man. There are positive and negative reasons given in the Scriptures for why God gave the law to man.

1. To reveal the knowledge of sin - Rom. 3:20; 7:7
2. To be a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ - Gal. 3
3. Neither "life" or "righteousness" comes by the law - Gal. 3:21

Furthermore, in every case where Christ told them to keep the law to get life, the subject he is addressing is not a regenerate person but an unregenerate person who went away not believing in Christ (Mt. 19:17-25; Lk. 10:25-29).

Moreover, the example that Paul gives is a regenerate person (Abraham) and he is the EXAMPLE for "all that believe" and Paul methodically demonstrates that Abraham as a justified person was not justified by obedience to divine ordinances or to the law or by any personal performance as a saved person (Rom. 4:4-23) but justified completely by the Person and work of Christ received through faith ALONE without the works of the law.

Finally, I have demonstrated that Romans 2:1-5 deals with the hypocrit self-righteous sinner who thinks he can escape the judgement of God and continues in hypocrisy and hardening. I do not think anyone on this forum can honestly overturn the exposition I did on the thread "Romans 2:1-16" in regard to that portion of Romans 2. In regard to Romans 2:6-15, you cannot honestly say that there is one syllable in this text that declares that anyone standing in that judgement HAS been approved by their works! Paul is merely setting forth the JUST and EQUITABLE guidelines for judging works rather than declaring anyone will or has already has approved works.

I just somehow lost a long response to your post here. And I simply am not willing to reproduce it all again - I do not know if you guys have this same trouble where, somehow, you lose your post. And I am not willing to take the time to copy and save as I complete each sentence.

So I will give you an overview response: I can understand that, given the way that I have argued the matter to this point, it does indeed appear that I am embracing contradiction. You have, correctly I would suggest, argued that the content of the Law of Moses hinges on the commands to love neighbour and love others. Fine.

So, quite naturally, you think that I am being inconsistent since to embrace ultimate salvation by good works is to embrace salvation by doing the very essence of the Law of Moses. And yet, you have correctly discerned that I agree with you that the Law of Moses cannot save anyone.

So I fully understand why you see inconsistenty on my part.

I think, though, I have an explanation that rescues my position. And it is this: the reason why Paul says that the Law of Moses cannot save is because, when he makes such statements, he is implicitly (and explicitly at times) understanding that it is acting on "unregenerated" human beings (Jews in particular)

In other words, the Law cannot be followed by a human being who has not become a new creation through the transformative action of the Holy Spirit.

So here is a restatement of my position:

1. The Law of Moses cannot save the Jew because, like everyone else, the Jew has inherited the Adamic sinful nature and fundamentally cannot obey the Law of Moses in the fundamental sense that God intened (i.e. love God and love neighbour).

2. Once a person, Jew or Gentile, places faith in God, that person is indeed transformed to be able to become the kind of person the Law of Moses was always trying to create, but could not since the person it was acting on was in a fallen state.

So I assert that my position is indeed rescued from inconsistency. The key thing is new creation and the gift of the Spirit.

Now I realize that there is a lot more I would need to say to make this argument more robust, but you guys have not, yet anyway, produced any kind of argument why Paul does not mean exactly what he says in Romans 2:6-7 and Romans 8. Romans 8 is particularly clear - I see no argument as to how the following is not a statement that ultimate salvation is not contingent on "living by the Spirit":

11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. 12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14

 

[Andre]

I completely understand your view as it is the common SDA position.

In case there is any doubt, I have no exposure at all to SDA teachings, except perhaps through these threads. And based on what I know, I would say that I definitely do not accept many of their beliefs.

However, if the law was given to justify only regenerated persons then that would have to be included in the stated purposes for God giving the law to man. There are positive and negative reasons given in the Scriptures for why God gave the law to man.

1. To reveal the knowledge of sin - Rom. 3:20; 7:7
2. To be a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ - Gal. 3
3. Neither "life" or "righteousness" comes by the law - Gal. 3:21

I have never stated that the Law of Moses was given to justify regenerated persons, although I can understand why you might think that my argument assumes this.

You seem to have missed an element of my argument - when Paul writes about the Law of Moses not justifying anyone, he is implicitly (and explicitly at times) making an argument that a written code cannot, in the absence of transforming power of the Holy Spirit, render anyone capable of obeying the "essence" of the Law of Moses. Which is, as you correctly pointed out, to love God and neighbour.

This is where things get a bit tricky because of the two concepts of law that Paul has. I am going to assert that when Paul speaks of the "law" not justifying, he is specifically referring to the fact that the written code of the Law of Moses cannot save anyone who has not been given the Spirit. Note that this statement does not logically force me into the position where the regenerated person is saved by doing the written code that he is enabled (by the Spirit) to do.

For reasons that I hope to give later, Paul sees that Christian faith and all its outworkings in terms of acts of love and other good deeds, is the true covenantal keeping of the "law". The redeemed person has no need of the written code - He has the Spirit to guide him.

So, again, we can coherently assert that no one is justified by the Law of Moses: the unredeemed person cannot follow it, and the redeemed person has no need for it. But note how this does not mean that people are not ultimately justified by good works, as Paul rather clearly asserts in Romans 2, Romans 8, and elsewhere.

All it means is that the written code justifies no one.

Again, this is a massively complex topic and I will no doubt need to clarify some things.

 

[Andre]

Dr. Walter and others who deny ultimate salvation by good works, please consider this text from Romans 8:

11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. 12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14

I take it that you believe that our being saved - our rescue from mortality - is effected by something other than the work of the Spirit in our lives.

Why then, do you suppose that Paul would write, in verse 11, of how immortality is attained through the work of Spirit. If our getting eternal life has nothing to do with the work of the Spirit, then why is Paul saying this?

And, similarly, why does Paul clearly instruct the believer to, through the Spirit, change the way you live and thereby get, yes, life (not rewards over and above life, but life itself).

I really do not see how it is possible for people to read this text and not come to the conclusion that Paul sees eternal life as the result of living in the Spirit.

Some people try to make this into an assertion about how we get rewards based on how we live, but that our fundamental salvation is not at issue.

Well that is simply not what the text says - it says that life is the result of walking in the Spirit. And from verse 11, this is clearly a reference to the life that results when mortality is defeated. So this is not some kind of general "qualitt of life" statement - it is a statement about the conferral of immortal life.

What is your explanation for this passage?

 

[Dr. Walter]

My friend, even the unregenerated Saul of Tarsus understood that the law "is spiritual" dealing with more than the externals and thus more than an external code (Rom. 7:6-12). However, Paul is denying that the "deeds" or "Works" or responses "do" of the law is what does not justify anyone. This is proven in the case of Abraham in Romans 4 as I pointed out and he is the example of "all who believe."

So, simply defining the EXTERNAL law written upon stone to be what Paul denies can justify anyone is making a distinction that Paul refuses to make as he also denies the obedience, performance, works, deeds, doing of that law through the life of Abraham as inclusive of justification.

Romans 4 is a methodically repudiation of your entire interpretation.

In case there is any doubt, I have no exposure at all to SDA teachings, except perhaps through these threads. And based on what I know, I would say that I definitely do not accept many of their beliefs.


I have never stated that the Law of Moses was given to justify regenerated persons, although I can understand why you might think that my argument assumes this.

You seem to have missed an element of my argument - when Paul writes about the Law of Moses not justifying anyone, he is implicitly (and explicitly at times) making an argument that a written code cannot, in the absence of transforming power of the Holy Spirit, render anyone capable of obeying the "essence" of the Law of Moses. Which is, as you correctly pointed out, to love God and neighbour.

This is where things get a bit tricky because of the two concepts of law that Paul has. I am going to assert that when Paul speaks of the "law" not justifying, he is specifically referring to the fact that the written code of the Law of Moses cannot save anyone who has not been given the Spirit. Note that this statement does not logically force me into the position where the regenerated person is saved by doing the written code that he is enabled (by the Spirit) to do.

For reasons that I hope to give later, Paul sees that Christian faith and all its outworkings in terms of acts of love and other good deeds, is the true covenantal keeping of the "law". The redeemed person has no need of the written code - He has the Spirit to guide him.

So, again, we can coherently assert that no one is justified by the Law of Moses: the unredeemed person cannot follow it, and the redeemed person has no need for it. But note how this does not mean that people are not ultimately justified by good works, as Paul rather clearly asserts in Romans 2, Romans 8, and elsewhere.

All it means is that the written code justifies no one.

Again, this is a massively complex topic and I will no doubt need to clarify some things.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have explained in detail my view of this passage and that the context does not have anything to do with the justification of a saint as that is considered in Romans 8:1 as something already accomplished or else you would not be "in Christ."

This context beginning with Romans 7:14 to Romans 8:27 is a detailed explanation why the believer needs to depend on the Holy Spirit for progressive sanctification not justification.

He needs to rely upon the Spirit of Christ for progressive sanctification because the new created nature (inward man) that delights in the law of God within the saint has NO POWER to empower the justified saints WILLINGNESS to overcome indwelling sin located in the "members" or body of the saint. If the justified saint attempts to live for God by his own will power he will always fail every single time.

Here is what you may not understand. Death still abides in the justified saint and the proof is that he physically dies. However, death can reign in the life of a justified saint when he is not "filled with the Spirit." When he is not under the control of the Spirit death reigns through his life and it is called "sin."

"The sting of death is sin" - I Cor. 15:56

Pauls argument in the text you have given is that the same Holy Spirit that will resurrect your bodies from the grave by His power, is the same Holy Spirit with all that power which indwells you right now. Therefore, we are not indebted to indwelling sin to allow death to reign in our lives in the form of sin. By faith, we are to reckon ourselves dead to sin, resist by submitting to the power of the indwelling Spirit to put to death the reign of indwelling sin through our life so that the LIFE OF CHRIST can be manifested in our attitudes, words and actions. This is how we "REDEEM THE TIME" lived out. When we are not living in the power of the Holy Spirit our life is not being saved or counted for Christ. When we are living under the power of indwelling sin our life is being lost and death is being manifested through SIN in our lives. This is what happened to David when he committed fornication. When he was doing that DEATH was reigning through his DAILY LIFE.

Progressive sanctification is PROGRESSIVE not PERFECT and therefore SIN exists in our DAILY LIVES until the day we die. However, if we are to SAVE any portion of our DAILY LIVES and make them COUNT for Christ and for the glory of God we must conscious submit to the Holy Spirit to "put to death" the power of indwelling sin through our DAILY LIFE, so that the LIFE OF CHRIST may be expressed.

What is being saved and lost is not heaven. Not your soul (I Cor. 3:11-15). What is being saved and lost is your 'TIME" - "redeeming the time" (Eph. 5:16-18). How is the TIME redeemed? By making your live COUNT for the glory of God. By EXPERIENCING the eternal life that you possess in your DAILY LIFE in your attitude (joy, peace, etc.) and words and actions. By SAVING it in the form of eternal REWARDS in heaven. By being used daily to bless others - living out of the law of God in love for God and others. Yes, and by providing justification BEFORE MEN of our salvation profession in Christ.

Dr. Walter and others who deny ultimate salvation by good works, please consider this text from Romans 8:

11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. 12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14

I take it that you believe that our being saved - our rescue from mortality - is effected by something other than the work of the Spirit in our lives.

Why then, do you suppose that Paul would write, in verse 11, of how immortality is attained through the work of Spirit. If our getting eternal life has nothing to do with the work of the Spirit, then why is Paul saying this?

And, similarly, why does Paul clearly instruct the believer to, through the Spirit, change the way you live and thereby get, yes, life (not rewards over and above life, but life itself).

I really do not see how it is possible for people to read this text and not come to the conclusion that Paul sees eternal life as the result of living in the Spirit.

Some people try to make this into an assertion about how we get rewards based on how we live, but that our fundamental salvation is not at issue.

Well that is simply not what the text says - it says that life is the result of walking in the Spirit. And from verse 11, this is clearly a reference to the life that results when mortality is defeated. So this is not some kind of general "qualitt of life" statement - it is a statement about the conferral of immortal life.

What is your explanation for this passage?

 

[Andre]

My friend, even the unregenerated Saul of Tarsus understood that the law "is spiritual" dealing with more than the externals and thus more than an external code (Rom. 7:6-12).

Here is what Paul writes in Romans 7:6-12:

But now we have been (I)released from the Law, having (J)died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in (K)newness of (L)the [a]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. 7(M)What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? (N)May it never be! On the contrary, (O)I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "(P)YOU SHALL NOT COVET."

8But sin, (Q)taking opportunity (R)through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for (S)apart from the Law sin is dead.
9I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10and this commandment, which was (T)to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11for sin, (U)taking an opportunity (V)through the commandment, (W)deceived me and through it killed me. 12(X)So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
I see nothing here that subverts anything in my argument. I have never denied that the Law reveals sin, or that its purpose was to enforce "external" observance. Quite the contrary, I have affirmed the view that the Law of Moses promotes love of God and love of neighbour.

But, as per my argument, the unregenerated person cannot keep it. And as Paul says in verse 6 of this very text - the believer does not follow it as a written code.

So I do not yet anything to challenge my assertion that we can indeed deny ultimate justification by following the written code and yet affirm ultimate justification by good works.

 

[Andre]

So, simply defining the EXTERNAL law written upon stone to be what Paul denies can justify anyone is making a distinction that Paul refuses to make.....

No. In the very text you cite, Paul indeed draws this distinction - distinguishing between following the written code and following the inner promptings of the Holy Spirit:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

he also denies the obedience, performance, works, deeds, doing of that law through the life of Abraham as inclusive of justification.

Romans 4 is a methodically repudiation of your entire interpretation.

Paul never denies that Abraham was ultimately justified by good works, he denies that he was not justified by being Jewish. Which actually affirms the argument I am making.

My computer is acting up....I will have to explain this answer in a later post.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 ¶ For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Sorry, I meant verse 14. The law written on the external stone is "spiritual" in nature, as it deals with the heart, will and mind of sinners. Romans 3:19-21 and Galatians 3:10-13 deals with the heart, will and mind as expressed in "works" or "deeds" or what a person will "do" in order to obey the law.

As I have repeatedly stated Romans 4 completely repudiates your position as Abraham is not a lost man but a regenerated man and yet he is not justified by ANY KIND of works performed through his life, whether works of the flesh (vv. 1-5) or obedience to divine ordinances as a regenerated man (vv. 6-12) or obedience to the law of God as a regenerated man (vv. 13-15) or by anything he does as a regenerate man (vv. 16-22).

Here is what Paul writes in Romans 7:6-12:

But now we have been (I)released from the Law, having (J)died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in (K)newness of (L)the [a]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. 7(M)What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? (N)May it never be! On the contrary, (O)I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "(P)YOU SHALL NOT COVET."

8But sin, (Q)taking opportunity (R)through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for (S)apart from the Law sin is dead.
9I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10and this commandment, which was (T)to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11for sin, (U)taking an opportunity (V)through the commandment, (W)deceived me and through it killed me. 12(X)So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
I see nothing here that subverts anything in my argument. I have never denied that the Law reveals sin, or that its purpose was to enforce "external" observance. Quite the contrary, I have affirmed the view that the Law of Moses promotes love of God and love of neighbour.

But, as per my argument, the unregenerated person cannot keep it. And as Paul says in verse 6 of this very text - the believer does not follow it as a written code.

So I do not yet anything to challenge my assertion that we can indeed deny ultimate justification by following the written code and yet affirm ultimate justification by good works.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your first quotation deals with SERVICE not justification. "we SERVE in newness of Spirit."

Abraham was not a Jew as the jews did not exist. What does the works of "the flesh" have to do with being a Jew versus a gentile (Rom. 4:1-5)???? Remember, Paul states that Abraham is the example of GENTILES in regard to justification by faith and justification by 'faith" is interpreted by Paul to EXCLUDE any personal performance of any kind (Rom. 4:16-22). How in the world can that be restricted to a Jew when Abraham is given as an example for "ALL WHO BELIEVE"?????????

No. In the very text you cite, Paul indeed draws this distinction - distinguishing between following the written code and following the inner promptings of the Holy Spirit:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.



Paul never denies that Abraham was ultimately justified by good works, he denies that he was not justified by being Jewish. Which actually affirms the argument I am making.

My computer is acting up....I will have to explain this answer in a later post.