The Apostate Gospel of works

[Dr. Walter]

I have absolutely no problems with the illustration of the criminal and the Governer granting a pardon except when it comes to what really facilitates the change of mind and heart. You leave this completely in the power and choice of the criminal thus he actually saves himself from his original sin that was the cause of being jailed. The governor is helpless and simply an observer hoping the criminal will change. Thus, the criminal is his own savior because he made his own change in the very problem that landed him in prison in the first place.

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

HP: Paul was not addressing the conditions of salvation so often spoke of, but was rather speaking as to the grounds of salvation. Certainly speaking directly to the grounds of salvation (thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’)we are saved by nothing but the blood of Christ and the mercy and grace of God alone. Our works do not and cannot atone for the least sin period. Conditions set forth by God to be done by man have absolutely no merit involved, but rather are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which.’ Can you recall the illustration I have used many times concerning a pardon involving a convicted criminal? It clearly illustrates the points I am making. Here it is again for those that might not have read it before or forget its clear illustration of the distinction between grounds and conditions.

A man goes to prison for life, being justly condemned and sentenced by a judge for a specific crime. Can such an individual ‘merit’ a pardon by the performance of good works while in prison? Can such a criminal perform good works to such a degree that the governor is forced to grant this man a pardon based merely on the ‘merit’ of the performance of such good works? Absolutely not. You cannot then consider any intents or actions formed by the prisoner as the grounds of his pardon, nor could you say that he in any way could ‘merit’ a pardon. IF he is granted a pardon it cannot be said that in any sense his pardon was ‘for the sake of’ anything the prisoner had done or could do.

Just the same can the governor, if he so pleases, pardon such a criminal? Of course he can. Still, there is something the criminal MUST do, there is an attitude that MUST be reflected by the criminal to receive a pardon IF the governor is indeed fair and just. If the prisoner is to receive a pardon it still can be said that there must be attitudes that are tied inseparably to intents of the heart, this very initial intent being none other than a ‘work’ in one sense of the word being something the prisoner must do. The governor MUST witness from the criminal a repentant attitude and a change of heart towards his former criminal behavior if the governor is even to consider such a pardon for the criminal. Here we see that the intents and actions of the prisoner indeed do play a part in a pardon, though again, not in the sense of 'that for the sake of.' The sense that the intents and works of the prisoner are involved in a pardon can only be seen in the sense of 'not without which,' not 'that for the sake of.' Nothing the prisoner can or will do can merit a pardon, but just the same neither will he receive a pardon without repentance and an assurance of future behavior is garnered.

What kind of governor would pardon a criminal from prison who had not exhibited true remorse for his crimes? Would not the governor have to be satisfied in his or her mind that IF they pardoned such a criminal that they would not return to commit the same crime or one of like heinous behavior upon society again and that such a criminal possessed and exhibited a true change of heart and attitude towards their former behavior? There are indeed certain conditions that the criminal must meet, works that such a one must of necessity do in order to have the opportunity for a pardon if such an opportunity is offered. These works on the part of the prisoner are again, in no way meritorious in nature, and in no way force the governor to grant such a one a pardon on the account of any or all of their works. Just the same, there are definite conditions or works one must do in order for the governor to consider the pardon. These works are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’

It can properly be stated that one is not pardoned due to any works (in one sense of the word ‘works’) in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ of the prisoner, but just the same it can be said ‘without works’ (in another sense of the word, that being in the sense of ‘not without which’) one will never see the opportunity to receive a pardon.

Can you see how that works can be thought of as necessary for a pardon, or in the sense of “not without which,” yet at the same time no amount of works can be thought of as “that for the sake of” or forcing the governor to pardon the criminal on the account of works performed by the criminal?

Such I believe is the case in our salvation. We indeed will be judged by our works, but our works are not the grounds of our salvation. There is no amount of works that can coerce God into granting us a pardon, but just the same no man will be found in Him without works consistent with their faith. Nothing we do is meritorious, nor can anything we do be seen of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ our salvation. Nothing but the blood of Christ can atone for a single sin. Just the same, God does command us to repent and be obedient to the end, bearing fruits of righteousness and holiness, ‘without which’ no man shall see the Lord.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let the reader understand, DW confuses prophesy, which can be a determined act by God, and God’s foreknowledge dealing with the salvation of individual men. Can the reader even imagine God punishing men for something He brought to pass??? What absurdity some imbibe with their philosophical notions. Does the word ‘Just’ or ‘justice’ have no meaning or place in the philosophy and theology of some?

It is nothing other than error to believe that a Just God would punish or praise a moral being for something he is the sole cause of. Neither Scripture or reason affirm any such nonsense. If man is to be blamed or praised for his actions, he must be able to do something other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances. This is also denoted as contrary choice, without which punishment and praise is not only absurd to contemplate, but wickedly unjust, if justice means anything at all.

Thinks about it. For God to punish man for a necessitated fate of His own choosing is for God to blame man for failing to do something even He cannot do, i.e., avoid a necessitated and predetermined end.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

God grants to every man a measure of faith, and empowers every responsible created sentient moral being with the abilities and powers necessary to facilitate a change of heart. Certainly by their efforts alone no sin can be remitted, but they can voluntarily fulfill the conditions for salvation such as repentance and the exercising of faith towards God's sacrifice offered for sin. To have a change of heart is NOT to act as ones own redeemer as DW would in error conclude. How many times does one have to be reminded that the fulfilling of any or every condition has no power in and of itself to save or set aside the penalty of sin???

If the criminal was his own savior, he would have to be the one that implements the power to pardon and to be the sole judge as to when one fulfills the stated conditions allowing the pardon to be justly administered. Having a changed heart towards the crimes that lands one into prison by no mean necessitates being one sown savior. Can a prisoner pardon himself? Does a changed heart towards ones crimes automatically set them free from the penalty of the law??? Is anyone even trying to think seriously about truth? Thank God there are some, DW excluded.....for now that is, but there is always hope that might change. :thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Foreknowledge considered as mere prescience does not determine any future event or make it occur. It simply refers to God's omniscience of future events before they occur and the only necessitated thing is God's knowlege is correct and it will occur.

Foreknowledge considered as intimate knowledge before hand with His eternal purpose or decees has to do with those things that God has determined before hand that will occur due to His own power making them occur. Prophecy is an obvious aspect of foreordination. However, like it or not, Romans 8:28-31 uses "foreknew" in this very context of those things that are "according to His purpose" and can be spoken of as already certain before they come to pass because God purposed them to come to pass. Hence, Paul refers to them in the past tense (Aorist) as though they are already finished and concludes by asking "What can we say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us." Salvation of all of God's elect is on purpose not by accident and election is UNTO salvation not BECAUSE OF salvation (Eph. 1:4; 2 Thes. 2:13).

Let the reader understand, DW confuses prophesy, which can be a determined act by God, and God’s foreknowledge dealing with the salvation of individual men. Can the reader even imagine God punishing men for something He brought to pass??? What absurdity some imbibe with their philosophical notions. Does the word ‘Just’ or ‘justice’ have no meaning or place in the philosophy and theology of some?

It is nothing other than error to believe that a Just God would punish or praise a moral being for something he is the sole cause of. Neither Scripture or reason affirm any such nonsense. If man is to be blamed or praised for his actions, he must be able to do something other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances. This is also denoted as contrary choice, without which punishment and praise is not only absurd to contemplate, but wickedly unjust, if justice means anything at all.

Thinks about it. For God to punish man for a necessitated fate of His own choosing is for God to blame man for failing to do something even He cannot do, i.e., avoid a necessitated and predetermined end.

 

[Dr. Walter]

God grants to every BELIEVER a measure of faith (Rom. 12:5) but no such teaching is found in scripture concerning "every man" as 2 Thessalonians 3:2 denies that every man has faith.

2 Thes. 3:2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.

Indeed, all men are said to be in "unbelief" and that saving faith is given only to those the father gives to the Son to be saved (Jn. 6:37-65). Jesus is the "author" as well as the "finisher" of faith and it is a "gift" of God (Eph. 2:8).

God grants to every man a measure of faith, and empowers every responsible created sentient moral being with the abilities and powers necessary to facilitate a change of heart. Certainly by their efforts alone no sin can be remitted, but they can voluntarily fulfill the conditions for salvation such as repentance and the exercising of faith towards God's sacrifice offered for sin. To have a change of heart is NOT to act as ones own redeemer as DW would in error conclude. How many times does one have to be reminded that the fulfilling of any or every condition has no power in and of itself to save or set aside the penalty of sin???

If the criminal was his own savior, he would have to be the one that implements the power to pardon and to be the sole judge as to when one fulfills the stated conditions allowing the pardon to be justly administered. Having a changed heart towards the crimes that lands one into prison by no mean necessitates being one sown savior. Can a prisoner pardon himself? Does a changed heart towards ones crimes automatically set them free from the penalty of the law??? Is anyone even trying to think seriously about truth? Thank God there are some, DW excluded.....for now that is, but there is always hope that might change. :thumbs:

 

[quantumfaith]

Amy, these men honestly believe they can change their own hearts. They believe that God is not omniscient but igorant concerning the future in regard to his own elect and could be wrong about who He chose and who He did not choose. They deny that both God and fallen man are servants to their own nature and will not choose contrary to their natures. Thus they believe God has the power of contrary choice and can lie, sin and change his mind. They believe all the passages that deny justification is by the deeds of the law only apply to Jewish people but all man are justified by works and the list goes on.

Hence, according to them "another gospel" does not exist today as it ceased with Judaism. Since all aspects of Christendom believes in Christ plus works for justification except Baptistic types, then, the only false gospel today according to them is the one that says we are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works.

DW, your statement is simply wrong. Someone, who appears to be as bright as you appear to be, should refrain from making such sweeping statements about what others believe. Or at the very least, you should add the disclaimer "This is how I see it". Expressing your perspectives in spiritually arrogant manners is not cool.

 

[Dr. Walter]

DW, your statement is simply wrong. Someone, who appears to be as bright as you appear to be, should refrain from making such sweeping statements about what others believe. Or at the very least, you should add the disclaimer "This is how I see it". Expressing your perspectives in spiritually arrogant manners is not cool.

I guess you have not been following the various threads on this subject! What I have stated can be demonstrated, just go back and read the posts.

Here is the difference between you and your compadres and me. I believe that saving faith is defined by its object - the complete satisfaction of God's righteous demands by the Person and works of Christ - not by what it produces - faithfulness. It is a matter of cause and consequences. I do not deny either and embrace both but in their proper cause and consequence relationship. On the other hand you makes what is produced "by faith" inclusive with the object of faith as the cause for final justification. The righteousness "of faith" is that righteousness that is the object of faith (objective genitive) not what is produced by faith (subjective genitive).

In essence, you repudiate the finished work of Christ as sufficient to satisfy all of God's righteous demands but ADD what is produced through your life by faith to complete salvation.

On the other hand, I repudiate what I will and do manifest in my life (righteous works) as any part of justification before God without denying it is essential to spiritual growth, blessings, usefulness and eternal rewards in heaven.

You might say my position is the difference between Matthew 5:19 and Matthew 5:20. Matthew 5:19 those already IN the kingdom of heaven who sin, those sin do not determine death or life but rather "least" or "greatest" IN the kingdom of heaven.

However, Matthew 5:20 for entrance INTO the kingdom of heaven requires a righteousness that exceeds the best of men and is equal to the best of God - Mt. 5:48 and only the righteousness of God in Christ will do and that alone, plus or minus anything - that is the will of the Father. Those who come before God with a MARRIAGE or MIXTURE (sand) of "Lord, Lord" PLUS "have we not done" are repudiating the righteousness by faith in Christ and are MIXING their own works performed "in thy name". That is your end because that is your mix in order to be justified - Depart from me ye workers of inquitity for I NEVER knew you.

 

[quantumfaith]

1. I guess you have not been following the various threads on this subject! What I have stated can be demonstrated, just go back and read the posts.

2. Here is the difference between you and your compadres and me.

3. On the other hand you makes what is produced "by faith" inclusive with the object of faith as the cause for final justification.

4. In essence, you repudiate the finished work of Christ as sufficient to satisfy all of God's righteous demands but ADD what is produced through your life by faith to complete salvation.

5.However, Matthew 5:20 for entrance INTO the kingdom of heaven requires a righteousness that exceeds the best of men and is equal to the best of God - Mt. 5:48 and only the righteousness of God in Christ will do and that alone, plus or minus anything - that is the will of the Father.

6. That is your end because that is your mix in order to be justified - Depart from me ye workers of inquitity for I NEVER knew you.

1. Assumption....Wrong
2. Assumption....Wrong
3. Your Claim....Wrong
4. Your Claim.....Very Wrong
5. Agreed....Good
6. Your claim.....Wrong

 

[Andre]

In light of your post, how do you explain Paul's statement?

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The problem is that, if context is considered, it is clear that the "works" that do not save in verse 9, are works of the Law of Moses specifically, not "good works" in the more general sense. Paul is saying "salvation is not only available to those who do the works of the Law of Moses, that is to say, Jews. He is not saying that "good works" are not connected to salvation.

Here is Ephesians 2:8-9 from the NASB:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that (Y)no one may boast.

In verse 9, Paul is denying the salvific power of doing the works of Law of Moses, and not the more general category of “good works”.

A point of method: It simply will not do to declare up front that Paul is talking about good works here – that begs the question. No, the fair-minded reader needs to ask which of the following views makes more sense given both the local context and the broader context of the whole letter:

1. The salvific power of doing good works is being denied;

2. The salvific power of doing the works of the Law of Moses is being denied.

Explanation 2 is the one that makes sense in light of what Paul goes on to say in verse 11 and following as well as what he says in Romans 3, where he makes it clear that, in respect to good works, the Jew and the Gentile are in the same boat.

Proceeding to an examination of Ephesians 2:11 and following, Paul uses the "therefore" to show us that he is now going to fill out the implications of his denial of salvation by “works”

Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

Paul is clearly now talking about the Jew-Gentile divide, and how the actions of Jesus have brought Jew and Gentile together. Doing the works of Law of Moses, of course, is what demarcates Jew from Gentile in terms of covenant membership and shuts the Gentile out of citizenship in Israel. Paul continues:

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations

How much more clear could Paul be? What has divided the Jew from the Gentile and been the barrier? Good works? Obviously not, both Jew and Gentile are on “the same side” of any good works barrier (first 20 or so verses of Romans 3). It is doing the works of Law of Moses, of course, that is the very thing that the Jew might otherwise boast in and which is now being declared to not be salvific.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Amy,

Take note that three out of the ten commandments is listed in regard to the Jew and the works of the law (Rom. 2:20-24). At minimum this is addressing the Jews. If the works of the ten commandments cannot justify a Jew, pray tell what "works" can justify ANYONE before God?

If obedience to the only written law of God ever given to humanity cannot justify the jew then what works can?

Paul's point is in Romans 3:27 is that NO DEEDS done in keeping with ANY LAW can justify Jew or Gentile.

The problem is that, if context is considered, it is clear that the "works" that do not save in verse 9, are works of the Law of Moses specifically, not "good works" in the more general sense. Paul is saying "salvation is not only available to those who do the works of the Law of Moses, that is to say, Jews. He is not saying that "good works" are not connected to salvation.

Here is Ephesians 2:8-9 from the NASB:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that (Y)no one may boast.

In verse 9, Paul is denying the salvific power of doing the works of Law of Moses, and not the more general category of “good works”.

A point of method: It simply will not do to declare up front that Paul is talking about good works here – that begs the question. No, the fair-minded reader needs to ask which of the following views makes more sense given both the local context and the broader context of the whole letter:

1. The salvific power of doing good works is being denied;

2. The salvific power of doing the works of the Law of Moses is being denied.

Explanation 2 is the one that makes sense in light of what Paul goes on to say in verse 11 and following as well as what he says in Romans 3, where he makes it clear that, in respect to good works, the Jew and the Gentile are in the same boat.

Proceeding to an examination of Ephesians 2:11 and following, Paul uses the "therefore" to show us that he is now going to fill out the implications of his denial of salvation by “works”

Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

Paul is clearly now talking about the Jew-Gentile divide, and how the actions of Jesus have brought Jew and Gentile together. Doing the works of Law of Moses, of course, is what demarcates Jew from Gentile in terms of covenant membership and shuts the Gentile out of citizenship in Israel. Paul continues:

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations

How much more clear could Paul be? What has divided the Jew from the Gentile and been the barrier? Good works? Obviously not, both Jew and Gentile are on “the same side” of any good works barrier (first 20 or so verses of Romans 3). It is doing the works of Law of Moses, of course, that is the very thing that the Jew might otherwise boast in and which is now being declared to not be salvific.

 

[Dr. Walter]

1. Assumption....Wrong
2. Assumption....Wrong
3. Your Claim....Wrong
4. Your Claim.....Very Wrong
5. Agreed....Good
6. Your claim.....Wrong

Either you are lying or you read badly or you cannot read at all

 

[Andre]

Amy,

Take note that three out of the ten commandments is listed in regard to the Jew and the works of the law (Rom. 2:20-24). At minimum this is addressing the Jews. If the works of the ten commandments cannot justify a Jew, pray tell what "works" can justify ANYONE before God?

You are speculating, going beyond what Paul is saying. All that Paul is saying here in Ephesians 2 is that you cannot be saved by doing the Law of Moses, as per my argument. Nothing in Romans 2 changes this - even though Paul does indeed mention elements of the 10 commandments, there is nothing in Romans 2 that speaks against the assertion that one needs "good works" in order to be justified.

And, notably, you are not engaging the actual content of my argument.

Paul's point is in Romans 3:27 is that NO DEEDS done in keeping with ANY LAW can justify Jew or Gentile.

No. Again, Paul is only saying that doing the works of the Law of Moses will not justify the Jew.

Here is Romans 3:27-28 in the NASB:

[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.

What are these works of the Law that Paul thinks cannot justify? Are they “good works” in general, or are they the practices or “works” of the Law of Moses, the Law of Moses?

Paul is clearly talking about the Law of Moses here, and not “good works”. And so the “boast” here (verse 27) is not the boast of the person who thinks he can climb to heaven by a ladder of good works, it is instead the boast of the Jew, who thinks that following Law of Moses will justify him.

That this is the case is borne out by verse 29, a verse which makes no sense if "good works" or a "or obedience to a general law" are in view in verse 28, but makes perfect sense if the works of Law of Moses are what Paul is talking about:

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 Law of Moses since, obviously, it is by doing the works of 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 Law of Moses, of course. Not good works.

 

[quantumfaith]

Either you are lying or you read badly or you cannot read at all

Wrong again, and this is why I seldom engage you, you are extremely disingenuous in your claims and statements regarding another's position etc.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Wrong again, and this is why I seldom engage you, you are extremely disingenuous in your claims and statements regarding another's position etc.

I rarely engage you becuase there is nothing to engage

 

[quantumfaith]

I rarely engage you becuase there is nothing to engage

:sleeping_2: :sleeping_2:

 

[Dr. Walter]

:thumbs::thumbs:

:sleeping_2: :sleeping_2:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Paul is only saying that doing the works of the Law of Moses will not justify the Jew - Andre

So here is an admission that justification by works is in view but the works are "of the law of Moses."

The Law of Moses is the Moral Law, the ceremonial law and the civil law. The Moral law tells a Jew what is good versus bad morally. The ceremonial law tells a Jew what is ceremonially clean and unclean. The civil law is merely the Moral law applied to the Jewish society and thus tells the Jew what is socially good and socially bad.

James, who is a Jew, says,

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

Obviously "the whole law" must refer to the Ten commandments part of the Mosaic law as verse 11 quotes from the ten commandments. So what is James saying? Isn't he saying that if you violate the ten commandments in one point you are guilty of violating "the whole law"? Would the "whole law" be the Ten commandments, the ceremonial law and civil law or the whole Mosaic Law??????? If not, why not?

If that is the standard for justification by the law then obviously no Jew, lost or saved can be justifed by that standard as only the SINLESS Jew could be justified by that standard.

Tell me Andre, has God reduced the standard of the law for the Christian? James speaks as a Christian to Christians. James is not speaking to the lost! What Christian can keep this standard Andre? Has God changed his standard for justification by the Law to something less than the righteousness of God?

Wouldn't this standard deny that ANY JEW could be justified by the deeds of the law ANY TIME or any condition but a SINLESS condition???? Remember, Andre, we are talking only about Jews now!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dr Walter, I haven't had the time to properly read this thread, but judging by a very casual look at it, I want to thank you for letting the Truth be heard here. I hope I receive opportunity later on to return to this thread to study it properly. Be not deterred from your mission!

 

[quantumfaith]

http://markgoodacre.org/PaulPage/New.html

 

[Andre]

Paul is only saying that doing the works of the Law of Moses will not justify the Jew - Andre

So here is an admission that justification by works is in view but the works are "of the law of Moses."

Yes.

The Law of Moses is the Moral Law, the ceremonial law and the civil law. The Moral law tells a Jew what is good versus bad morally. The ceremonial law tells a Jew what is ceremonially clean and unclean. The civil law is merely the Moral law applied to the Jewish society and thus tells the Jew what is socially good and socially bad.

Yes.

James, who is a Jew, says,

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

Obviously "the whole law" must refer to the Ten commandments part of the Mosaic law as verse 11 quotes from the ten commandments. So what is James saying? Isn't he saying that if you violate the ten commandments in one point you are guilty of violating "the whole law"?

Yes, he is.

If that is the standard for justification by the law then obviously no Jew, lost or saved can be justifed by that standard as only the SINLESS Jew could be justified by that standard.

Indeed. But Paul never says that being deemed guilty of breaking the law at every point disqualifies you from ultimate justificaiton. A person who has broken the law at every point can still be a person who excels in good works, or using Paul's words:

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

Has Paul said that eternal life will be granted to only those who have not been deemed guilty of breaking the law at every point?

No, he does not.

Tell me Andre, has God reduced the standard of the law for the Christian?

The problem is that you have no Biblical justification for believing that a person who has broken the law at every point can still not be determined to have "persisted in doing good".

I do not know where you get this idea that a person who has been deemed to have broken the law at every can still not be judged by God to have been a doer of good works, and thereby justified.