Proof texts are being thrown back and forth here, but the contexts are not always being taken into account. We can't just snatch a verse that LOOKS like it supports our views and ignore what's being discussed around it.
The context of both Romans 2 and James 2 are people who JUDGE others (Rom.2:1; 2:2-4, 11). We read these apostles' instructions on works, and think that they are speaking to free-wheeling antinomian licentists, but these were Jews and perhaps also former gentile proselytes who actually boasted in the Law and tried to judge others with it; deeming themselves "religious". (Rom.2:17, 18-19, James 1:26). What we see is that they omitted other parts of the Law, and thought they were still justified by their faith. That's similar to the view that if we sin and ask for forgiveness and try to do better, then and only then will "faith" save us!
But as Paul says in Galatians, if you try to justify yourself by the Law, you are indebted to do the WHOLE Law.
And people fail to realize that God demands perfection. Does anyone really think he has repented and asked forgiveness for every single sin he has ever committed after conversion? Then we really do not know God's definition of sin! (Matt.5) Of course, then, we will fall back on "OK, God will forgive sins done in ingorance". Just like the "baptism of desire" argument, we deny a spiritual application of "grace" and insist on physical deeds imparting salvation, but when circumstances don't allow this, THEN we allow God to step in with grace IN SPITE OF our actual works! THIS is precisely what Paul and James are condemning! Again, if you pledge to justify yourself by works, you are indebted to do the WHOLE Law; none of this "God will excuse it in this circumstance if I'm at least trying my best and asking forgiveness".
And DT, you keep saying all references to the Law are only about the OT Law, so it is some new NT "law" of "working in love" that now saves. But then what do you think all of these "works of love" are, but the LAW! The good works discussed are mostly abstinence from the evil works condemned in both testaments. The only part of the Law that has passed is the ceremonial aspect. So to make this "OT does not justify, but NT Law IS what justifies instead" distinction; then it is only a matter of exchanging one set of ritual for another. Otherwise, everything is completely the same as in the OT. Look right here in Romans (v25): if they actually kept the whole Law; their "circumcision" WOULD actually avail after all! Christ would not even be needed! That's also what verses 7-9 should be understood in regard to. (and recall 2Pet.2:15,16. You can't just grab his verses like that and pit them against other scriptures that have been given). He is telling you like he tells you in Galatians what "works' are required to be saved. They are trying to justify themselves that way, and so this is what how they should be performing. But they are not performing that way, so they have good reason to fear!
No, love is the MOTIVATION for us keeping the commandments, rather than the self-centered motivation of fear—making it to Heaven and escaping Hell. All of this is why Heb. 4 says that it is the person who does "NOT" work, but rather RESTS in Christ. It is not simply exchanging circumcision for baptism, and a bloody animal sacrifice for one that is made to look like bread and wine. For then we are left in the same bind: that our works were NOT perfect and therefore not good enough!
TRUE love CASTS OUT fear! He who FEARS is NOT made perfect in love! (1 John 4:18) This means that all those other verses telling people to fear are being misunderstood, or taken out of context. Most of them are addressing people trusting in the Law, and ignoring the sins they still commit, as discussed above. Romans 11 is comparing the national groups of Gentiles vs. Jews. Now, if we reject the Augustinian misuse of chapter 9 to teach the individuals rather than nations being "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction"; then why are we doing the same exact thing with chapter 11? If those Gentiles did the same things as the Jews— trust in their own works and ignore their sins, He could turn away from them just like He turned away from Israel.
Also, another common misunderstanding is that "walk in the spirit" means "doing good works", and "walk in the flesh" means "sinning". This is also based on taking "sin willfully" and "Trampling underfoot the blood of the Son of God". But again, if "sinning willfully" is "trampling underfoot" the Blood, then everyone is lost. So then, we change it to "living in sin", lie in sinning beyond an "allowable" it to be excused as ignorant or an honest mistake or whatever. We don't even know where to draw the "line". I used to think this as well (and it was hardly helped me through fear to never do something wrong willfully). But if you look at the rest of Paul's usage of "flesh"; it is talking about the national inheritance the Jews were trusting in. So again, this is talking about trusting and boasting in the Law. Again, if you trust in the Law, it does not justify; but only exposes your sin. Man by nature is predisposed to commit those acts. A person rejecting Christ's righteousness, and trying to justify himself through the Law; though he might look righteous on the outside; still commits these acts (even though covered up, hidden, denied, excuses made, etc). This is why Paul says "the works of the flesh are these...", and then lists several sins. Because as Paul even says in Rom.2:1, 21-22, the one judging someone else; thinking he is keeping it, is the one more likely who "does the same things". See also John 7:19 "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keeps the law?" This is basically what happens with all these groups including Catholicism, where all the people are taught to try to do "good enough" so (maybe!) they can "make it" to Heaven. They see how hard it is, and then they become the ones to give up and live in all sort of sin, figuring God will excuse them, for the efforts they do make. They can't stay with one partner and be faithful for life, they can't love their neighbor as themselves; they lie, steal, cheat, kill, greed, hedonism, etc. they try to get the Church to change its teachings on abortion and homosexuality. Yet they still baptize their babies, take communion, cross their chests when passing a church, all that stuff Agnus mentioned regarding the prayers, and accept their church's belief in working for their salvation, and hopefully, God will "weigh" their good and bad at the judgement, and their "Faith through works" will get them in. Whichever type of Catholic church; whether it aims to teach some "currency" concept; that's what it always devolves into in practice. THIS is what Paul, James and Jesus are condemning! Great irony, isn't it?
Just think, what act really tramples the blood? What is the biggest slap in the face you could give to Christ? To claim to accept His blood's covering, and then think you are actually gaining justification by your own works, which are not even perfect. Look at the rest of the verse: "...and counted the blood of the covenant, by which you were sanctified an unholy thing, and have done despite unto the Spirit of grace". "Despite" means to treat insultingly, with contumely" (en, intensive, hubrizo, "to insult;" some connect it with huper, "above, over," Lat. super, which suggests the insulting disdain of one who considers himself superior), Notes: (1) Hubrizo, "to insult, act with insolence," is translated "to use despitefully" in Act 14:5, AV; RV, "to entreat ... shamefully." See (ENTREAT) SHAMEFULLY, (ENTREAT) SPITEFULLY, REPROACH. Committing a sin, or whatever amount of sins after conversion is not that. If He forgave all your sins before, then any other sins committed afterward, the blood can handle! What this is talking about, are those who completely RENOUNCE the Blood after claiming to accept it, and go back to self-justification to the Law. This we saw also in John 8, where Jesus tells some of the same Jews who "believed in Him" that they were of their father the devil, and then they eventually try to stone Him. Nobody here is claiming that is saving faith. Yet, in a sense, they were "sanctified". Sanctification can also mean "to separate from profane things and dedicate to God; dedicate people to God". A person can be "separated" or "dedicated" (passive) to God, yet still not have a saving faith. That described much of Israel. And several of them who "accepted" Christ, for the wrong reason, and then their true motives were exposed by Him. While Sanctification is supposed to produce the other definition, "to be venerable or hallow", it is not a state of us working our way to goodness; for then that lowers God's standards, and claims our imperfect works are what make us holy and grant us entry into Heaven.
DHK; in passing, you every now and then mention Origen as the father of Arianism. While there may be truth to that; he is actually regarded as more the father of "orthodox" Athanasianism (the view accepted by Nicaea). Before Nicaea, the concept of the individual self-conscious "personhood" of the pre-existent Christ was not as well worked out as it became later. The orthodox still regarded Christ as being projected from the Father (like a light ray from its source), usually at birth. It was Origen, with his view of the preexistence of all souls (with Christ being the only one that did not fall), that really inspired the later Alexandrian school, from which Athanasius came. (I think I read that Athanasius may have even been a pupil of Origen!) Both Atanasius and Arius would draw from this, and the debate between them was simply whether Christ was created, or eternally divine. This is all covered well in Kelley's "Early Christian Doctrines".
