A simple argument refuting Faith Alone

[AmbroseSJ]

Or never had it to begin with…

So you’re in the silly camp that says if you had it and lost it, then you never had it? How can you lose something you never had?

Therefore your reply is specious. If untold millions of people lost their faith, then they must have had it, or they could not have lost it. See? You can’t lose something you never had.

And if you had it, how would you know it, because if you ever lose it, it proves you never had it?

What sort of Gospel are your preaching? In your doctrine, no one REALLY KNOWS if they have Faith, because if they ever lose it, it proves they never had it! Only something YOU HAVE can be lost. Something you NEVER had, can’t be lost. It’s a ridiculous argument and circular reasoning at its worst. Either that, or OSAS is actually logical, in that since you never really have Faith, you can never lose it which means your guaranteed Salvation hinges on NEVER having faith!

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

The so called Gospel of Grace that you espouse must ignore most of the actual gospel to be true.

Not so. Salvation is by grace, through faith, and not by works. That’s the gospel in a nutshell. As Peter said in Acts, salvation is by grace and it is for both Jews and Gentiles. We’re all saved the same way. Peter does not say it’s by grace + something else. And he categorically denies that it is by law-keeping, which, in any event, isn’t something anyone has been able to do. That much is crystal clear based on his speech in Acts 15.

There is far more than just faith required. As Paul says in 1Corinthians 13: 2, " if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. .

There is far more than faith required for the Christian life. No one has said otherwise. But Paul isn’t talking about justification in 1 Corinthians 13. He’s not talking about how one stands, positionally, before God. He seems to be talking more about the ongoing sanctification of the believer and the transforming power of grace. No one has ever said that faith apart from hope and love is sufficient.

As for Acts 15: The argument was about circumcision:

Not just circumcision, Paul. You’re own quote below shows that the concerns were far more reaching. “But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law’” (Acts 15:5)

So when Peter concludes as follows:. “Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they” (15:10-11), we can clearly see that Peter is contrasting Law and Grace. We aren’t able to follow the former perfectly. We are instead saved by grace. As I said before, the gospel message is that we are saved by grace, not rule-keeping. When any church, including the one in Rome, says otherwise, then that church is in error. And we have that on the infallible word of the Holy Spirit speaking though Peter. (My goodness, Paul. When your first pope articulates the sola fide principle, as he does here, how, by your own standards which assume Peter is speaking here with a primacy of jurisdiction, do you dare to disagree with him???)

Peter clearly taught that you will be judged based on your work, not your faith:

Irrelevant objection since Protestants do not deny that judgment is based on works.

When you use the Catholic church’s intepretation of the bible, you can not go wrong.

None of the texts we’ve debated so far have been infallibly interpreted by Rome. So there is as yet no “Catholic” interpretation of those verses. This is a perfect of example of what some call “creeping infallibility” – i.e., the propensity by some to see everything in the tradition as being under the rubric of infallibility.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
The so called Gospel of Grace that you espouse must ignore most of the actual gospel to be true.

Being saved is by grace through faith. But once you have been saved, you must respond with love to go to heaven. That is the part of the Gospel you have ignored.

Quote:
There is far more than just faith required. As Paul says in 1Corinthians 13: 2, "
if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.

Okay, now you are taking the Catholic position. This is progress. Are you now willing to admit that once saved, you must live the Christian life to go to heaven?

Quote:
As for Acts 15: The argument was about circumcision:

Peter is talking about being saved, freed from original sins and made new by being baptized into the church in the name of the Father, the son, and he Holy Spirit. This is indeed not done by works of the law or by circumcision. But there is a difference between being saved and going to heaven. Once saved, you must do the will of the father, loving God and neighbor and avoiding mortal sin, to go to heaven.

Quote:
Peter clearly taught that you will be judged based on your work, not your faith:

This is tremendous progress. Are we now in agreement that you are saved by grace through faith but that you will be judged worthy of heaven or hell based on your works of love?

Quote:
When you use the Catholic church’s intepretation of the bible, you can not go wrong.

Miguel, certainly you understand that there is a Catholic way to understand the bible, consistent with its traditions. That’s why there is very little difference in the way that Catholics on this site understand the readings and discuss them, despite never having met one another and being from all different walks of life and different parts of the world.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

What are you talking about? The person asked Jesus very directly what it took to gain eternal life and Jesus answered" follow the commandments." It can’t be any more direct than that.

Keep reading, Paul. He asked what “good thing” he must do. The question implies that he assumed there was a “good thing” that he could do that so that he might have eternal life. The question betrays the assumption that one act of kindness or one donation or some other deed could, by itself, merit eternal life. The answer Jesus gives is telling: “If you (singular) will to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Now pause here to consider. Is Jesus addressing you or me? Is he addressing humanity in general? If you say yes, then you are committing the logical fallacy of universalizing the particular or making a general principle out of a specific command. That’s dangerous thinking to say the least, for if you were to be consistent, then you would also have to assume that, in order for any of us to be perfect, every single one of us would have to sell our belongings and give the proceeds to the poor. But in fact, this is gospel medicine for this rich young man because Jesus perceives what he needs. This is why the commands are in the second person singular and are clearly addressed to him, not us. In this particular case, both a faulty understanding of what God requires (i.e., a “good ting” rather than a life of faithfulness to the covenant) and his attachment to his material possessions are preventing him from following Jesus.

So your argument is that this was included in all three synoptic gospels but that it is no longer relevant?

No, that’s not my argument. As I said before, the rich young ruler is a child of the old covenant and he receives an answer to his question that makes sense given the covenant that he was under. Now a question for you: Was the New Covenant in effect when Jesus spoke to this man? A second question: After healing the leper and ordering him to offer the sacrifice that Moses prescribed, would you say that Christians today are supposed to enact the Mosaic sacrifices? If not, why not?

Matthew and Paul both recognize that you must do the will of God to gain entrance to heaven.

How perfectly must one do God’s will in order to go to heaven? How many times must one comply with God’s will before we can finally say, “I’ve done God’s will?” Besides, scripture tells us that the will of God is to believe in Jesus. “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40).

Of course we can explain the thief on the cross… Here’s what Luke says about the incident in chapter 23…So Dismas did exactly what the Church says he should do: he defends Jesus, he takes ownership for his sins and he asks Jesus to take him into his Kingdom.

Yes. This is what I meant when I said he had contrition.

This [the good thief’s behavior on the cross] is called the baptism of desire: he wanted to enter the church but was physically unable to be baptized.

No, this is you reading a later theology back into a scene which not only fails to mention baptism, but also fails to mention anything about the church and anything about doing good works. Baptism by desire was a fix to the problem of catechumens dying while preparing for baptism. The Church came up with this idea to explain what happens to those who die before they get to the water. But in every case such people had an explicit desire to be baptized since this is what they were preparing for. The same can’t be said of the good thief. Perhaps you could try baptism by blood since here the good thief dies as a Christian before he could be fully initiated. But this is typically reserved for martyrs. Unfortunately, the passage gives us no indication that he died a martyr’s death; rather, by his own admission, he was guilty of his crimes and was being justly punished for them, whereas all martyrs are unjustly killed for bearing witness to Christ. That’s not why the Romans killed Dimas.

This was at the last moments of his life, so he dies in the state of grace and enters heaven, just as the Catholic Church teaches. He did all the works he could by defending Jesus. Nothing more was requried and nothing else could have been done by St. Dismas.

That’s not a very convincing explanation at all. It sounds like a rather desperate attempt to make the scene fit into your theological schema by trying to show how the good thief had good works. But let me ask you this: If, as you argued earlier, one must keep the commandments in order to go to heaven, then how can the good thief have met that requirement? If baptism is absolutely necessary in order to go to heaven, then how could he have gone there? If eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood is necessary for salvation, then how could he have gone to heaven since there was no way to make his first communion?

Or–if I may make a suggestion–perhaps we see evidence of saving faith in his contrition and repentance and in his honest and sincere acknowledgement of his own sin and Jesus’ innocence. In other words, his repentance and final words were not the cause of his salvation, but rather the evidence of a saving faith, which means he was already chosen for salvation. That seems to make far more sense since we don’t have to check off the baptism box, count the number of commandments he kept and keep track of the number of times he went to communion.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
What are you talking about? The person asked Jesus very directly what it took to gain eternal life and Jesus answered" follow the commandments." It can’t be any more direct than that.

This is a strange way to interpret the Bible. By your reasoning, Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is only applicable to the Corinthians of his day, his letter to the Romans is only applicable to the Romans of this day, etc. In fact, your position would negate any scripture being applicable to you ,since nothing was addressed to you directly. You of course, must now realize that this is ridiculous. You cann deny that the 10 commandments are universal truths of moral behavior, necessary to follow to become holy if you choose. That is your option. But it is against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Quote:
So your argument is that this was included in all three synoptic gospels but that it is no longer relevant?

Have you read Luke 16: How do you interpret this passage?
16 "The law and the prophets lasted until John; but from then on the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone who enters does so with violence.
17 It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest part of a letter of the law to become invalid.

So this would imply that the new covenant was in place from the time of John the Baptist forward, but yet the law still remains. As for Jesus direction to the leper, the leper needed to show the priest that he was clean to re-enter Jewish society. Christians don’t need to do this to re-enter society

Quote:
Matthew and Paul both recognize that you must do the will of God to gain entrance to heaven.

Miguel, its not a matter of quantity or quality of works - God is not an accountant. Its a matter of intent. We must strive to love in everything we do. Love is doing things for others without expecting anything in return - just as God loves. This is how you align your will to God’s. Sin, on the other hand, is opposing God’s will for us. In the end, God will be the judge and he will judge perfectly.

Quote:
Of course we can explain the thief on the cross… Here’s what Luke says about the incident in chapter 23…So Dismas did exactly what the Church says he should do: he defends Jesus, he takes ownership for his sins and he asks Jesus to take him into his Kingdom.

Okay

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
This [the good thief’s behavior on the cross] is called the baptism of desire: he wanted to enter the church but was physically unable to be baptized.

I would agree that St. Dismas did not die a martyr. He died in the state of grace granted by Jesus directly based on his confession, contrition and desire to be saved. This is what would happen if he was baptized on the spot. Besides, the Church recognizes that while Jesus prescribed the sacraments for us, God is not constrained by this.

Quote:
This was at the last moments of his life, so he dies in the state of grace and enters heaven, just as the Catholic Church teaches. He did all the works he could by defending Jesus. Nothing more was requried and nothing else could have been done by St. Dismas.

Indeed, we are saved by Grace through faith. We normally demonstrate that through baptism. If baptism is not physically available to us, then God recognizes this desire in us and accepts it. Once baptized, we need to live the life of a Christian, loving God and neighbor to the best of our ability. If you are nailed to the cross, as St. Dismas, was, the only way left to love it to acknowledge your sins and defend your savior, which he did.

 

[ifonefun]

In the course of talking with a Protestant, I came up with an argument I think refutes Faith Alone by failing to understand what kind of works Paul was condemning. Here is the argument:

1. My first question to the Protestant is: In places like Acts 15:1 we see the Judaizers teach, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Does this mean circumcision a ‘good work’?
2. If circumcision is not a ‘good work’, then why would it make sense to say Paul was condemning all good works in general when he said “faith not works of the law”? (Keep in mind Paul condemned getting circumcised in places like Gal 5:3-4.)
3. If circumcision is a ‘good work’, then why don’t Christians get circumcised and obey other laws (e.g. dietary laws) in the Law of Moses?

At this point, the Protestant is in a bind, for if they say circumcision is a good work, then they have no reason why Christians are avoiding doing such ‘good works’. If they say no, it is not a good work, then they cannot argue Paul was arguing “faith alone” when he said ‘no’ to ‘works of the law’.

If you read all of Acts 15, you will find that Peter points out that our hearts are purified by faith. If faith is what justifies (purifies) us then good works–regardless how good we think they are, and regardless what kind of good works we do, are not what make us just (righteous or purified) in the sight of God. To attribute justification even partly to our good works is inconsistent with our hearts being purified by faith in Jesus.

 

[paul_c]

If you read all of Acts 15, you will find that Peter points out that our hearts are purified by faith. If faith is what justifies (purifies) us then good works–regardless how good we think they are, and regardless what kind of good works we do, are not what make us just (righteous or purified) in the sight of God.

Right, we enter into the the state of grace by Faith through the sacrament of baptism. No works are required, only a desire to be saved and the willingness to repent. Peter covers this in his answer to the first converts at Pentacost as relayed in Acts 2:
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”
38 Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

This means we’ve been made anew, forgiven of all prior sins, and given the grace necessary to get to heaven. But now you must stay in the state of grace by cooperating with the will of God, avoiding mortal sin and loving God and neighbor in order to go to heaven. Just because God has forgiven our sins and gave us grace, does not mean we are guaranteed heaven if we don’t subsequently follow his example of love. In fact, after all those advantages, if we turn away, we should expect to be condemned, right?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Just out of curiosity, what, in addition to authentic faith, is needed? What would you add to it? Faith + what else?

I’m not sure what you mean by “authentic faith,” but to answer your question I would say Faith plus hope, love, and good works are needed for justification (not only resulting or proving justification).

Yes. I think Paul considers circumcision to be a “work of the law.” There’s been a lot of debate about what that means exactly. The “New Perspective” people would have us believe that “works of the law” refer only to circumcision, ceremonial laws and other covenant-identity items from the Old Testament, but not things like love, hope, and other charitable good deeds. Thus the NP folks distinguish sharply between “works of the law” and “good works.” I don’t share their perspective. “Works of the law” cannot be so confined. “Work of the law” is “good works” and “good works” include not only ceremonial obligations, circumcision, and the like, but also such things as loving one’s neighbor.

I agree the “works of the Law” include things such as loving one’s neighbor, in addition to things such as circumcision, but I would not say that is equivalent to ‘good works’ in general. But if you say circumcision is a good work, then I don’t see how you have any grounds to not include it in the Christian life.

I don’t think Paul condemns “good works” or “works of the law.” For example, Ephesians 2:10 says, “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

If circumcision is a good work, then your logic indicates it’s something the Christian should do after they’re justified.

What Paul condemns is theology that would make good works a condition for salvation or the reception of grace. Paul considers the “works of the law” to be part of the Old Covenant that, while still having an ethical and moral authority, no longer has a soteriological authority. Or else how does Romans 6:14 make any sense? “For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.”

I would interpret Rom 6:14 precisely as an ethical/moral authority, but even so I don’t see how that is to be distinguished from a soteriological one. And as I noted above, the underlying issue remains: if circumcision is a good work, then Christians should do it after justification.

Evidently Paul considers circumcision to a “work of the law,” and that if Christians were to accept circumcision for reasons the Judaizers were imposing it (rather than for, say, medical reasons), we would effectively be going back to being “under the law,” when in fact we are “under grace.”

But it is a ‘good work’. By your logic, doing any good work of the Mosaic Law would have to fall into that same problem.

Because we’re under grace, not law.

Then Christians shouldn’t need to do any of the good works taught within the Law. How can one be free to pick and choose what good works they feel are worth keeping and tossing the rest?

Yeah, I’m not seeing the bind here. Could you elaborate further? What would you say to Paul using this argument of yours? How do you think Paul would respond? (I think he might call you a Judaizer.)

My argument is Paul is not excluding good works in general, he is only excluding works done within the context of the Mosaic Law. Thus when Paul mentions circumcision as his prime example, he is not saying it is a ‘good work’, and thus doesn’t fall into the bind of having to delegate circumcision to a post-justification ‘good work’ of Christians.

 

[ifonefun]

Right, we enter into the the state of grace by Faith through the sacrament of baptism. No works are required, only a desire to be saved and the willingness to repent. Peter covers this in his answer to the first converts at Pentacost as relayed in Acts 2:
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”
38 Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

This means we’ve been made anew, forgiven of all prior sins, and given the grace necessary to get to heaven. But now you must stay in the state of grace by cooperating with the will of God, avoiding mortal sin and loving God and neighbor in order to go to heaven. Just because God has forgiven our sins and gave us grace, does not mean we are guaranteed heaven if we don’t subsequently follow his example of love. In fact, after all those advantages, if we turn away, we should expect to be condemned, right?

If our sinful hearts are purified by faith in Jesus as Peter said (Acts 15:9) then we are not purified by our good works. If our salvation is ultimately a matter of us becoming purified enough for salvation through our own efforts and through our own cooperation, then how is God glorified in any of that? And what happened to the gospel, which, if I’m not mistaken, means GOOD NEWS?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Right, we enter into the the state of grace by Faith through the sacrament of baptism. No works are required, only a desire to be saved and the willingness to repent. Peter covers this in his answer to the first converts at Pentacost as relayed in Acts 2:

The Good News is that if we follow Jesus, he will lead us to heaven. That is very good news indeed. If you are not willing to actually follow Jesus, then you will get what you deserve.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If our sinful hearts are purified by faith in Jesus as Peter said (Acts 15:9) then we are not purified by our good works. If our salvation is ultimately a matter of us becoming purified enough for salvation through our own efforts and through our own cooperation, then how is God glorified in any of that? And what happened to the gospel, which, if I’m not mistaken, means GOOD NEWS?

The fallacy here is thinking:
“Conversion = Final Salvation”

That’s wrong. (Also, the notion of “hearts purified by faith” refutes the idea of Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness.) Further, as PaulC and others have pointed out, Peter’s message was much more than just believe (e.g. Acts 2:38).

 

[ifonefun]

The fallacy here is thinking:
“Conversion = Final Salvation”

What do you mean by “Final” salvation? Is there a non-Final salvation?

(Also, the notion of “hearts purified by faith” refutes the idea of Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness.)

The phrase, “Purified by faith” is the same thing as “the righteousness that comes by faith” which is a phrase that the apostle Paul used in Romans 4:13. But that doesn’t refute imputation, it is only stating that the imputed righteousness of Jesus is apprehended by our God-given faith in Jesus. We are credited with His righteousness not on the basis of our own worthiness, but on the worthiness of Jesus, if we trust in Him for our salvation.

 

[ifonefun]

The Good News is that if we follow Jesus, he will lead us to heaven. That is very good news indeed. If you are not willing to actually follow Jesus, then you will get what you deserve.

That would certainly be good news if we COULD follow Jesus. But if following Jesus means that we must become worthy enough to enter heaven, then how is that good news?

 

[fhansen]

That would certainly be good news if we COULD follow Jesus. But if following Jesus means that we must become worthy enough to enter heaven, then how is that good news?

The good news is that, by His grace, God will mold us into beings worthy of heaven.

 

[ifonefun]

Being saved is by grace through faith. But once you have been saved, you must respond with love to go to heaven. That is the part of the Gospel you have ignored.

You must respond with love to go to heaven? How much love? Does our love need to be perfect love? Does our love need to be continual or just when we feel like loving? Do you see where your LAW leads? If God’s standards FOR ANYTHING is less than complete perfection, what kind of God is He? So, in effect, you have made a LAW out of love, and you appear to be saying that we must love God and human beings perfectly at all times in order to enter heaven. Is this really GOOD NEWS?

Romans 11:5-6 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

As the apostle tells us, chosen by grace cannot mean, “chosen because we’ve done all of the things that prove our love for God.” Salvation is either all of grace or it is all of our works. What the apostle will not allow is some combination of God’s grace plus our good works.

 

[ifonefun]

The good news is that, by His grace, God will mold us into beings worthy of heaven.

It is one thing to trust that God has the power to convert you (cause you to change your mind) and a very different thing to believe that your changed mind is ever going to make you worthy of heaven. In our flesh, even forgiven sinners still sin in our thoughts, attitudes, and our deeds. Even king David sinned horribly with Bathsheba after he began walking with God by faith.

 

[fhansen]

It is one thing to trust that God has the power to convert you (cause you to change your mind) and a very different thing to believe that your changed mind is ever going to make you worthy of heaven. In our flesh, even forgiven sinners still sin in our thoughts, attitudes, and our deeds. Even king David sinned horribly with Bathsheba after he began walking with God by faith.

David wasn’t under the New Covenant where God promises to write His Laws on our hearts and in our minds.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I’m not sure what you mean by “authentic faith,” but to answer your question I would say Faith plus hope, love, and good works are needed for justification (not only resulting or proving justification).

Paul does talk about the three theological virtues in 1 Cor. 13. But he does not mention these as the condition that must by satisfied in order to be justified. But let’s clarify our terms. Catholics don’t distinguish between justification and sanctification; rather the distinction is between initial justification (which normally takes place in and through baptism) and ongoing justification (i.e., growing in grace unto perfection). Fine–I won’t quibble about the language–it’s the concept that matters. Given this schema, then I think we can say that Paul nowhere makes faith, hope or love the condition that must be fulfilled in order to attain one’s initial justification. In fact, it’s the other way around in Catholic theology. In baptism, faith, hope and love are infused into the recipient. So if that’s the case, then I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that we are justified (initially) by faith, hope and love. But perhaps it is accurate to say that we are justified (in the ongoing sense, or what Protestants usually call sanctification) by faith, hope and love.

I agree the “works of the Law” include things such as loving one’s neighbor, in addition to things such as circumcision, but I would not say that is equivalent to ‘good works’ in general.

“Works of the law” include both good works in general and also specific obligations. Whatever is prescribed in the Law and the Prophets is what Paul puts under the heading, “works of the law.” That means everything from “offer a turtledove” to “trust in the Lord with all your heart” can fall under the rubric of “works of the law” for Paul.

But if you say circumcision is a good work, then I don’t see how you have any grounds to not include it in the Christian life.

I still don’t get it. You keep asserting this. But you haven’t explained why. Here’s how I see it: If we are no longer obligated to do the works of the law, then, perforce, we’re under no obligation to be circumcised, right? Isn’t this exactly the argument against the Judaizers by several NT authors? If anything, I think you would be drawing the exact opposite conclusion. For example: Consider this argument:

1. Christians are not obligated to do “works of the law.”
2. “Love of neighbor” is a work of the law.
3. Therefore Christians do not need to love their neighbor.

Of course we all reject this argument. But why? The reason is because there may be another reason why Christians would want to love their neighbor that has nothing to do with “law-keeping” and everything to do with the imitation of Christ and the obedience of faith.

If circumcision is a good work, then your logic indicates it’s something the Christian should do after they’re justified.

Please explain how. I really am not following you here.

Then Christians shouldn’t need to do any of the good works taught within the Law. How can one be free to pick and choose what good works they feel are worth keeping and tossing the rest?

I think I’m starting to understand your point. My provisional answer is that “the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2) overlaps quite a bit with “works of the law” so that often what belongs to the former also belongs to the latter. But the same can’t be said of circumcision, animal sacrifices, the observance of particular Jewish feasts, and even the Sabbath itself, all of which are clearly marked as “fulfilled” under the terms of the New Covenant. So if Protestants are in a bind for not following these fulfilled items from the “works of the law,” then so are Jesus and the apostles, from whom we got the idea.

My argument is Paul is not excluding good works in general, he is only excluding works done within the context of the Mosaic Law. Thus when Paul mentions circumcision as his prime example, he is not saying it is a ‘good work’, and thus doesn’t fall into the bind of having to delegate circumcision to a post-justification ‘good work’ of Christians.

The problem is that when you look at the Mosaic Law (in the Torah), you’ll find all kinds of broader ethical obligations to love one’s neighbor. But most most likely, “works of the law” include all the imperatives found in the Old Testament–the law, prophets, psalms, proverbs and other writings. But even if you confine “works of the law” to the Pentateuch, you still find a lot in there about “good works.” It’s not just the ten commandments and ceremonial laws; it’s also full of a lot of commands that we find in the New Testament.

So it’s not that Protestants are arbitrarily choosing to follow some things in the OT and not others. On the contrary, we take our queue are from Jesus and the apostles who make it quite plane which parts of the OT law are still in effect and which have been fulfilled.

 

[ifonefun]

David wasn’t under the New Covenant where God promises to write His Laws on our hearts and in our minds.

So, under the old covenant, David had no way of knowing that his sins–murder and adultery, were violations of God’s laws? I’m not sure if this is what you’re saying.