Commandments should not be followed ...

[Philthy]

There has never been any disagreement with respect to the necessity of grace in salvation

.
Amen for that!

The disagreement is over the sufficiency of grace…by grace you have been saved…, and nothing else.

I still kinda disagree, but I understand what you are saying. It’s not that the Catholic believes grace to be insufficient, its that the Catholic believes God has revealed that He chooses to not obviate the free will of those who choose to reject his grace. Only in that sense is grace “insufficient”.

I liked that signature; I find it as appropriate now as when Calvin first uttered it; however, I’ve changed it for you, and for this thread.

I always knew you were a softy at heart - thank you!

 

[mikeledes]

Why are you attempting to superimpose the OT law on our view? You simply know better than this; it seems that you find it necessary to tickle your doctrinal-strawman funny bone.

References in the NT concerning grace as the foundation of our belief and salvation do not eliminate the law of Christ. We are, indeed under law. We are simply not under the old law and the old covenant. We are under the new covenant and the new covenant law of Christ.

Romans 8:2-17 summarizes our position. It says:

"For the **law **of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh–for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

:clapping:

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

.
Amen for that!

I still kinda disagree, but I understand what you are saying. It’s not that the Catholic believes grace to be insufficient, its that the Catholic believes God has revealed that He chooses to not obviate the free will of those who choose to reject his grace. Only in that sense is grace “insufficient”.

I always knew you were a softy at heart - thank you!

Since we’re on the subject of disagreement, I love how only in a Catholic forum will you see a love fest among “free will” Protestants and Calvinists.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[banjo]

Philthy, et al…

If you have opportunity, compare the readings for the Mass today (Is 1:10-17; Ps 50; Mt 10:34-11:1) with the discussion on this thread.

 

[Philthy]

Boggles the mind. And what does one do with “nothing impure can enter heaven”?

Lets be clear in such circumstances that we all HOPE this person is saved even though the circumstances would suggest otherwise. We are not to judge, and although I’m sure that you intended to express your surprise at how folks can rationally believe the doctrine of OSAS, the comments seemed oriented toward the individual who sinned rather than the doctrine itself. It is God’s Mercy that we cannot fathom - his sense of Justice we have a pretty good grip on! Im sure none of us would be so hardened that we could not pray for the soul of such an individual. It should be clear to all - and most especially to any non-Catholics viewing, that we dont judge the eternal destiny of others. We judge actions, yes, but souls, never!

 

[guanophore]

Note the distinction made between what Moondweller deems the law (the Ten Commandments) and what the ECFs deem the law (the Levitical laws as Ambrosiaster most clearly delineates).

This is why we say that Fundamentalism rests on a faulty interpretation of what St Paul means by the Law.

When Moondweller accuses me of wanting to “go back under the Law”, he in fact transgresses the Commandment of bearing false witness against one’s neighbor, since I have claimed no such thing. I just completed a non-Kosher meal for lunch; I will not be going to Confession as it is no sin for me not to keep the Levitical law per Scripture.

In bearing false witness, Moondweller has sinned—he has broken a Commandment. Lacking the sacrament of penance, how will he remove this sin?

Does committing such a sin mean Moondweller “wasn’t really saved” in the first place, since being saved means being “dead to sin”?

Or does it mean nothing, because God no longer cares whether or not we bear false witness?

I dunno, Teflon. It seems to me that moondweller actually believes his erroneous understanding of Catholic teaching. I think he HAS to cling to these errors or he would not be able to justifiy being Protestant.

Deceiving oneself is more properly called “denial”. In such a case, one first bears false witness to himself, and by extension, others around himself.

Since he is unable to admit any reality into preconceived schema, I am not sure that the denial can be addressed either…

 

[guanophore]

Be careful—Matthew 25 clearly indicates that what we do matters, both positively (good works) and negatively (refraining from sin).

This is why the Church stresses holiness and good works—that we do not fail to put the grace given us to the use for which the Lord intended.

When Christ says “Well done, thou good and faithful servant”, “good and faithful servant” requires obedience and service. This goes well beyond mere belief.

I agree. However my point is that these ‘good works’ that complete our faith are only possible because they have their basis in grace. Without faith, it is impossible to please God, so any good deeds done on some other basis are not salvific at all.

 

[Teflon93]

I dunno, Teflon. It seems to me that moondweller actually believes his erroneous understanding of Catholic teaching. I think he HAS to cling to these errors or he would not be able to justifiy being Protestant.

Deceiving oneself is more properly called “denial”. In such a case, one first bears false witness to himself, and by extension, others around himself.

Since he is unable to admit any reality into preconceived schema, I am not sure that the denial can be addressed either…

Oh, I don’t think invincible ignorance avails once one has been exposed to the truth.

Moondweller above accused me of wanting to “go back under the Law.” Moondweller no doubt believes that to “go back under the Law” means to not be saved; indeed, to be damned. As noted, I certainly do not wish to “go back under the Law”; indeed, the shredded pork I had this evening for dinner is a pretty convincing argument that I have no intention of doing any such thing.

In claiming that I wish such a thing, which is both untrue and uncharitable, Moondweller violated the commandment against bearing false witness against one’s neighbor. Moondweller does not believe this to be a sin; the Ten Commandments are no longer binding upon the faithful in Moondweller’s estimation (if I understand it right). The Catholic Church teaches that the Commandments define sin and are to be followed.

Of course, God’s opinion is what matters.

Does it matter to God if we bear false witness against a neighbor?

That’s the crux of this thread when we get down to it, isn’t it?

Does it matter to God if we sin?

 

[runandsew]

When one reads Romans and Galatians, they should go back and review Paul’s troubles with the Judizers recorded in the book of Acts to better understand what Paul is writing about in his epistles.

No where in the bible does God NOT require faith and obedience together, protestants tend to leave obedience out of the picture, or claim that obedience will naturally flow out of faith, but that we are not judged by our lack of obedience.

I guess this will all be answered on judgment day, but then it will be too late to correct our errant theology.

 

[Teflon93]

I agree. However my point is that these ‘good works’ that complete our faith are only possible because they have their basis in grace. Without faith, it is impossible to please God, so any good deeds done on some other basis are not salvific at all.

Absolutely—that’s the orthodox Catholic position.

Unfortunately, our non-Catholic interlocutors, lacking a proper understanding of how grace, faith, and good works interact in salvation, take a perfectly valid statement out of the proper context of the Church and use this to contradict James.

As Matthew 25 demonstrates, good works are not optional. They are the reason for our existence.

Good works are not possible without the grace of God, the source of all good.

Thus the Pelagians were condemned for believing the falsehood that one could work one’s way to salvation without God; likewise the original Protestants were condemned for believing the falsehood that one need do nothing but believe to attain salvation.

 

[Teflon93]

When one reads Romans and Galatians, they should go back and review Paul’s troubles with the Judizers recorded in the book of Acts to better understand what Paul is writing about in his epistles.

No where in the bible does God NOT require faith and obedience together, protestants tend to leave obedience out of the picture, or claim that obedience will naturally flow out of faith, but that we are not judged by our lack of obedience.

Well, schismatics HAVE to justify disobedience, whether by claiming obedience is unnecessary (the Protestant innovation) or that the leadership of the Church is invalid as an authority to be obeyed (as the Orthodox, Sedevacantists, et al would have it).

There is no schism without disobedience. We see this playing out at the moment in mainline Protestantism.

I guess this will all be answered on judgment day, but then it will be too late to correct our errant theology.

Oh, I think a good number of those in error today will come around before then. Those who’ve abandoned faith altogether are a bigger worry.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

The problem is that many Protestants have a faulty notion of what Paul means by “Law.” Since Paul says we are not under the Law, but under grace, they assume that Christians are no longer subject to any moral demands that may have an impact on our final eternal destiny. However, while Christians are certainly under grace, they are also under law, just not “The Law.” The Law means the Mosaic Law, but also means man in a carnal state, devoid of the mercy, grace, and Spirit of God and enslaved to sin.

Romans 7:5-6

**5For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. **

For carnal man, the Law only serves to point to his sinfulness and to condemn. It cannot deliver anyone from sin or give life. Chrisians have been delivered from enslavement to sin and hence from "the Law. However, this deliverance places Christians under another Law, the Law of Christ. Paul makes this distinction clear:

1 Corinthians 9:20-21

20To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
21to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

And what is the Law of Christ?

James 2:

8If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well.

Twice in his epistle, James describes this law as the “law of liberty.”

James 1:25

25But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.

So unlike “The Law”, which represents enslavement, the perfect Law of Christ represents freedom, the freedom to serve God in love (Romans 7:6, Galatians 5:13-14). A freedom we could not enjoy while being under “The Law” And by this “law of liberty” we shall be judged:

**12So speak and so act **as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.

However, only those who have experienced the mercy and grace of God, who have been delivered from enslavement to sin and become a “new creation” can fulfill the Law of Christ. The Old Law was based on the external observance of moral and ceremonial precepts. The New Law of Christ is based on an internal principle, namely, love. However, this love does not have its origin in man. Like faith, love is an infused virtue, a gift of God given to those who have become sons and daughters of God:

Romans 5:5

5and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Hence only those who have been justified can exercise the virtue of love and thus fulfill the Law of Christ. And love means keeping God’s commandments:

2 John 6

6And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.

Galatians 5:6

6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

1 Corinthians 7:19

19Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

So the moral law of God, formerly expressed in “The Law”, is given new life in the Law of Christ:

Romans 13:8-10

8Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”
10Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

The Law of Christ is the perfection and fulfillment of the Old Law.

God bless,
Michael

Wouldn’t it make sense to just tell the Protestants to stop tearing apart the Bible verse by verse if they can’t read the whole thing and learn ALL of the Truths? When someone tries to just take a scripture verse, or sometimes even a chapter, and read that alone, and then tries to decipher the truth in it, and decide what it means, they are setting themselves up to fail to understand.
That is one of the most beautiful things about the Catholic Church. We have all of the Truth, knowing that we, as a Church, are being guided directly by the Holy Ghost to understand the words of the Bible and the Traditions of the Apostles.

Isn’t there some way to tell them this in the love of Christ Jesus?
Cherie

 

[guanophore]

Oh, I don’t think invincible ignorance avails once one has been exposed to the truth.

Moondweller above accused me of wanting to “go back under the Law.” Moondweller no doubt believes that to “go back under the Law” means to not be saved; indeed, to be damned. As noted, I certainly do not wish to “go back under the Law”; indeed, the shredded pork I had this evening for dinner is a pretty convincing argument that I have no intention of doing any such thing.

In claiming that I wish such a thing, which is both untrue and uncharitable, Moondweller violated the commandment against bearing false witness against one’s neighbor. Moondweller does not believe this to be a sin; the Ten Commandments are no longer binding upon the faithful in Moondweller’s estimation (if I understand it right).

With all due respect, Tef, I am surprised that you were even accused of this. In fact, it was made clear on the previous thread (from which this is an offshoot) that Catholics’ “works based salvation prevents us from seeing what God HImself has done”. This being the case, I would not expect that any Catholics could be considered “saved”, or free from the “bondage of law”. I am surprised that you even got the benefit of the doubt about ever having gotten out from under it!

Clearly, however, you have been wronged by falsehood leveled against you. Since, in the law of Christ love does no wrong to a neighbor, you might think that reparation was due. However, consider this.

Moondweller has made it clear that “neighbor” does not mean anyone. It means those members of his own faith community only. Therefore, he can, with impunity, break even the “law of love” by doing wrong to you, since you dont’ really qualify as a “neighbor”. If you were to convert, and become a dispensationalist, and forswear your Catholic was, you might merit an apology. Otherwise, don’t hold your breath!

 

[guanophore]

When one reads Romans and Galatians, they should go back and review Paul’s troubles with the Judizers recorded in the book of Acts to better understand what Paul is writing about in his epistles.

No where in the bible does God NOT require faith and obedience together, protestants tend to leave obedience out of the picture, or claim that obedience will naturally flow out of faith, but that we are not judged by our lack of obedience.

I guess this will all be answered on judgment day, but then it will be too late to correct our errant theology.

I think such a statement is too large of a net. I think that most Protestants consider obedience essential, and strive for sanctity. I agree that they do not think it will affect salvation, but most seem to believe it will at least affect rewards in heaven.

They don’t see sanctification - working out one’s salvation with fear and trembling- - to actually be part of salvation, which they believe has happened once in time, for all time.

 

[Teflon93]

With all due respect, Tef, I am surprised that you were even accused of this. In fact, it was made clear on the previous thread (from which this is an offshoot) that Catholics’ “works based salvation prevents us from seeing what God HImself has done”. This being the case, I would not expect that any Catholics could be considered “saved”, or free from the “bondage of law”. I am surprised that you even got the benefit of the doubt about ever having gotten out from under it!

Clearly, however, you have been wronged by falsehood leveled against you. Since, in the law of Christ love does no wrong to a neighbor, you might think that reparation was due. However, consider this.

Moondweller has made it clear that “neighbor” does not mean anyone. It means those members of his own faith community only. Therefore, he can, with impunity, break even the “law of love” by doing wrong to you, since you dont’ really qualify as a “neighbor”. If you were to convert, and become a dispensationalist, and forswear your Catholic was, you might merit an apology. Otherwise, don’t hold your breath!

lol—you know, you’re right!

I didn’t raise the bearing false witness question out of offense at Moondweller, but rather in kicking the tires on how sin is defined absent the Commandments.

For Moondweller’s theology to be consistent, one of two conditions must hold, either:

1. The Ten Commandments no longer define sin, thereby allowing any Christian to bear false witness against their neighbor as they like, steal, covet, even murder if they choose—they’re saved and cannot lose salvation no matter what they do
2. Christian free will must be more severely constrained than the moral law of the Commandments indicates—far from being able to break Commandments with impunity, the Christian may not offend God in the slightest; otherwise they bear “false fruits” and are clearly not saved. In effect, they must live the lives of the purest saints.

Is this not the fundamental tension of Fundamentalism?

My wife and I used to marvel as our Pentecostal pastor would one Sunday claim we were crazy for doubting our salvation and the next Wednesday claim we were crazy for thinking we were saved. It seems to me he simply bounced between the binary conditions which are the rational implications of OSAS.

A = saved, B = sin.

If A then NOT B

and

If B then NOT A

Therefore, it all comes down to how sin is to be defined. Absent the reliable yardstick of the Commandments, is it any surprise that sin would come to include drinking (even communion wine), dancing, and similar practices?

Is it any surprise that the result is the adoption of a harsh Law without any mandate from God, one that requires, say, not just keeping the Sabbath holy but Wednesday night church attendance as well, or ostracizing sinners, or tithing?

 

[moondweller]

moondweller: Acts is an historical account of GREAT value indeed (some doctrinal), but as I said, the doctrines of grace, directly related to what Christ accomplished perfectly and completely on the cross for the believer, are predominately taught and expanded upon in the Epistles. The gift of justification through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus could not be taught as an established fact until His redemptive work was “finished” (Rom. 3:24). That makes perfect sense, doesn’t it, Tef.?

guanophore: No, this does not make sense either. Jesus taught a great many things that were not properly understood until later. To say that the complete revelation of God in Christ was constrained by His humanity from teaching the full truth does not make sense to me at all!

Not the full revelation of God in Christ, but what was accomplished by His death on the cross. The Gospel accounts end with that historical event, the Epistles explain what took place there.Heb 9:15 "And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were {committed} under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."Christ has taken the place of Moses, the mediator of the “old” covenant. Yet Catholics, and some Protestants, still say that when Christ was on earth He re-affirmed the Ten Commandments and they’re under the erroneous persuasion that God is requiring righteousness of them.

What seems to completely fly over their heads is that a death has taken place to bring in a new covenant of which the resurrected Christ is Mediator. The reference point is the death that has taken place. Christ’s mediatorship dates AFTER His death, not to His life and preaching. The gospel Paul preached to Jews and Gentiles begins with Christ’s DEATH, not His virgin birth, nor His spotless life under the Law.1 Cor 15:3-4 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,"Heb. 9:15 presents Christ as Mediator of a new covenant in view of the fact that, a death having taken place, those who believe (“the called”) may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Take special note, guanphore, that those who believe have this relationship to the NEW covenant (not the old), and its conditions have been fulfilled, and that on the basis of His death the new covenant is in operation. The resurrected Christ being its Mediator.1 Tim 2:5 "For there is one God, {and} one mediator also between God and men, {the} man Christ Jesus,We don’t have two mediators: Moses and Jesus. Only one, and He is a mediator of a NEW covenant making the old obsolete.

The doctrines of grace, found only in the Epistles, explain (reveal) to us the believer’s new standing before God according to this new covenant enacted upon better promises.Heb 8:6 "But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises."These promises could have only been explained after His death took place, and that’s why we have the Epistles in the N.T.

Luther had it right:“Christ is no Moses! Take heed lest thou set Christ upon a rainbow, with a stern countenance, as of judge.” See Jn. 12:47.No, believers are not called under a legal covenant with God, that if they will do this and be such, He will save them at last. Believers are the full beneficiaries of an eternal covenant, of which the conditions of it have been fulfilled. “It is finished” Jesus said on the cross, and God raised Him from the dead in view of that covenant.

“…for you are not under law but under grace.”, Paul said.

 

[Teflon93]

Luther had it right:

“Christ is no Moses! Take heed lest thou set Christ upon a rainbow, with a stern countenance, as of judge.”
​

How do you know Luther “had it right”?​

 

[guanophore]

 Yet Catholics, and some Protestants, still say that when Christ was on earth He re-affirmed the Ten Commandments and they're under the erroneous persuasion that God is requiring righteousness of them.

I think it is not right to conflate these two. Christ did reaffirm the commandments, as did the Apostles. He required righteousness BEYOND them. I think we agree, is that the basis of this righteousness is grace, not the efforts of man. It is only by grace that we can keep the commandments of God.

It is only by grace, through faith, that Moses and Elijah were able to appear to Jesus at the transfiguration. It is only by grace, through faith, that Elizabeth and Zechariah could be righteous before God “walking in all the commandments and ordinances”. Even under the old covenant, righteousness did not come from the commandments, but from grace, through faith.

What seems to completely fly over their heads is that a death has taken place to bring in a new covenant of which the resurrected Christ is Mediator.

No, I think this is entirely Catholic.

Christ’s mediatorship dates AFTER His death, not to His life and preaching

.

I don’t think I can swallow this one, however. Otherwise, how could he say to so many “your faith has saved you”?

Take special note, guanphore, that those who believe have this relationship to the NEW covenant (not the old), and its conditions have been *fulfilled*, and that on the basis of His death the new covenant is in operation.  The resurrected Christ being its Mediator.1 Tim 2:5 "For there is one God, {and} one mediator also between God and men, {the} man Christ Jesus,We don't have two mediators: Moses and Jesus.  Only one, and He is a mediator of a NEW covenant making the old obsolete.

This all sounds very Catholic to me. If I am wrong, I am sure someone here will correct me.

However, just because there is a new covenant, that does not nullify the Law. It still serves the same function that it always has.

The doctrines of grace, found only in the Epistles, explain (reveal) to us the believer’s new standing before God according to this new covenant enacted upon better promises.

Well, we see it differently. Catholics see this throughout the NT,and in some of the OT, but I agree with what we see.

These promises could have only been explained until after His death took place, and that’s why we have the Epistles in the N.T.

Catholics see these promises in the OT and gospels as well, as did Paul, which is why he used only the OT to explain the Gospel, and described it as sufficient unto salvation.

 

[ellammcg]

I agree that they do not think it will affect salvation, but most seem to believe it will at least affect rewards in heaven.

They don’t see sanctification - working out one’s salvation with fear and trembling- - to actually be part of salvation, which they believe has happened once in time, for all time.

Very true. It does cause a few difficulties when someone who has in every way indicated that he is saved (by his words, church attendance, giving, behavior, etc.) goes somewhere out in left field and commits all kind of heinous acts. A Protestant’s normal response is “well, he must not have really been saved then” (obviously unknowable by any but God- but it is a weak cop-out kind of statement). Of course, if you love someone, you don’t go out of your way to hurt or anger them but what if your feelings change? What if you really did love someone at one time and no longer do? What if you betray them unrepentantly? In the case of your love being for the Lord, our (Baptist) soterism teaches that you will only be shy a crown or two to lay at Jesus feet.

 

[sandusky]

moondweller:

We don’t have two mediators: Moses and Jesus. Only one, and He is a mediator of a NEW covenant making the old obsolete.

A huge point which further contrasts the law with grace.

moondweller:

The doctrines of grace, found only in the Epistles, explain (reveal) to us the believer’s new standing before God according to this new covenant enacted upon better promises.**
Heb 8:6** “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.”
These promises could have only been explained after His death took place, and that’s why we have the Epistles in the N.T.

Correct—because the law is from God, it is good; however, Christ (grace) is soooooooo much better—that’s the message of the writer to the Hebrews.

moondweller:

Luther had it right:
“Christ is no Moses! Take heed lest thou set Christ upon a rainbow, with a stern countenance, as of judge.” See Jn. 12:47.
No, believers are not called under a legal covenant with God, that if they will do this and be such, He will save them at last. Believers are the full beneficiaries of an eternal covenant, of which the conditions of it have been fulfilled. “It is finished” Jesus said on the cross, and God raised Him from the dead in view of that covenant.

"…for you are not under law but under grace.", Paul said.

In a covenant of works, the condition is perfect obedience—or doing what the Law requires, i.e., works—to receive the blessings offered.

In the covenant of grace, OTOH, the sole condition is faith in Christ, apart from works (Rom. 3:28). “To the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).

Not only are the conditions different (works vs. faith), but the conditions have different functions relating to the blessings.

The condition (works) is the legal ground for obtaining the blessings offered in the Covenant of works.

The condition (faith), in the Covenant of grace, is merely a means by which the blessings are received. Faith is not the ground on which God bestows the blessings of the covenant of grace upon us, though faith is necessary. The legal ground for the bestowal of the blessings is the perfect obedience and merit of Christ—not our faith, which is nothing in itself.

Faith functions as the means or instrument by which the blessings earned by Christ are appropriated and received (Eph 2:8). Faith is not a work, but a gift (Eph 2:8); faith is the empty hand by which the believer receives all that Christ has earned for him as a gift.

I think that believers must also demonstrate that their faith is genuine by producing good works as the fruit of faith, as Paul says, good works are the result of salvation, not a condition of salvation. We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus "unto good works," not by good works (Eph. 2:10).

So the good news (and it is good news indeed), is that we are not saved by what we do, but by what Christ has done for us, and nothing else—grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone,
that the glory would be to God alone.
Heaven goes by favour. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.

— Mark Twain​

​