Good Works Vs Works Of The Law

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,604
31,826
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Sorry. Working my way back. One of those subjects that runs like a jackrabbit, and I've been busy with PM ministry lately.


Boy would he be a popular guy, Lol.

screen_shot_2016-10-08_at_12.07.43_pm_huge.png



Me too. And actually, as they go I'd say this thread has been mild mannered... or maybe I'm just becoming desensitized, Lol.
Desensitized ? Yes, an interesting way to express that. Calloused is another related word but would it also possibly yield the right idea? Hmmm? But you are not calloused my friend. Likely, like me, you are simply tired and skim rather than read a whole lot of things. Oh, but you are a young man with inexhaustible energy and infinite patience, right?
 

TheslightestID

Active Member
Nov 30, 2020
741
198
43
69
From here to Kingdom come.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is a good verse, and it is dismissed too easily by those who say we are "no longer under law." We are still required to keep the commandments if we would inherit eternal life. The difference is that with the commencement of the New Covenant, it was soon understood that the Jewish ceremonial laws were merely shadows of coming things, and no longer binding on Christians. The two greatest commandments most certainly still are, and I don't agree with the argument that we can still get to Heaven by leading a life that breaks those two commandments that encompassed the OT non-ceremonial law. Nor perfectly, for God has already clearly accounted for our failings through the cross, but I life of willful disregard for obeying the two greatest commandments demonstrates not having made Him Lord yet still expecting Him to be Savior. It doesn't work that way, not in the Kingdom of God.

I agree with every word of that, and it is always refreshing to hear, some have, at least what I call, a perfect understanding of how it works.
 

GRACE ambassador

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2021
2,410
1,579
113
71
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hello there, Grace Ambassador, and sorry about the late reply.

I read through your post but I can only comment on those statements where scriptures are referenced, since this is what we have to base our determinations on. So I will at least deal with the ones you made reference to scripture on.


Good passage! Let me quote it again in a slightly wider context:

1 Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, 2 to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men. 3 For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men... 14 And let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful. (Titus 3:1-8, 14)

Ok, now. This is one of the more difficult passages to deal with, so I am going to quote the Greek here.

ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι κληρονόμοι γενηθῶμεν κατ' ἐλπίδα ζωῆς αἰωνίου. = "that having been justified by that grace, we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

Now, if we have already attained to salvation through faith and that salvation is guaranteed, the future tense that is inherent in this last phrase would be unnecessary. There would be no need to hope for eternal life if it was already certain. This is why translators here often translate the aorist subjunctive middle as "we should become heirs." It is still contingent upon something, and that in this context is maintaining good works.

Be blessed as well, and thank you for the courteous post.
- H
Hello, Hidden In Him, Precious Friend! Not too late, NO "rapture," Yet! :)

No, Thank you, Precious friend, for the Very Courteous reply! {a "breath
of FRESH air!"}. Yes, agree, All the righteous In The Body Of CHRIST,
SHOULD be careful to Maintain good works.
Now, your position is:

Conditional, based on this maintenance, should be "heirs of eternal
life." Thus, those "who fail" will NOT be heirs and "be condemned"?
Sorry, lots of questions: Would the maintenance then, be a ratio?:
100%, 51%/49%, or other? Then, we have The Bema Seat
{and More questions}:

At the Great GRACE Departure of All the righteous, being raised,
changed into Glorification {Hope?}, there is Still the Final "testing,"

if you will, Correct? Not too sure if "the Greek" can help interpret this:

"Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man
shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we
are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are
God's building. According to The GRACE Of God which is given
unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid The Foundation,
and another buildeth Thereon.

But let every man take heed how he buildeth Thereupon. For other
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, Which Is JESUS CHRIST.
Now IF any man build upon This Foundation gold, silver, precious
stones, {"maintained good works"?}
wood, hay, stubble; {"did Not maintain"?}

Every man's work shall be made manifest:
for The {JUDGMENT} DAY shall declare it, because it shall be revealed
by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

If any man's work abide which he hath built Thereupon,
he shall receive a reward... {"the careful who maintained!"?}

1Co_3 : 15:

...IF ANY {JUSTIFIED as righteous, but UNfaithful} man's work shall be burned,
he shall suffer loss: {"the UNcareful who DID NOT TAKE HEED TO maintain!"?}

BUT he himself SHALL BE SAVED; yet so as by fire." (1_Corinthians 3 : 8-15 KJB!)

Thus, the Eternal LIFE, from God, is Guaranteed, But "rewards" are not, as shown!
And, Again, the question: Is The Precious BLOOD Of CHRIST ALL-Sufficient to FORGIVE
ALL
sin? God Is Satisfied With "What HIS SON Did" (Isaiah 53 : 10-11 KJB!)
But, "man is not satisfied"? Amen?

Thanks for the Greek lesson. I'm not much of a "language scholar," But, DO Indeed
Thank God HE Has "PRESERVED His Holy Word," in my own language! Amen?

Be Blessed!
 
Last edited:

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,827
2,159
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Actually, he did : he appends "for by the Law comes the knowledge of sin" to "for by works of Law" thus when he says "I would not have known sin unless the Law had said 'do not covet'" he's saying it's a work of the Law.
What passage?
 

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,827
2,159
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I agree. I would argue that adultery was actually acceptable in certain segments of Roman culture during NT times, hence Paul's reference to it appearing to be acceptable "among the Gentiles" in 1 Thessalonians 4:1-7. Verse 3 should be translated "sexual immorality" rather than "fornication," because verse 6 appears to be addressing adultery committed against a brother.

But aside from that we fully agree.
You raise many interesting points. I wonder if adultery was unlawful in Roman society, while at the same time everyone ignored the law, and neither was it enforced? I don't know. I'm thinking of American laws, which proscribed certain homosexual behaviors, which everyone ignored and neither were they enforced. Many of them have been removed from the books.

This raises another issue that I think you might find relevant? Paul wrote about the fruits of the Spirit in his epistle to the Galatians, saying "against such things there is no law." And the obvious implication, which is often overlooked, is the difference between what we lawfully obey, and the good we voluntarily pursue. It seems to me that in a theocratic society, the distinction is blurred and easy to miss. One could argue that the Kosher laws, while prescribing lawful behavior, also provided Israel a window into God's morality. His law says something important about himself.

Another thing, which is similar . . . One might argue that "the good" is something we ought to do, whether their is a law or not. In this case, those living under God's law are invited to ask whether one is practicing the good for its own sake or whether one would stop the practice once the law is rescinded. I am reminded of the Christian practice of tithing, which was also part of the Jewish law. It's as if Christians have decided that giving a tithe should be done voluntarily and for it's own sake because it is the right thing to do.

Follow me?
 

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
8,637
6,456
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
You raise many interesting points. I wonder if adultery was unlawful in Roman society, while at the same time everyone ignored the law, and neither was it enforced? I don't know. I'm thinking of American laws, which proscribed certain homosexual behaviors, which everyone ignored and neither were they enforced. Many of them have been removed from the books.

This raises another issue that I think you might find relevant? Paul wrote about the fruits of the Spirit in his epistle to the Galatians, saying "against such things there is no law." And the obvious implication, which is often overlooked, is the difference between what we lawfully obey, and the good we voluntarily pursue. It seems to me that in a theocratic society, the distinction is blurred and easy to miss. One could argue that the Kosher laws, while prescribing lawful behavior, also provided Israel a window into God's morality. His law says something important about himself.

Another thing, which is similar . . . One might argue that "the good" is something we ought to do, whether their is a law or not. In this case, those living under God's law are invited to ask whether one is practicing the good for its own sake or whether one would stop the practice once the law is rescinded. I am reminded of the Christian practice of tithing, which was also part of the Jewish law. It's as if Christians have decided that giving a tithe should be done voluntarily and for it's own sake because it is the right thing to do.

Follow me?
I think that true children of God, the ones genuinely empowered by the Spirit of God, do good because it has become inherently natural. Of you do good works too earn heaven, it's selfish and unnatural. If you're doing good to look the part, its selfish and unnatural. If you're doing good because such is the image of Christ you have been recreated into, that is your Salvation. You are judged by your motives. You feed the hungry why,? Because they're hungry. You take the homeless into your house why? Because he's cold and lost. You speak kindly to a stranger why? Because you genuinely care for his welfare and have his best interests at heart. Such a life isn't hard. That is the yoke of Christ. Light and easy. And only those who love and live such a life will in the end be saved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You raise many interesting points. I wonder if adultery was unlawful in Roman society, while at the same time everyone ignored the law, and neither was it enforced? I don't know. I'm thinking of American laws, which proscribed certain homosexual behaviors, which everyone ignored and neither were they enforced. Many of them have been removed from the books.

This raises another issue that I think you might find relevant? Paul wrote about the fruits of the Spirit in his epistle to the Galatians, saying "against such things there is no law." And the obvious implication, which is often overlooked, is the difference between what we lawfully obey, and the good we voluntarily pursue. It seems to me that in a theocratic society, the distinction is blurred and easy to miss. One could argue that the Kosher laws, while prescribing lawful behavior, also provided Israel a window into God's morality. His law says something important about himself.

Another thing, which is similar . . . One might argue that "the good" is something we ought to do, whether their is a law or not. In this case, those living under God's law are invited to ask whether one is practicing the good for its own sake or whether one would stop the practice once the law is rescinded. I am reminded of the Christian practice of tithing, which was also part of the Jewish law. It's as if Christians have decided that giving a tithe should be done voluntarily and for it's own sake because it is the right thing to do.

Follow me?
"One might argue that "the good" is something we ought to do, whether their is a law or not."

Living by faith, not by a law.

"one is practicing the good for its own sake or whether one would stop the practice once the law is rescinded."

Living by faith from the heart does good and eschews evil: transgression of the law of God. Avoiding transgression by fear of punishment does not produce 'doing good'. One does not 'stop the practice' of doing good, because a law is rescinded, because not transgressing a point of law does not produce doing good elsewhere.

Satanism's creed is: do no harm. But Satan never states what 'harm' is. Satan has no law to define evil and no commandment to do good.
1. Not 'doing harm' does not produce doing good. It is 'good' not to kill your neighbor, but other than that, what good are you doing when opportunity arises? How are you loving your neighbor as yourself?

Just because I don't steal because of fear of punishment, doesn't mean I go about doing good elsewhere as Jesus would (Acts 10:38).

2. Who is defining right and wrong, good and harm? Yourself. Therefore, without God there is no right and wrong, good and harm, except what one wants to think or believe, at the time. And one man's good can be another man's harm, and vica versa. Even as one man's trash is another man's treasure...

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, because the Lord 'defines' evil deeds and works of unrighteousness by His Law, and fearing the Lawgiver becomes proper fear of His punishment for transgression.

And eschewing evil is understanding, because fearing the Lord and knowing what transgression is by His law, we avoid doing any evil.

But that only goes so far. It is 'good' not to be a transgressor, but that alone--the 'works of the law' alone--does not produce good works from the heart elsewhere. The work of the Law is only to avoid transgression, but the work of faith is to do good from the heart.

Love of God produces doing good works, which is by the faith of Jesus freely given into the heart when born of the Spirit of God.

By grace through faith we are saved from all transgression and evil, but we are also created unto good works.

It is not 'good enough' with God to only avoid doing evil and no more. With God doing good is His way of Life, and so when doing good is absent in deed, then faith is dead (James 2), though with words we speak good and hopeful things, that we ourselves do nothing to produce.

"My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." (I John 3:18)

Keeping the law of God is avoiding doing evil. Keeping the commandments of the Lord is to do good. Therefore let us do the former, but not leave the latter undone.

The Pharisees were great at keeping the Law of Moses, and no good at all in keeping and doing the commandments of God. Very religious to the law, and very dead to God.
 
Last edited:

GracePeace

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2021
3,429
696
113
Southwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What passage?
Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7--"By the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified in His sight, because by the Law comes the knowledge of sin."

Clearly, "works of Law" is "the Law" bringing "knowledge of sin".
Precisely what we see going on in Romans 7:7 where the Jew "in the flesh" Romans 7:5 is "under Law" thus is being "mastered" by sin Romans 6:14.
Keeping in mind, the Jews sinned "after the manner of Adam"--ie, transgression.
That is to say, they had "knowledge of sin".
How? The Law. The Gentiles didn't have the Law Romans 2:14-15 (Jews did Romans 7:1).
This "transgression" is contrasted against the sin of the Gentiles Romans 5:13-14.
Certainly, this distinction involves more than circumcision.
The Gentiles didn't "sin" by not being circumcised.
 

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
8,637
6,456
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Thing is this. I find it highly inappropriate and likely offensive to God to downgrade obedience to God's Commandments as a veiled insult in designating it as "works of the law". There are many many Christians who obey God's Commandments because that for them is now the natural thing to do. They've been born again. The have the Spirit of Christ abiding within. They have a new heart and the mind of Christ. God Himself had worked a miracle in their lives and they've changed. He had written His law on their minds and hearts. The law is no longer written on stone, but on flesh. The righteousness of the law is now fulfilled in their lives. They are the recipients of the promise as new covenant Christians. They belong to that group now ready for Christs coming... They keep the commandments of God and have the faith and testimony of Jesus. Revelation 12:17 & 14:12.
Instead of insulting them and misjudging their motives, it's time your joined them. But first you need to let God work in you His will and his good pleasure. Because from what I read in threads like this, I perceive open animosity against the law of God. Such animosity is completely contradictory to the will of God and the whole tenet of scripture.
 

GracePeace

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2021
3,429
696
113
Southwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thing is this. I find it highly inappropriate and likely offensive to God to downgrade obedience to God's Commandments as a veiled insult in designating it as "works of the law".
"Works of law" was just a term Jews used to describe the good works the Law commanded.

There are many many Christians who obey God's Commandments because that for them is now the natural thing to do. They've been born again. The have the Spirit of Christ abiding within. They have a new heart and the mind of Christ. God Himself had worked a miracle in their lives and they've changed. He had written His law on their minds and hearts. The law is no longer written on stone, but on flesh. The righteousness of the law is now fulfilled in their lives. They are the recipients of the promise as new covenant Christians. They belong to that group now ready for Christs coming... They keep the commandments of God and have the faith and testimony of Jesus. Revelation 12:17 & 14:12.
Those born of God are not under Law but under Grace Romans 6:14 and fulfill the righteous requirement of the Law Romans 2:13-15, Romans 2:26-27, Romans 8:3-4.
That's what this whole discussion is about--trying to distinguish between "works of the Law" (which Christians are not required to do) and "good works" (which Christians are expected to do).

Seems you're just going around half-cocked, ready to condemn, and had neglected to read the discussion.
Not our fault.

Instead of insulting them and misjudging their motives, it's time your joined them. But first you need to let God work in you His will and his good pleasure. Because from what I read in threads like this, I perceive open animosity against the law of God. Such animosity is completely contradictory to the will of God and the whole tenet of scripture.
Just like I said, you hadn't read--you were ready to condemn, which is breaking the Law you claim to love.
You just "insulted and misjudged us". Is that what is termed "hypocrisy"?
 

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
8,637
6,456
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
"Works of law" was just a term Jews used to describe the good works the Law commanded.


Those born of God are not under Law but under Grace Romans 6:14 and fulfill the righteous requirement of the Law Romans 2:13-15, Romans 2:26-27, Romans 8:3-4.
That's what this whole discussion is about--trying to distinguish between "works of the Law" (which Christians are not required to do) and "good works" (which Christians are expected to do).

Seems you're just going around half-cocked, ready to condemn, and had neglected to read the discussion.
Not our fault.


Just like I said, you hadn't read--you were ready to condemn, which is breaking the Law you claim to love.
You just "insulted and misjudged us". Is that what is termed "hypocrisy"?
I accept your criticism. I had read the thread right through and contributed previously, so I wasn't posting from ignorance, but perhaps you are right in that I was being harsh in relation to this particular thread. My comments however in general regarding the issues surrounding obedience/grace/law/works etc etc I don't apologize for. I think Christians these days in many instances are like the Jews of the OT. They had the law written in it's original form on stone, but we're quite content to leave it there. "God, talk to Moses if you must, but don't get too close to us because we don't wanna die.". There was the failure and weakness of the old covenant. Israel's refusal to let God do what He needed to do in their hearts.
KJV Deut. 5:29
O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!‭
The church today I fear is so focused on avoiding being judged as working her way to heaven, they've gone to the extreme of rejecting God's Commandments altogether.

When you say Christians are no longer "under the law", which is a direct quote from scripture of course, I would be interested in how you understand what that means practically for Christians today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GracePeace

GracePeace

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2021
3,429
696
113
Southwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I accept your criticism. I had read the thread right through and contributed previously, so I wasn't posting from ignorance, but perhaps you are right in that I was being harsh in relation to this particular thread.
All right.
My mistake.

My comments however in general regarding the issues surrounding obedience/grace/law/works etc etc I don't apologize for. I think Christians these days in many instances are like the Jews of the OT. They had the law written in it's original form on stone, but we're quite content to leave it there.
I understand where you're coming from.

"God, talk to Moses if you must, but don't get too close to us because we don't wanna die.". There was the failure and weakness of the old covenant. Israel's refusal to let God do what He needed to do in their hearts.
KJV Deut. 5:29
O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!‭
This criticism of Israel tends to confuse me as it seems their response was pleasing.

The church today I fear is so focused on avoiding being judged as working her way to heaven, they've gone to the extreme of rejecting God's Commandments altogether.
Depending on the Church, sure--in one (in Miami), the guy claims to be Christ, and has his congregants get a "666" tattoo, and say sinning doesn't exist anymore and the more you "sin" the more grace you get.

When you say Christians are no longer "under the law", which is a direct quote from scripture of course, I would be interested in how you understand what that means practically for Christians today.
The implication is that Christians are servants to God, by His Grace instead of by Torah (Christ actually repudiated numerous commands in Matthew 5, explaining that the Torah contained concessions for sinful men, thus it was not God's perfect will Matthew 19), and capable of making God happy by fulfilling the righteous requirement of the Law Romans 2:13-15, Romans 2:26-27, Romans 3:31, Romans 8:3-4, Romans 13:8-10.
 

GracePeace

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2021
3,429
696
113
Southwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
When you say Christians are no longer "under the law"...
Also, more accurately, Jews are no longer "under Law"--Gentiles never were "under Law"--when they believe, because death (the death they die with Christ) exempts them from their obligation to serve via the Torah Romans 7:1-6.

This doctrine of Paul's he shared in common with other Pharisees--it was later codified in Talmud.

Babylonian Talmud Niddah 61b
Our Rabbis taught: A garment in which kil'ayim4 was lost5 may not be sold to an idolater,6 nor may one make of it a packsaddle for an ass, but it may be made into7 a shroud for a corpse. R. Joseph observed: This8 implies that the commandments will be abolished in the Hereafter.9 Said Abaye (or as some say R. Dimi) to him: But did not R. Manni10 in the name of R. Jannai state, 'This8 was learnt only in regard to the time of the lamentations11 but for burial12 this is forbidden'?13 — The other replied: But was it not stated in connection with it, 'R. Johanan ruled: Even for burial'? And thereby R. Johanan followed his previously expressed view, for R. Johanan stated: 'What is the purport of the Scriptural text, Free14 among the dead?15 As soon as a man dies he is free from the commandments'.

 

GracePeace

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2021
3,429
696
113
Southwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I accept your criticism. I had read the thread right through and contributed previously, so I wasn't posting from ignorance, but perhaps you are right in that I was being harsh in relation to this particular thread. My comments however in general regarding the issues surrounding obedience/grace/law/works etc etc I don't apologize for. I think Christians these days in many instances are like the Jews of the OT. They had the law written in it's original form on stone, but we're quite content to leave it there. "God, talk to Moses if you must, but don't get too close to us because we don't wanna die.". There was the failure and weakness of the old covenant. Israel's refusal to let God do what He needed to do in their hearts.
KJV Deut. 5:29
O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!‭
The church today I fear is so focused on avoiding being judged as working her way to heaven, they've gone to the extreme of rejecting God's Commandments altogether.

When you say Christians are no longer "under the law", which is a direct quote from scripture of course, I would be interested in how you understand what that means practically for Christians today.
It is very difficult for me to get off this site, but I had better head to sleep.
Good night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brakelite

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,827
2,159
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7--"By the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified in His sight, because by the Law comes the knowledge of sin."

Clearly, "works of Law" is "the Law" bringing "knowledge of sin".
Precisely what we see going on in Romans 7:7 where the Jew "in the flesh" Romans 7:5 is "under Law" thus is being "mastered" by sin Romans 6:14.
Keeping in mind, the Jews sinned "after the manner of Adam"--ie, transgression.
That is to say, they had "knowledge of sin".
How? The Law. The Gentiles didn't have the Law Romans 2:14-15 (Jews did Romans 7:1).
This "transgression" is contrasted against the sin of the Gentiles Romans 5:13-14.
Certainly, this distinction involves more than circumcision.
The Gentiles didn't "sin" by not being circumcised.
What you have done is combine two verses that weren't meant to be together. Both of these verses are true, but combined like this, they present a false impression and lead to a misunderstanding.

With regard to Romans 7, Paul has changed the subject at verse 7. In Romans 7:1-6, he continues to answer the rhetorical question he raised in Romans 6:15, "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" Paul will answer this question in two parts. In order to understand his answer we should be aware of the hidden objection behind his question. It's as if his objectors are saying, "Paul, are you not aware of the advantages of living under the law, since the law defines the righteous life? By suggesting that Gentiles not place themselves under the law, aren't you removing all incentive to live in righteousness?" His argument makes two distinct points: 1) The true motivation to avoid sin, and 2) the law is not a successful means to obtain justification from God.

The second point of his argument begins at 7:1 and ends at 7:6. In that passage he draws an analogy between living under the law and being married to a husband. According to the law, a woman is not free to marry another man unless her first husband dies. Likewise, he argues, since the Jewish Christians realized that no one can ever become justified through the works of the law, they are free to seek another "husband", that is, they are free to seek another means to find justification.

Beginning in Roman 7:7, Paul begins a new argument, making a related but different point. He begins to defend his charge that no man can find justification through works of the law. He knows that it would be impossible to prove empirically that no one ever found justification by works of the law, because in order to prove that, he would need to have knowledge of every person who ever lived. Instead, he decides to examine the essential nature of the one seeking justification by works of the law. He will argue that human beings are constitutionally incapable of finding justification by means of works because human beings are inherently evil at the core of their being. In order to make THAT argument, he speaks about coveting, which is NOT a work of the law, but an inner reality.

It's like this. The Law proscribes the act of murder, the act of adultery, and the act of theft. But, as Paul noticed, it also proscribes "being the sort of person who wants to murder, wants to sleep with his neighbor's wife, who wants to take his neighbor's stuff. The command against coveting is NOT a command to do something or avoid doing something. It is literally a command to be someone.

And Paul argues, "I can't be the person the law wants me to be. I simply can't be that person." He is constitutionally incapable of being a righteous person. He can live as a righteous person, doing acts of righteousness and goodness and love, but inside, at the core of his being, he remains an evil person. And he can't do a thing about that. "Who will set me free from this body of death?", he remarks.
 

GracePeace

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2021
3,429
696
113
Southwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What you have done is combine two verses that weren't meant to be together. Both of these verses are true, but combined like this, they present a false impression and lead to a misunderstanding.

With regard to Romans 7, Paul has changed the subject at verse 7. In Romans 7:1-6, he continues to answer the rhetorical question he raised in Romans 6:15, "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" Paul will answer this question in two parts. In order to understand his answer we should be aware of the hidden objection behind his question. It's as if his objectors are saying, "Paul, are you not aware of the advantages of living under the law, since the law defines the righteous life? By suggesting that Gentiles not place themselves under the law, aren't you removing all incentive to live in righteousness?" His argument makes two distinct points: 1) The true motivation to avoid sin, and 2) the law is not a successful means to obtain justification from God.

The second point of his argument begins at 7:1 and ends at 7:6. In that passage he draws an analogy between living under the law and being married to a husband. According to the law, a woman is not free to marry another man unless her first husband dies. Likewise, he argues, since the Jewish Christians realized that no one can ever become justified through the works of the law, they are free to seek another "husband", that is, they are free to seek another means to find justification.

Beginning in Roman 7:7, Paul begins a new argument, making a related but different point. He begins to defend his charge that no man can find justification through works of the law. He knows that it would be impossible to prove empirically that no one ever found justification by works of the law, because in order to prove that, he would need to have knowledge of every person who ever lived. Instead, he decides to examine the essential nature of the one seeking justification by works of the law. He will argue that human beings are constitutionally incapable of finding justification by means of works because human beings are inherently evil at the core of their being. In order to make THAT argument, he speaks about coveting, which is NOT a work of the law, but an inner reality.

It's like this. The Law proscribes the act of murder, the act of adultery, and the act of theft. But, as Paul noticed, it also proscribes "being the sort of person who wants to murder, wants to sleep with his neighbor's wife, who wants to take his neighbor's stuff. The command against coveting is NOT a command to do something or avoid doing something. It is literally a command to be someone.

And Paul argues, "I can't be the person the law wants me to be. I simply can't be that person." He is constitutionally incapable of being a righteous person. He can live as a righteous person, doing acts of righteousness and goodness and love, but inside, at the core of his being, he remains an evil person. And he can't do a thing about that. "Who will set me free from this body of death?", he remarks.
Well, we'll just have to let the readers decide. You presented your argument and I presented mine. I stand by mine.

No Romans 7 is a rejoinder to Romans 6:14 "You shall not be mastered by sin because you are not under Law"--Romans 7 details how sin masters a Jew "in the flesh" and "under Law".

As to the "nature" of coveting, we only need to know that coveting resulted in his death--only the doers of the Law inherit life Romans 2:6-16, so we know he broke the Law by doing an act and not averting it. He did not do the works of the Law.
There is no phrase "be the be of the Law"--only "do the works", and when you transgress you are either doing an evil work or failing to do a good one.
 
Last edited:

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Also, more accurately, Jews are no longer "under Law"--Gentiles never were "under Law"--when they believe, because death (the death they die with Christ) exempts them from their obligation to serve via the Torah Romans 7:1-6.

This doctrine of Paul's he shared in common with other Pharisees--it was later codified in Talmud.

Babylonian Talmud Niddah 61b
Our Rabbis taught: A garment in which kil'ayim4 was lost5 may not be sold to an idolater,6 nor may one make of it a packsaddle for an ass, but it may be made into7 a shroud for a corpse. R. Joseph observed: This8 implies that the commandments will be abolished in the Hereafter.9 Said Abaye (or as some say R. Dimi) to him: But did not R. Manni10 in the name of R. Jannai state, 'This8 was learnt only in regard to the time of the lamentations11 but for burial12 this is forbidden'?13 — The other replied: But was it not stated in connection with it, 'R. Johanan ruled: Even for burial'? And thereby R. Johanan followed his previously expressed view, for R. Johanan stated: 'What is the purport of the Scriptural text, Free14 among the dead?15 As soon as a man dies he is free from the commandments'.

This is a perfect example of endless questioning in a carnal commandment that makes my head hurt just to try and wade thru it, vs the power of an endless life that is free of such stupidity:

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do." (1 Tim 1)

"Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life." (Heb 7)"

Will the Torah be changed in the future?

It already has been changed: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Heb 7)

The blindness of the Jews yesterday and today who still abide in unbelief and reject Jesus as the Messiah is truly great. They literally ceased arguing about stupid arguments long enough to hear God Himself concerning such things, until they had Him killed, and then they went back to the same old stupid arguments, that they prefer to true light and life!

You want to really know why the Jews had Jesus crucified? Because he didn't are one whit about their stupid made-up rules and even less about their stupid made-up and learned argumentations about it!

"If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Matthew 6)
 

GracePeace

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2021
3,429
696
113
Southwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is a perfect example of endless questioning in a carnal commandment that makes my head hurt just to try and wade thru it, vs the power of an endless life that is free of such stupidity:

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do." (1 Tim 1)

"Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life." (Heb 7)"

Will the Torah be changed in the future?

It already has been changed: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Heb 7)

The blindness of the Jews yesterday and today who still abide in unbelief and reject Jesus as the Messiah is truly great. They literally ceased arguing about stupid arguments long enough to hear God Himself concerning such things, until they had Him killed, and then they went back to the same old stupid arguments, that they prefer to true light and life!

You want to really know why the Jews had Jesus crucified? Because he didn't are one whit about their stupid made-up rules and even less about their stupid made-up and learned argumentations about it!

"If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" (Matthew 6)
What was discussed was Christianity--and because some people object to that interpretation of Romans 7, it can in part be substantiated, since Paul was a Pharisee, by discussing what other Pharisees believe/d.

When I said "Jews are 'no longer' under Law--Gentiles never were under Law, so they can't be 'no longer' under Law--when they believe" it's an important discussion in Christianity, but even moreso is it relevant, even as a quick aside, for this thread.
 
Last edited:

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7--"By the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified in His sight, because by the Law comes the knowledge of sin."

Clearly, "works of Law" is "the Law" bringing "knowledge of sin".
Precisely what we see going on in Romans 7:7 where the Jew "in the flesh" Romans 7:5 is "under Law" thus is being "mastered" by sin Romans 6:14.
Keeping in mind, the Jews sinned "after the manner of Adam"--ie, transgression.
That is to say, they had "knowledge of sin".
How? The Law. The Gentiles didn't have the Law Romans 2:14-15 (Jews did Romans 7:1).
This "transgression" is contrasted against the sin of the Gentiles Romans 5:13-14.
Certainly, this distinction involves more than circumcision.
The Gentiles didn't "sin" by not being circumcised.

Thanks I had not fully computed the difference between transgressing a known Law, which is iniquity: knowingly sinning, vs that of ignorantly sinning against an unknown law. The transgression of Adam was knowingly disobeying the commandment, which Eve was beguiled and deceived into. (1 Tim 2)

But since death reigned anyway, it shows that ignorance of God's law is no excuse. Then and now.

I.e. the Spirit of God goes to everyone's heart about the righteousness of God, and has done so since the beginning, which separates man made in the image of God from the beasts of the field made after their own likeness and kind. (Gen 1:12)

Not being circumcised was never a sin. It was sign of unbelief and obedience to God. Even as not being baptized is today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GracePeace