Correct. Now you're repeating what I'm posting. I haven't forgotten my own argument.
Correct.
The "NT gospel"? Could you be any more vague?
False!!! Please document where you're getting this idea from.
False. Non Sequitur. Your premise is also false so your conclusions are necessarily so as well.
You haven't comprehended James' argument either. He explicitly presents those who "claim" they have faith but produce no works. He's pointing out that they have no faith at all due to the fact that faith necessarily produces works. Works are the CONSEQUENCE of faith. Now works = no faith.
Then you've adopted my position, and denied your own argument because Paul is explicitly referring to the Mosaic law when he says "the doers of the law are justified".
The NT gospel is the death burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:1-4) that saves, that must be obeyed (2 Thess 1:8) in order for one to be saved.
==============
In Gal 3:10 "
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." The Jew had to continue in ALL THINGS to be justified by that law. Paul's point to those Galatians that went back to the OT law to find justification was they made themselves a debtor to the WHOLE law (Gal 5:3). Therefore the OT law did require perfect flawless law keeping to be justified by it for just one sin brought the curse of that law upon one.
Heb 7:19 "
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." That OT law could not bring complete total forgiveness of sins, could not make one perfect for all it would do was condemn when one violated just one law. The "better hope" is the NT and Christianity, the Priesthood of Christ that can and does justify the obedient.
Paul spends the first 4 chapters of Romans proving the OT law cannot justify. He spends chapters 1 and 2 proving both Gentile and Jew are sinners and sinners are in need of justification. Paul's spends the first half of chapter 3 speaking about the OT law that was given to the Jew. Though it provided many advantages for the Jew it COULD NOT JUSTIFY the Jew. Therefore the Jew was no better than the Gentile both under sin and in need of justification. Paul finished chapter 3 by saying FAITH (not faith only) justifies and Paul contrasts works of the OT law from faith..."
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin". AGAIN, the OT law required perfect flawless deeds/law keeping to be justified but no Jew could do that leaving the Jew unjustified before God as the Gentile. So even though the Jews were given their own law, and even though it provideded advantages to the Jew over the Gentile that OT could not justify the Jew for it required perfect law keeping.
To prove his point in Rom 3 Paul uses In Romans 4 two men as examples the Jews would be very familiar with (Abraham and David) and shows how neither one of them was justified by the law but by an obedient faith instead. Romans 4:1-2 ...what did Abraham gain by his own efforts in the flesh? Did Abraham in the flesh keep the OT law perfectly therefore justified by works (v2) that is, justified by his work of perfect law keeping? No, for Abraham sinned nor did Abraham even live under the OT law (vs 9,10) and he could not be justified by a law he did not live under. Yet David DID live under the OT, was he justified by the works of the law in flawless law keeping? No, he also sinned. So how were these two men justified? NOT by works of the OT law that required flawless law keeping but by an obedient faith. Paul's point to the Jews here is if the two greatest men known to the Jews could not be justified by the flesh in keeping the OT law perfectly, then what Jew would dare think they could do better than Abraham or David and be justified by the flesh.
So the point of Romans chapters 1-4 is the OT law could not justify the sinner (Gentile nor Jew) by it's work requirement of flawless law keeping but and obedient faith can justify. Many miss the point of these chapters by falsely claiming Paul eliminated ALL works of ALL kinds from justification when according to the context he only eliminated the work of the OT law that required flawless law keeping,
MAIN POINT: Paul is
CONTRASTING those flawless works of the OT law that cannot justify
FROM an obedient faith that does justify (Romans 6:17-18).
=========================
James points out that a faith that includes obedience justifes while a faith only cannot justify being void of obedience. Faith and faith only are NOT the same thing. Rom 5:1-2 faith justifies while faith only does not justify, James 2:24. If faith and faith only were the same then either both would justify nor neither would justify. Since faith justifies that means faith that includes obedience justifes while faith only will not. The Bible tiers faith to obedient works so closely that it calls faith itself a work, (Mark 2:1--5).
=========================
I have not adopted your position but have always believed that obedient works do justify and that that the flawless works as required by the OT law cannot justify for none of us can keep that law perfectly.
You are completely wrong when you claim doers of the OT are justified for no one could keep the OT law perfectly as that law required, no one other than Christ who kept it perfectly. Go back and read Rom chapters 1-4 how the Jew was a sinner (chapter 2) and the OT law could not justify that Jew (chapter 3) leaving the Jew just as unjustifed as the Gentile. It takes an obedient faith for Jew and Gentile to be justified not flawless works in keeping the OT law.
==========================
Rom 2:12 "
For as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;"
"law" here refers the the OT law per the context. The Gentiles were the ones "without law" for the OT law was only given to the Jews (Deut 5). Even though the Gentiles were without the OT law the fact that still sinned was proof they were under some kind of law for with out law there is no sin (Rom 4:15).
Those that "sinned under the law" were the Jews to whom the OT law was given. Though the Jews had a law given them it did not protect them from condemnation for it required the work of flawless law keeping to be justified which the Jew could not do. They could not stand justified before God by their merits for the only way one can stand before God justified (
apart from Christ) would be by keeping the law perfectly thereby be sinless/just before God...but no Jew could do that.
Rom 2:13 "
for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified;"
Just hearing the law was not enough to be justified, one had to be a doer of the law to be justified. Paul's point here in Rom 2 is proving the Jews are sinners like the Gentiles (Rom 1) and here in v13 that the Jews had put too much emphasis on hearing the law read and having knowledge of the law that they did not do the law. Paul is not implying in v13 that the Jews had kept the OT law perfectly for they had not, but that it takes doing and just not listening, just not knowledge to be justified. So Paul in v13 is teaching a general principle that doing is required to be justified not just hearing. Again, Paul is not implying in anyway in v13 the Jews were justified by flawless, perfect law keeping. The same is true of the NT, just being a hearing and having knowledge of the NT does not justify but doing (obedience) to the NT gospel is required to be justified (James 1:22-25).
Again, nowhere does Paul imply the Jews kept the OT law perfectly for
they did not. But there were those who lived under the OT law that were saved as David. Yet David sinned, hence David was
NOT a doer of the law in any absolute, perfect sense but a doer in the sense that what he did in being
obedient to God was what justified him. David was a doer in obedience to God not a doer in perfect law keeping.
