Jesus' plea for the Father's forgiveness from the cross - question.

En Hakkore

Active member
That was specific to Ehrman's decision about Luke 23:34. It hardly implies a wholesale embrace of his text-critical decisions. I disagree with him, for example, on his adjudication of the variant in Luke 24:51 --- I view the longer text as original to Luke's gospel whereas Ehrman takes the opposite position.

[1] Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Updated and with a New Afterword. Oxford University Press, 2011, 266-71.
Sorry, this citation was related to Ehrman's view on Luke 24:51, but I omitted the connection...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Cynthia

Active member
I would be interested in reading your 'labor of love' when it is finished. The genealogical information in Genesis 5 and 11 are obvious points of divergence between the two. Do you also get into the different synchronisms in 1-2 Kings vs. 3-4 Reigns?

Kind regards,
it covers Adam thru 135AD. I will mention when it is for sale self-pub.
 
"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Christ prayed this from the cross over people who were actively killing Him and who were not the least bit repentant about it.

In light of this, I have two questions for consideration:

1. Do you believe that the Father answered Jesus' prayer? I know the text doesn't say; but what do you think?

2. How should it inform our soteriology (if at all), by the fact that (at least on this one occasion) Christ used ignorance as a basis for which the Father ought to forgive sin?

It is the same for us. We don't have to be Bible scholars to be saved and do everything right, just live up to the knowledge we have. Philippians 3:16. Romans 14.
 
I would be interested in reading your 'labor of love' when it is finished. The genealogical information in Genesis 5 and 11 are obvious points of divergence between the two. Do you also get into the different synchronisms in 1-2 Kings vs. 3-4 Reigns?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
I'm just barging in here having read nothing before this, so please forgive this intrusion, but Gen. 5 is before the flood, and Gen. 11 are those after the flood.
 

shnarkle

Active member
"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Christ prayed this from the cross over people who were actively killing Him and who were not the least bit repentant about it.

In light of this, I have two questions for consideration:

1. Do you believe that the Father answered Jesus' prayer? I know the text doesn't say; but what do you think?

2. How should it inform our soteriology (if at all), by the fact that (at least on this one occasion) Christ used ignorance as a basis for which the Father ought to forgive sin?
Jesus, or the author of the gospel account is pointing out a fundamental principle of the Mosaic law which Christ fulfills through his sacrifice, namely that sacrifice only remedies unintentional or accidental sin. Intentional sin was never remedied with sacrifice. To knowingly sin is to justify sin which Christ points out is an abomination (Luke 31:16).

Paul affirms the principle in the New Testament as well, but takes it a step further in Hebrews 10:26 when he points out that "there remains no more sacrifice for sin" In Heb. 9:15 he points out that the sacrifice of Christ only applies to sins committed under the Old Covenant which leads to one of two conclusions: 1. no one sins under the new covenant, or 2. those who do are eternally damned.

The first option sounds like good news. The latter one, not so much.
 
1. no one sins under the new covenant, or 2. those who do are eternally damned.

I love your first paragraph in your post. Here is some more to add to it.

The sin of 1 John 3 is prefaced in verse 4. Therefore 1 John 3:9 is a born again Christian, meaning they are Spirit-filled so will not break written laws as they are now written on their heart, or conscience. It is just not in their new nature. The only sins they would commit are trespasses unintentionally committed. Numbers 15:22-29. We are told that to have trespasses forgiven, we need to forgive others their trespasses against us.

But we still have free will. Therefore, if someone were to commit a mortal sin/sin unto death/willful sin of lawlessness they are choosing to be in rebellion against God. Hebrews 10:26-31 about those who "were sanctified," shows this is talking about Christians, not unsaved Jews as some believe. Seeing as it is not in their new nature, it is a very serious matter, especially when the writer of Hebrews proclaims what more sacrifice is there? The Spirit has provided an obstacle against yielding to a temptation to willful sin called our super-sensitized conscience.
 
Last edited:

rhomphaeam

Super Member
"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Christ prayed this from the cross over people who were actively killing Him and who were not the least bit repentant about it.

In light of this, I have two questions for consideration:

1. Do you believe that the Father answered Jesus' prayer? I know the text doesn't say; but what do you think?

2. How should it inform our soteriology (if at all), by the fact that (at least on this one occasion) Christ used ignorance as a basis for which the Father ought to forgive sin?

Perhaps one would have to ask the question who is the them to whom the words are being applied in its rational meaning because there were at least a number who witnessed the crucifixion, and yet could not have heard those words because they were standing far off (Mark 15:40). On the other hand the Roman soldiers who were crucifying the Lord could scarcely have missed them (Matthew 27:54). Mark 15:40 includes Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of Josas mother of James the younger who's wife is called Salome. Yet Mary the mother of Jesus wasn't standing far off when Jesus spoke from the cross in her hearing (John 19:26). The power to believe in Jesus as a propitiation in His blood shed on the cross is not a theoretical speculation. It is proven when people draw near to Him. Thats the evidence of a determined will of the Father to save some and what separates them in the sight of men is an ability to draw near to Christ to hear Him (John 10:27). After that drawing near by the will and determination of God can we receive faith to believe in Him as crucified for sin. The Roman Soldiers were a true witness because they didn't even know what they were doing when they did it. In the end all those who are chosen are beneficiaries of the shed blood. And, the extraordinary grace and mercy of God is that He even chooses men who are near at hand yet far from understanding.
 
Last edited:

shnarkle

Active member
I love your first paragraph in your post. Here is some more to add to it.

The sin of 1 John

It's difficult for me to present a quote from that letter because I can't help wanting to quote the whole letter.
3 is prefaced in verse 4. Therefore 1 John 3:9 is a born again Christian, meaning they are Spirit-filled so will not break written laws as they are now written on their heart, or conscience. It is just not in their new nature. The only sins they would commit are trespasses unintentionally committed. Numbers 15:22-29. We are told that to have trespasses forgiven, we need to forgive others their trespasses against us.

But we still have free will.
Paul doesn't deny that we have free will. He simply points out that it doesn't matter because it is God's will that is the deciding factor, e.g. not by will or effort, but God who shows mercy" (Romans 9:16)
Therefore, if someone were to commit a mortal sin/sin unto death/willful sin of lawlessness they are choosing to be in rebellion against God. Hebrews 10:26-31 about those who "were sanctified," shows this is talking about Christians,

Technically this letter is addressed to the Hebrews so the term Christians isn't relevant. All are One in Christ
not unsaved Jews

Or unsaved Christians, Gentiles, Star bellied Sneeches, etc.
Seeing as it is not in their new nature, it is a very serious matter, especially when the writer of Hebrews proclaims what more sacrifice is there? The Spirit has provided an obstacle against yielding to a temptation to willful sin called our super-sensitized conscience.
He's also pointing out a fundamental facet of the Mosaic law, i.e. sacrifice was never the remedy for intentional sin, or knowingly sinning. In Heb. 9: 15 he points out that Christ's sacrifice covers sins committed only under the Old Covenant which again were through one's own will and efforts.

Christians will openly admit that they still sin because they can't keep God's law through their best efforts. They never seem to be able to see that they are admitting that they are still operating under the parameters of the Old Covenant rather than the New which is according to God's promise, and the operation of his spirit indwelling in the new creation who are created to keep his commandments. They are created to do good works. The bible refers to them as "fruit" because they are produced systemically.
 

shnarkle

Active member
Perhaps one would have to ask the question who is the them to whom the words are being applied in its rational meaning because there were at least a number who witnessed the crucifixion, and yet could not have heard those words because they were standing far off (Mark 15:40). On the other hand the Roman soldiers who were crucifying the Lord could scarcely have missed them (Matthew 27:54). Mark 15:40 includes Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of Josas mother of James the younger who's wife is called Salome. Yet Mary the mother of Jesus wasn't standing far off when Jesus spoke from the cross in her hearing (John 19:26). The power to believe in Jesus as a propitiation in His blood shed on the cross is not a theoretical speculation. It is proven when people draw near to Him. Thats the evidence of a determined will of the Father to save some and what separates them in the sight of men is an ability to draw near to Christ to hear Him (John 10:27). After that drawing near by the will and determination of God can we receive faith to believe in Him as crucified for sin. The Roman Soldiers were a true witness because they didn't even know what they were doing when they did it. In the end all those who are chosen are beneficiaries of the shed blood. And, the extraordinary grace and mercy of God is that He even chooses men who are near at hand yet far from understanding.
This reminds me of Christ's parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan was a heretic. The Samaritan didn't understand, yet he's the only one who does the right thing. He's the only one who can be justified as only "the doers of the law will be justified". It is not through one's understanding that we are saved, but through becoming a new creation. Salvation is not based upon one's epistemology, but an ontological transformation.
 
It's difficult for me to present a quote from that letter because I can't help wanting to quote the whole letter.

Paul doesn't deny that we have free will. He simply points out that it doesn't matter because it is God's will that is the deciding factor, e.g. not by will or effort, but God who shows mercy" (Romans 9:16)


Technically this letter is addressed to the Hebrews so the term Christians isn't relevant. All are One in Christ


Or unsaved Christians, Gentiles, Star bellied Sneeches, etc.

He's also pointing out a fundamental facet of the Mosaic law, i.e. sacrifice was never the remedy for intentional sin, or knowingly sinning. In Heb. 9: 15 he points out that Christ's sacrifice covers sins committed only under the Old Covenant which again were through one's own will and efforts.

Christians will openly admit that they still sin because they can't keep God's law through their best efforts. They never seem to be able to see that they are admitting that they are still operating under the parameters of the Old Covenant rather than the New which is according to God's promise, and the operation of his spirit indwelling in the new creation who are created to keep his commandments. They are created to do good works. The bible refers to them as "fruit" because they are produced systemically.
Well I did like your acknowledgement of unintentional sins, but the rest we do not agree on.
 
Technically this letter is addressed to the Hebrews so the term Christians isn't relevant. All are One in Christ
I should address what I do not agree on. This is the one.

There is a difference between a Hebrew who became a Christian, and one who did not. So to say we are all one in Christ when there are some Hebrews that do NOT have Christ is what I do not agree with. Only the Hebrews and Gentiles that became Christians had any way of being sanctified, so the term "Christian" is VERY relevant.

I see I was too hasty. Now what I do agree with:

Christians will openly admit that they still sin because they can't keep God's law through their best efforts.

I understand what you are saying, but calling them Christians is a term they do not deserve. A true Christian is filled with the Holy Spirit, and empowered to keep the laws written on their hearts. They are born again. On this we agree. To become a true Christian those wanting to be Christians must repent of their inadequacy and self efforts, and humbly admit they can do nothing without His help. Ask to be filled with His power because you hate your sin, and want to live a life pleasing to Him. He will give you His Spirit. It is a life-changing experience. Also the word of God becomes alive and you will understand verses you had wrong your whole life. Those who love darkness, but do not want to pay the cost, will turn to the false teachers that only present Jesus as their ticket to heaven that paid their consequences for the sins you they still keep committing.

Christians will openly admit that they still sin because they can't keep God's law through their best efforts. They never seem to be able to see that they are admitting that they are still operating under the parameters of the Old Covenant rather than the New which is according to God's promise, and the operation of his spirit indwelling in the new creation who are created to keep his commandments. They are created to do good works. The bible refers to them as "fruit" because they are produced systemically.

I agree.

Those "Christians" who are not filled with the Spirit of Christ, can only use their own efforts which leaves them far from righteous or on the path to salvation. Only those with His Spirit belong to Him. Romans 8:9. All others that call Him Lord, He will say depart from me, I never knew you, you workers of iniquity. In other words, they still sin. Jesus was manifest to take away our sin, and in Him there is no sin. To those without His Spirit, are still slaves of sin, so repent. Having the Holy Spirit is not just something you are told to believe doctrinally. It is a real experience that you can't deny.
 
Last edited:
Very few ever will agree because it spotlights the reality and no one wants to look at that; not even me.
I was too hasty. I agree with most of it, and understand exactly what you are saying. And again, you are right that "few there are who find it." I rarely meet a true Christian.
 

shnarkle

Active member
I should address what I do not agree on. This is the one.

There is a difference between a Hebrew who became a Christian, and one who did not.

Just as there is a difference between a gentile and one who did not. The point is that all who come to Christ are One. There is no Jew or Gentile in the kingdom; no Christians either.
So to say we are all one in Christ when there are some Hebrews that do NOT have Christ is what I do not agree with.

I agree, but I don't know why you would think that from what I posted.
Only the Hebrews and Gentiles that became Christians had any way of being sanctified, so the term "Christian" is VERY relevant.

My problem is that the term was originally coined by pagans, and was used as a term of derision. The early church referred to herself as "the Way" which to the modern ears of most Christians sounds like blasphemy. So, I also think terminology is very relevant as well. The problem is that there are plenty who claim the title, and never were followers of Christ.
A true Christian is filled with the Holy Spirit,

It isn't just the True Scotsman fallacy that is applicable here. The label itself has become a cliché. I've pondered this problem for some time. We could say "the Church", or "Christ's body", but even that doesn't cut it. Ultimately, in order to truly emphasize the point, nothing else comes close to hitting our target than Christ himself. Of course I speak figuratively, most especially for anyone who may be scandalized by the very thought that the risen Christ could possibly be found operating in the world today. Then again, I still like the way Paul puts it when he points out that we are just the temple that Christ's spirit lives within. My point here isn't to claim that anyone who takes on that title can't be filled with the Spirit, but that it sounds way too much like a club. Paul and Christ weren't like that. They related to those they were talking to. Christ talked about the law with the lawyers. He talked about sowing and reaping with the farmers. He talked about fishing with the fishermen. Paul says, "to the weak I became weak, to the gentile I became a gentile" etc.

So ultimately, none of those labels are necessary to begin with. Those who are spirit filled are anyone whom God chooses.
and empowered to keep the laws written on their hearts. They are born again. On this we agree. To become a true Christian those wanting to be Christians must repent

Here again, Paul points out that no one wants to please God, and even if they did, nothing they could ever do would ever please Him because it isn't until one has been convicted by the Spirit and given the gift of repentance that one can repent in the first place. When that happens they don't become Christians. They manifest God's will in the world in, with, and through Christ's spirit indwelling within them. Titles are not recommended because they tempt pride. They exclude, the puff up. Christ says to call no one "father". He refers to his own mother as "woman" etc.
of their inadequacy and self efforts, and humbly admit they can do nothing without His help.

agree
Ask to be filled with His power because you hate your sin, and want to live a life pleasing to Him.
This sounds dangerously occultic. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that you're just seeking power for power's sake, but one's hatred of sin doesn't require the acquisition of power. I just need to die to sin, and let God do the rest. Asking, wanting, trying, etc. are all things that need to be set aside so that I may rest in God's saving grace which doesn't allow anyone to sin with impunity, but conforms the elect into Christ's image. I'm not suggesting that those who need to pray for strength, knowledge of his will etc. shouldn't go ahead and do that, I just tend to look at it more from John's gospel narrative where it's already happened.
He will give you His Spirit. It is a life-changing experience.

Paul wasn't seeking relief from his sin, nor did he hate his sin. God knocked him off the jack ass he was riding anyways. God turns people around regardless of what they may want, or think they want.
Also the word of God becomes alive and you will understand verses you had wrong your whole life.
When the word of God comes alive, it won't matter if I understand it or not. What matters is that the gospel is proclaimed. God's saving grace, love, wisdom etc. surpasses all understanding. The word is alive, and there can be no mediator between God and his elect. One's understanding is another unnecessary mediator. I can see how one understands much more in their walk with Christ, but the wonder of God's revelation is far more overwhelming that what little we may understand. Meditating on God's word brings understanding to anyone who seeks it, but our knowledge doesn't save anyone. We needn't premeditate what we will say to those who need to hear the gospel message.
Those who love darkness, but do not want to pay the cost, will turn to the false teachers that only present Jesus as their ticket to heaven that paid their consequences for the sins you they still keep committing.

Agreed, not a pleasant thought to consider which is why I am completely bewildered by these people who think it's good news to be given a free get out of hell card to to sin with impunity for the rest of their lives. It's bizarre.
I agree.

Those "Christians" who are not filled with the Spirit of Christ, can only use their own efforts which leaves them far from righteous or on the path to salvation.

Well, yes and no. I was on that path for quite some time, and it led me to Christ. Paul says that is the purpose of the law. It is a pointer to Christ. The problem I see is that far too many Christians think they can skip the law altogether, and still find Christ without it. It can't be done. We all must learn to repent of our damnable righteous works.
Only those with His Spirit belong to Him. Romans 8:9. All others that call Him Lord, He will say depart from me, I never knew you, you workers of iniquity. In other words, they still sin. Jesus was manifest to take away our sin, and in Him there is no sin. To those without His Spirit, are still slaves of sin, so repent. Having the Holy Spirit is not just something you are told to believe doctrinally. It is a real experience that you can't deny.
Agreed, I would only add that a real experience of the Holy Spirit in one's life doesn't allow for the possibility for sin any more than one would dare speed or run a red light with the grill of a State trooper in their rear view mirror.
 
no Christians either.

What would you call them? Followers of The Way?

My problem is that the term was originally coined by pagans, and was used as a term of derision. The early church referred to herself as "the Way" which to the modern ears of most Christians sounds like blasphemy. So, I also think terminology is very relevant as well. The problem is that there are plenty who claim the title, and never were followers of Christ.

Interesting, that is what I already thought you meant. I think God is more broad minded than you, and will accept someone who humbly believes they are a true Christian and follows Jesus and His commandments. 1 John 3:21-24.

So ultimately, none of those labels are necessary to begin with. Those who are spirit filled are anyone whom God chooses.

Are you Calvinist, and believes that even if we choose God, but He hasn't chosen us, that He will not give us His Spirit?

Here again, Paul points out that no one wants to please God, and even if they did, nothing they could ever do would ever please Him because it isn't until one has been convicted by the Spirit and given the gift of repentance that one can repent in the first place. When that happens they don't become Christians. They manifest God's will in the world in, with, and through Christ's spirit indwelling within them. Titles are not recommended because they tempt pride. They exclude, the puff up. Christ says to call no one "father". He refers to his own mother as "woman" etc.

It is true that no one comes to the Son unless the Father draw him, but then again, God does not will any to perish. And the Son says, I will draw all men to Myself.

ell, yes and no. I was on that path for quite some time, and it led me to Christ. Paul says that is the purpose of the law. It is a pointer to Christ. The problem I see is that far too many Christians think they can skip the law altogether, and still find Christ without it. It can't be done. We all must learn to repent of our damnable righteous works.

I was raised under the law, but had no teaching on the need for the Spirit. There are many who don't look any further than their actions of keeping the basics of the law. They can hate, but just not murder. They can lust, but just not commit adultery. Just keep the Ten Commandments and believe Jesus paid the penalty for my sins, and I'm good to go. Not until 7 years later when I was filled with the Spirit of God to overflowing did I see the extreme difference in the Law vs. Spirit.

Agreed, I would only add that a real experience of the Holy Spirit in one's life doesn't allow for the possibility for sin any more than one would dare speed or run a red light with the grill of a State trooper in their rear view mirror.

Agreed. The Spirit makes our conscience super-sensitized where the path must remain straight, otherwise you just can't stand it. For me hearing His voice is the most precious thing in my life. I know I must not have anything blocking that signal.
 

rhomphaeam

Super Member
Jesus, or the author of the gospel account is pointing out a fundamental principle of the Mosaic law which Christ fulfills through his sacrifice, namely that sacrifice only remedies unintentional or accidental sin. Intentional sin was never remedied with sacrifice. To knowingly sin is to justify sin which Christ points out is an abomination (Luke 31:16).

Jesus died to take away the sin of the world. John the Baptist declared that meaning at the Jordan. Accepting this fact is not a thing to choose as one chooses sweets in a sweet shop. Neither can the outworking that many work, that they can sin almost with impunity (having their consciences hardened) be a thing to speak of easily. The terrible malady that is on many churches chiefly stems from failing to realise the union. All men who are chosen in Christ through the will of the Father must themselves walk in the Spirit. It is a union that is evidenced insofar as we realise that union of being in Christ when He died. And if in death, then also in ressurecton and newness of life. Over the years I have known many believers individually who held onto that truth and knew it daily in their lives, but in the churches, it is a truth that one never hears anymore. In fact what is more prevalent even amongst those who are cognisance of the meaning of the cross unto death, in some doctrinal sense, is that in desperation they are more driven to a parade than to bearing the cost of obedience and accepting that ministering to ones brethren in love necessarily means becoming a worthless thing in their sight because ones generosity and willingness to expose ones own weaknesses of the flesh merely gives a means for brethren to persist in their evident disobedience to live independently of God, whilst claiming to be His servants. It is the prophetic ministry that is going to declare an end of that effect and then judgement will begin in the household of God. Not in the world.
 
Jesus died to take away the sin of the world. John the Baptist declared that meaning at the Jordan. Accepting this fact is not a thing to choose as one chooses sweets in a sweet shop. Neither can the outworking that many work, that they can sin almost with impunity (having their consciences hardened) be a thing to speak of easily. The terrible malady that is on many churches chiefly stems from failing to realise the union. All men who are chosen in Christ through the will of the Father must themselves walk in the Spirit. It is a union that is evidenced insofar as we realise that union of being in Christ when He died. And if in death, then also in ressurecton and newness of life. Over the years I have known many believers individually who held onto that truth and knew it daily in their lives, but in the churches, it is a truth that one never hears anymore. In fact what is more prevalent even amongst those who are cognisance of the meaning of the cross unto death, in some doctrinal sense, is that in desperation they are more driven to a parade than to bearing the cost of obedience and accepting that ministering to ones brethren in love necessarily means becoming a worthless thing in their sight because ones generosity and willingness to expose ones own weaknesses of the flesh merely gives a means for brethren to persist in their evident disobedience to live independently of God, whilst claiming to be His servants. It is the prophetic ministry that is going to declare an end of that effect and then judgement will begin in the household of God. Not in the world.
I'm curious what you believe Jesus meant when He said, "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Why is it easy and light?
 

shnarkle

Active member
What would you call them? Followers of The Way?
There's no point in calling them anything because whatever you call them is still just a label. They ARE the Way. They appropriated the title which most of Christianity would point out is blasphemy. It also points out the reality which is the risen Christ.
Interesting, that is what I already thought you meant. I think God is more broad minded than you,

God is more broad minded than anyone and everyone.
and will accept someone who humbly believes they are a true Christian

Again, this is the No True Scotsman Fallacy. We could also make the claim that it must be true humility, and true belief. Ultimately, Paul nips all of these in the bud by pointing out that it doesn't matter what anyone does, or how sincere they are in doing so, NOTHING anyone does will ever please God. The carnal man cannot do anything because he is dead. He is at enmity with God regardless of what he does. Just like Lazarus, God has to give any and all carnal men the ears to hear Christ's call. The problem is in not knowing or being able to distinguish between lost sheep and found sheep, verses wolves and sheep.
and follows Jesus and His commandments. 1 John 3:21-24.

Wolves in sheep's clothing can follow Jesus and keep his commandments, e.g. Judas, the Pharisees, etc.
Are you Calvinist, and believes that even if we choose God, but He hasn't chosen us, that He will not give us His Spirit?

I'm not a Calvinist. I don't adhere to labels, or rather labels don't adhere to me. My policy is to stick to the biblical texts as this helps to avoid unnecessary confusion. Jesus says to HIS followers: "You didn't choose me, but I chose you". There is no choice. When one is gasping for air, one doesn't have the luxury of considering their options when a life preserver is thrown to them. As Jesus points out those who don't know they're sick will never seek a physician. The point here is twofold: We're all sick, but only those who know it can call a physician in the first place, and that can only come through revelation. Prior to your receiving the Spirit, you simply didn't have a choice. Does this mean you didn't have free will? Of course not. Nonetheless, you didn't have any choice in the matter.
It is true that no one comes to the Son unless the Father draw him, but then again, God does not will any to perish. And the Son says, I will draw all men to Myself.

Every knee will bend and every head will bow, but not every bent knee or bowed head is saved.
I was raised under the law, but had no teaching on the need for the Spirit. There are many who don't look any further than their actions of keeping the basics of the law. They can hate, but just not murder. They can lust, but just not commit adultery. Just keep the Ten Commandments and believe Jesus paid the penalty for my sins, and I'm good to go. Not until 7 years later when I was filled with the Spirit of God to overflowing did I see the extreme difference in the Law vs. Spirit.

There are two issues here as well: 1. The difference between the obligation of the law and the penalty, and 2. that works are the evidence of faith.

Paul and James are making different points so when Paul says no one is under the law, he is only referring to those who walk after the Spirit who do not sin, therefore they are not under the penalty of the law.

He is pointing to the essential difference between those who produce works as a means of salvation/justification verses those who are justified and produced works as a consequence of their salvation. The former are doing good works just like the latter, but the key difference is that the latter are producing works systemically. The former have works which originate within themselves while the latter produce works that originate in God through Christ. The key thing to take away here is that BOTH are KEEPING the OBLIGATION of the law while only the former are UNDER the PENALTY of the law.

With James, the issue is between those who produce works and those who don't. Those who do are justified. James' position is NOT with regards to those who keep the law as a means of justification, or those who only keep the law externally.

In a nutshell: One can keep the law without love, but one cannot love without keeping the law

Those who love Christ keep his commandments, but they only love him because he loved them first.
 
Top