Can a man keep the law?

I don't know of any Calvinist that would say it's impossible for an unbeliever to obey God.

 

Are we required to keep the law?

 

LOL! Hilarious. Bob, if you look above, you'll see that I gave a proper scriptural response. Cutting and pasting of scripture doesn't make one correct.

It's not the Scriptures that winman posts that are irritating, it's his erroneous interpretations of them. He has serious and sundry fallacious interpretations. This is what happens when one thinks they know the Bible, he is a perfect example of proof-texting fallacies; he knows what several passages say, and that is where it ends.

Interesting thing Bob? I rarely see you contribute positively, nor do I see you use Scriptures, maybe on very rare occasion, nor do you have any theological contributions whatsoever.

 

No, man cannot keep the law.

The law itself bears witness to that fact because it is a sacrificial system.

To be "blameless" meant Zecharias and Elizabeth maintained fellowship with God for their shortcomings through the sacrificial ordinances required by the law.

One of the shortcomings of Zecharias is evident in that he was struck dumb because of his lack of faith concerning Elizabeth's pregnancy.

Today of course it is not only morally impossible to keep the law but practically as well (if it were required today) seeing that there is no temple or sacerdotal levitical priesthood in Jerusalem.

HankD

 

I have met many people who believe the bible and what it teaches ao sure it is possible for the lost to believe God, but it does them no good.

 

Can you give scriptural reference that says it is impossible to keep the law? Also which part of it could not be kept?

 

Yes. The misunderstanding here is in the word "keep." In that sense only One has ever kept the Law perfectly.

 

This is the question you posed:

Let's say, for the sake of argument that we have an ability to keep the Law. But, even if we DID keep the Law perfectly, it STILL would not be salvific, because we ARE NOT SAVED BY WORKS, so I am unsure as to what your larger point would be.

Are you, once again, headed toward a Pelagian understanding of our own efforts to come to Christ?

Note:

No, the use of the term "Pelagian" is not intended to be a pejorative term to shut down the conversation -- if one goes in the direction of a human-centered salvation experience, then one gets to own the fact that he or she is indeed headed in a Pelagian direction; for neither Arminianism, nor Calvinism, nor the Baptist "no-name" theology stipulates that WE are able to come to Christ apart from the initial work of God.

 

Part of the entire issue here lies within this: Winman uses this incident, and the incident of Cornelius, underlining in the passages emphatically how that when Cornelius practiced his religion, that he found favor with God/acceptance, or what have you. It's an "aha, see!" moment for him. What is odd is that Peter stated emphatically himself, "that God is no respecter of persons."

Winman has been on this MAN! MAN! MAN! and an over-exalted capability of man kick for a long while now. One thread he argued against Dr. Bob saying concerning salvation we can do no good. Winman rebutts that with saying Dr, Bob is incorrect, using Cornelius as an example to prove one can. What does that tell us?

He has used these things, as also in this thread, as fighting against "unconditionally accepted, elected," &c, something he with indignation does not accept, as he has plainly been at warfare with "unconditional election," this being a well know fact. He also vehemenently fights against the Romans 3 indictment upon mankind, Colossians and Ephesians indictments upon lost mankind, and the true Biblical judgment upon lost man, and uses proof-texts such as have been noted to bolster this error he affirms and holds to; that man is/does good, against inability, and unconditional acceptance/election.

One thing I notice and get out of all of this is that there are two theological views and divisions here: 1) Some fighting for man and mans ability, relentlessly, and; 2) Some defending Gods glory and Sovereignty, His Purpose in election, and His choosing, and all of the "Omnis" related to Him, relentlessly.

I'm of the latter in my apologetics, because it is Scriptural and holds the correct view of mankind and of the Person of God. Jesus Christ knew what was in man. It wasn't good.


- Peace

 

Calvinism is correct in its assumption that man cannot please God by living a righteous life.

It is also correct in assuming that man cannot obey God ENOUGH to provide salvation. Even on our best day (and in EVERY case where the Scriptures say that someone actually lived a righteous life) the persons so doing STILL did not measure up to God's PERFECT expectations, for at some point their hearts were proven to be set apart from God by some tangible demonstration OF God, such as the silencing of Zacharias or the turning away of the rich young ruler. You major on one set of words, but miss the larger picture, i.e, that one CANNOT work their way to God, no matter how hard they try, nor how "righteous" they are.

I would assume that you know all this, but are in fact arguing AGAINST Calvinism, not FOR the ability of a person to obey God. We all see through your argument, which is why you are so unhappy with our answers.

 

per Apostle paul himself...

the law of God IS perfect, but CANNOT save ANy of us, as we are ALL sinful and weak in the Flesh...

That is why Jesus HAD to come and die for our atonement and pay for our sins, as He could and DID completely fulfill requirements of the law on our behalf!

Bible CLEAR that All of us fall short of glory of God, impossible in our flesh to keep the law totally, as God requires for salvation!

 

No it never suggests impossibility, just that no one does it. That is why sin is so sinfull.

 

WHy do we need to keep perfectly the Commandment, since jesus already fufilled them perfectly by His life and death?

HOW much do we have to keep the law and ge really saved?

PART? james says have to keep ALL of it to be saved!

 

nope...

Bible states clearly NONE of us could or can, and that is why jesus HAD to come to die for us and provide for us what the law cannot, being saved!

 

The Apostle paul so clear in this!

NONE are even able to be saved by keeping Law, as while it is perfect, we are sinful flesh that cannot submit to it and obey it totally...

What the Law could not do with inful men, grace of God in jesus death on Cross could and did!

 

Stating that the bible says something does not make it so. Please give scripture reference that says we cannot keep the law. Even so there was a time with no law and men did not sin in as those under the law but they were still condemned.