The Law and faith

[ModernPuritan?]

questions


in the covenant of israel (pre Christ)==

Could I be an athiest, yet keep all of the law- thus still go to heaven even though i dont beileve in God?

or

does the Law itself declare that one must have faith? or rather is having faith apart of the laws requirements?

 

[Hippo]

I think that the point is firstly that it is impossible for man to obey the law perfectly and even if he did he has original sin to condemn him. Therefore the question is only hypothetical, and even hypothetical you would still be sinful.

The law is not to justify but to condemn and point us to grace and faith.

 

[ModernPuritan?]

thats not really my question though. my question is, does the Law of God demand faith? God says "Dont eat pork" does he say I must have faith in him?

 

[toddpedlar]

questions


in the covenant of israel (pre Christ)==

Could I be an athiest, yet keep all of the law- thus still go to heaven even though i dont beileve in God?

or

does the Law itself declare that one must have faith? or rather is having faith apart of the laws requirements?

If you were an atheist, how would you keep the 1st commandment?

 

[ModernPuritan?]

exactly, So part of keeping the law would mean that "to go to heaven" I also have to have faith?

 

[Hippo]

exactly, So part of keeping the law would mean that "to go to heaven" I also have to have faith?

What do you mean by faith here?

Mixing grace and law can be very problematic. In the new covenant I usually see faith as faith that Our Saviour has covered my sins (please correct me if I am wrong), if I had kept the law and was not sinful I would not need such faith.

 

[VictorBravo]

thats not really my question though. my question is, does the Law of God demand faith? God says "Dont eat pork" does he say I must have faith in him?

Yes, of course:

Deu 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Mat 22:37-38 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.

 

[ModernPuritan?]

no, not mixing grace with faith...

but Sola Fide- we are saved by faith alone and not of works.

what works? Works of the Law

Law also demands faith

so faith= a work of the law?

just thinking out loud

 

[larryjf]

no, not mixing grace with faith...

but Sola Fide- we are saved by faith alone and not of works.

what works? Works of the Law

Law also demands faith

so faith= a work of the law?

just thinking out loud

Saving faith is not a work that we can perform, it is a gift of God.

Eph 2:8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

 

[moral necessity]

thats not really my question though. my question is, does the Law of God demand faith? God says "Dont eat pork" does he say I must have faith in him?

"But the law is not of faith, rather 'The one who does them shall live by them.'" - Gal. 3:12

Calvin comments by saying, "...that is, it has a method of justifying a man which is wholly at variance with faith."

But, you still could not be an athiest, because the first commandment says to have no other gods before Me, implying a belief in God and a love towards Him.

 

[moral necessity]

exactly, So part of keeping the law would mean that "to go to heaven" I also have to have faith?

In one sense of the word "faith", yes. But, in the gospel sense of the word "faith", no. Justification by the law implies a belief (faith) in God and a love towards God, as the first commandment demands. But that is not the same as gospel faith. Justification by the gospel implies a faith in Christ's promise to have his righteousness and fulfilling of the law to be counted in your behalf. This is not required for being justified by the works of the Law.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness. To be a real child of Abraham, you needed the faith of Abraham.

The law said "do this and live." It assumed you couldn't keep it, hence the sacrificial system. But the system wasn't any good apart from faith in the One to whom it all pointed. And besides, the blood of goats and bulls could never take away sin. Hebrews implies that was always a pretty obvious conclusion.

 

[KMK]

Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness. To be a real child of Abraham, you needed the faith of Abraham.

The law said "do this and live." It assumed you couldn't keep it, hence the sacrificial system. But the system wasn't any good apart from faith in the One to whom it all pointed. And besides, the blood of goats and bulls could never take away sin. Hebrews implies that was always a pretty obvious conclusion.

Could you walk us through this fascinating implication, Rev Buchanan?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Heb 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.
Heb 10:2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sin?
Heb 10:3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me;

Isn't that what this passage states? Take them verse by verse, and ask "did OT saints believe this"? I think the answer is "yes," even if imperfectly or not evenly at every point. I think the author is arguing: "You know these implications, people."

And he affirms it at the end with a quote from Ps.40:6, a Messianic expectation. All the author of Hebrews is doing is 1) teasing out a nuance from Ps.40:6, re. the "body" (for a sacrifice), something that might have missed the average Joe Israel or even a doctor of Law, but that's a solution to the problem, and the problems would still have been obvious; 2) pointing to THE Christ Jesus as the one who has now answered to the need.

Anyway, that's my

 

[jwithnell]

Often it seems that people run into difficulties discussing the role of law by meshing together justification and sanctification. (Although I acknowledge we can run into difficulties if we try to pry the two concepts apart too far. I'm thinking of a logical sequence and separation here rather than a temporal or spacial distinction.)

As another poster has noted, in justification, the law serves to goad us to faith because we cannot keep it on our own (the tutor example in Galatians). The law served to prove the righteousness of Christ because He did keep it perfectly and is therefore able to perfectly fulfill the older testament sacrifices.

Believers in all times have been saved by faith. Mr. Buchanan hit on the key concept here, with the New Testament in at least three places (Romans 4, Galatians 3 and James 2) showing that Old Testament believers (Abraham as the example) were saved by faith.

How do can we recognize that a person is justified? By the outworking in his life (sanctification). As James 2 so poignantly notes, faith without works is dead -- the older testament believers demonstrated their faith by holding to the ceremonial law that gave a picture of the perfect lamb who was to come. And 1 John 2:22 shows us that those who practice righteousness are born of Him. As we grow in grace we are conformed to Christ who Himself kept the law perfectly.

Back to your original question, in a sense, the law does require us to have faith because it perfectly embodies the righteousness that is demanded of us, but fulfilled in Christ. But this faith is a gift of God who replaces our heart of stone with a heart of faith, so none of us can boast.

 

[KMK]

Heb 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.
Heb 10:2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sin?
Heb 10:3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me;

Isn't that what this passage states? Take them verse by verse, and ask "did OT saints believe this"? I think the answer is "yes," even if imperfectly or not evenly at every point. I think the author is arguing: "You know these implications, people."

And he affirms it at the end with a quote from Ps.40:6, a Messianic expectation. All the author of Hebrews is doing is 1) teasing out a nuance from Ps.40:6, re. the "body" (for a sacrifice), something that might have missed the average Joe Israel or even a doctor of Law, but that's a solution to the problem, and the problems would still have been obvious; 2) pointing to THE Christ Jesus as the one who has now answered to the need.

Anyway, that's my

I agree that is what the passage states. I have never noticed the implication by the author that these conclusions should have been, and perhaps were obvious to the OT saints. Maybe he should have included the word, 'Duh!' at various points.