Earlier, you wrote:

"The only place that 'law' refers to a more general law of conscience is when Paul says (in ch. 2) 'when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.' There, again, 'the law' refers to the law of moses. 'A law' refers to the Gentile’s ethical consciences. Paul clarifies this by saying 'a law' and contrasting it with 'the law.' 'The law' is what is written about in Romans 3 and 4."

Paul is addressing more than one type of law in Romans 3:27. Similarly, he refers to "a law" in Galatians 3:21 and "a tutor" in Galatians 3:25. He's asking what system, principle, law, means, etc. results in justification. In Romans 3:27, he asks whether we're justified through a system of works. Your answer to that question is "Yes." Paul's answer is "No." The alternative Paul goes on to affirm is faith, not works of love. Your contrast is between works of the Jewish law and works of love. Paul's contrast is between works and faith. Similarly, Paul tells us in Galatians 3:21-25 that we've been shut up to faith, not shut up to works of love. In both letters, Paul uses Abraham in Genesis 15:6 to illustrate his point, and all that Abraham does there is believe, the sort of faith alone that you condemn in Protestantism. He excludes Abraham's works, even though Abraham lived before the Mosaic law, and he refers to work done by an employee (Romans 4:4), once again demonstrating that he didn't just have works of the Jewish law in mind. Even though the Jewish law was highly relevant to early Christianity, because Christianity came out of Judaism and many of Paul's opponents argued for justification through the Jewish law, Paul also excludes other types of work in the process of writing about justification. Just as Paul can use a term like "law" to refer to more than the Jewish law in Romans 2, as you've acknowledged, he does the same in Romans 3-4 and Galatians 3.

As I explained in my first post in this thread, the correctness of my reading of Paul is illustrated by the many Biblical examples of people being justified as soon as they believe, before there are any outward manifestations of that inner faith. See the examples I cited in my first post and the other examples discussed in the articles I've linked in this thread. If you want to argue that there's some second form of justification that involves justification through those outward manifestations of faith, then you'll have to argue for that position. Works are vindicatory, much as wisdom is vindicated (justified) by her children (Luke 7:35), and James speaks of justification through works in that sense, distinguishing between true and false faith. But as James reminds us (a point also made by Paul), Abraham's works of faith were only a vindication of the right relationship with God he already had through faith (James 2:23).

Concerning intentional sin, you wrote:

"As far as the Galatians, you do not know whether or not they were sinning intentionally. Paul doesn’t say. He calls them 'fools', which implies they may have been fooled by someone (unintentional, mistaken, foolish sin). What would imply that he knew they intended sin would be if he had called them 'hypocrites'. That is what Christ called the Pharisees, for they knew what they should do, they preached it to others, then they did differently. That is intentional sin. As far as Hebrews, the writer rebuked them for still being 'babies' and for being 'dull.' That is like being a 'foolish child' without understanding."

The Pharisees, the example you've cited, are also referred to as fools, blind, not having ears to hear, etc. (Matthew 15:14, 23:17, Luke 11:40, etc.). It doesn't follow that they're comparable to the infant in your gun analogy.

In the examples of sin in the Christian life that I cited in my last post, people are being addressed as Christians, and they're being rebuked. They were erring on matters that would have been common knowledge in the early Christian communities (the sinfulness of jealousy and strife, unfaithfulness to the gospel after having been instructed about the gospel by Paul, etc.). To use your analogy of an infant with a gun, we wouldn't rebuke such an infant the way Paul rebukes the Corinthians, the way the author of Hebrews rebukes his audience, etc.

Since you mention hypocrisy, Paul refers to Peter and other Christians as acting hypocritically in Galatians 2:13-14. Unlike your interpretations of 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and other Biblical documents, Paul doesn't assume that Peter and those other Christians sinned in some sort of unintentional way. Rather, he publicly rebukes them, suggesting that they knew better than to do what they did, and he assumes that Peter has been justified (Galatians 2:16) and doesn't question his status as a Christian.

Your point about the audiences of the New Testament letters doesn't address the passages I cited. Even if only a minority of the members of the community receiving a letter were involved in a particular sin, the fact remains that those involved in the sin are referred to as Christians. And when Paul or some other author seems to be addressing his audience in general when he refers to their sin, it's probably because a majority was involved in the sin. Individuals and minority groups can be distinguished from the majority of a community (1 Corinthians 5:1-3, etc.). When Paul addresses a group like the Galatians as if they were sinning in general, that's probably because the sin in question was committed by a majority of them, not a minority.

Regarding the justification of the apostles, see Matthew 19:28, John 13:10, and the many other passages in which Jesus speaks of the apostles as redeemed, refers to their future in Heaven, etc. Yet, the same men, sometimes even in the nearby context, would be rebuked for unbelief, were arguing among themselves about who was the greatest among them, would abandon Jesus at the time of His arrest, denied knowing Him multiple times, etc.

To defend your claim that you "do not sin deliberately", you would have to qualify that assessment so much as to make it insignificant. James writes that we all stumble in many ways (James 3:2), and he makes that comment in the context of discussing the stricter judgment that will be faced by teachers (James 3:1). The implication is that the stumbling he refers to includes erring on matters we're knowledgeable about, even matters we teach to other people.

You refer to how the Pharisees "preached it to others", but a person doesn't have to be a teacher in order to be highly knowledgeable. You're literate, you have easy access to the Bible, you participate in online forums related to Biblical matters, etc. Much the same is true of many other people, regardless of whether they've had a leadership role like that of the Pharisees. Early Christians like the Corinthians and the Galatians had been taught by the apostles themselves. They had access to the Old Testament and, sometimes, at least some portions of the New Testament. The idea that they were ignorant of the commandments against sins like jealousy and strife, or were ignorant of every other sin for which they're publicly rebuked, is ridiculous. In the Hebrews example I cited, we're told that these people "ought" to have done better (Hebrews 5:12) and that they're neglecting things they're being told about "again" (Hebrews 6:1), meaning that they had already been taught what they were neglecting.

The "go on sinning willfully" phrase in Hebrews 10:26 seems to be addressing a rejection of Christ, not any sin that's committed or even a series of sins within the Christian life. Thus, the verse goes on to refer to no sacrifice being available, and verse 29 refers to "trampling under foot the Son of God". A Christian who is impatient or unkind, for example, still has a sacrifice available to him. But rejection of Christ is a rejection of the only sacrifice available.

May God richly bless you with all peace and wisdom.

You said, " If you interpreted John 6:56 only by means of other verses nearby, then that would be an unreasonable approach to take." I agree. The closer verses are the first ones you should look at, and then you should (indeed you must) look at other verses also, and then, finally, you must take Scripture as a whole into count. You and I agree here. Proximity and context are both things to take into account as you balance all the factors that go into the interpretation of a passage.

You said, "when Romans 3:27 refers to kinds of law, the text of the passage tells us that Paul is addressing multiple laws at that point, not just the Jewish law." Paul says in Romans 3:27, "By what law? of works? No: by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." The problem with your logic here (in my view) is that Paul answers what law he is referring to, and you are ignoring his answer. In other words, he doesn't just ask "what law" and let his readers assume he is referring to various general laws. Rather, Paul answers the question with: "the law". Paul answers that he is talking about "the law." The common short-hand term he and his audience used to refer to "the law of Moses" was "the law." Therefore, even here, Paul was ultimately talking about the law of Moses.

You said, "When we’re impatient or proud, when we lust or are careless or sin in some other way, it’s not as though we don’t know that such behavior is sinful." Wrong. Sometimes it is as though we don't know, sometimes it isn't. In other words, whenever a man sins he either knows what he is doing is wrong or he doesn't know. That is the difference between willful or "deliberate" sin and non-willful or "unintentional" sin. “If we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice of sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire.” (Hebrews 10:26) If we sin unintentionally, we are forgiven. For Christ asked His Father, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do," and Christ and the Father are one.

The hard part is determining when a sin is intentional and when it isn't. The only way to judge that is if we confront a brother multiple times with his sin to correct him, if he acknowledges the sinfulness, and then if he refuses to correct himself. In Matthew 18:14-16, Christ says to go to a brother with his sin more than once before treating him like an unbeliever.

As for me, I do not anything I know to be sin. I do not sin deliberately. That is how we must live. I live my life that way because "Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did." (1 John 2:6).

When Jesus rebuked his disciples, he never said if they were doing it intentionally or not. Also, we do not know when each of them were each born again. It was probably a different time for each of them. The same goes for Paul. He wrote to the Corinthians as a whole, and he rebuked the one's who were sinning. They were not all necessarily sinning, he just rebuked them as a whole since he was writing as a whole. Even if there wasn't a single one of them that living righteously, Paul still does not say if he believed they were intentionally sinning. Paul was correcting them.

As far as the Galatians, you do not know whether or not they were sinning intentionally. Paul doesn't say. He calls them "fools", which implies they may have been fooled by someone (unintentional, mistaken, foolish sin). What would imply that he knew they intended sin would be if he had called them "hypocrites". That is what Christ called the Pharisees, for they knew what they should do, they preached it to others, then they did differently. That is intentional sin.

As far as Hebrews, the writer rebuked them for still being "babies" and for being "dull." That is like being a "foolish child" without understanding. All this also implies unintentional sin. Even if warned about something, someone may not understand it at first. There is no way for us to know for sure. However, babies tend to be viewed as innocent. God is a loving Father, He is so merciful toward our non-willful, unintentional sins. Think of what even you, a mere man, would do if someone gave your infant child a loaded pistol and he shot someone. Death penalty for the unintentional sin? No! And that is also so often how God views us when we don't understand something.

You said, "if you’re going to refer me to your web site for further evidence of your position" I referred you to my website because you asked me if I had read Protestant commentaries. The short answer is "Yes". I have spent 15 years as deeply involved as a Protestant, and I spent 3 years of my life debating Catholics to "prove" to them that justification was by "faith alone". You don't have to read my website if you don't want to. You didn't ask me why I reject the Protestant position now. You asked me if I had read it.

God's peace and love to you,

"Using the same logical basis you are using to accuse me of 'not addressing' the passages, you could also say I am 'not addressing' John 6:56....You are accusing me of 'not addressing' your passages simply because I am putting them in context in order to properly understand them!"

If you interpreted John 6:56 only by means of other verses nearby, then that would be an unreasonable approach to take. What we do, instead, is combine the text and context. If Jesus is addressing spiritual hunger and thirst and spiritual means of satisfying that hunger and thirst in the nearby context and John 6:56 itself doesn't suggest a change in subject, then it's reasonable to interpret verse 56 as discussing the same issue. It wouldn't be enough to just point to the nearby context. The verse in question would have to be examined as well, to judge whether it's continuing the discussion in the nearby context or addressing something else. When John 6:1-26 refers to physical hunger and physical bread, we don't conclude that Jesus had to be referring to the same later in the chapter. Rather, we allow for the possibility of a shift in the discussion. And when a verse like John 6:27 suggests such a change, we don't take verses 1-26 as some sort of controlling context that overturns anything the text itself might suggest later in the chapter. Similarly, when Romans 3:27 refers to kinds of law, the text of the passage tells us that Paul is addressing multiple laws at that point, not just the Jewish law. To use the earlier context to justify ignoring what the text of verse 27 suggests wouldn't make sense. The same is true of Galatians 3:21-25. If you were consistent in your method of interpretation, you should let the opening verses of John 6 define every reference to food later in the chapter. But you aren't consistent.

You write:

"The only way to know if someone has been born again is if they stop *intentionally* sinning."

When we're impatient or proud, when we lust or are careless or sin in some other way, it's not as though we don't know that such behavior is sinful. Jesus often rebuked His disciples for not believing what He had told them, not trusting Him when they should have known that He was trustworthy, etc. Yet, He still refers to them as though they're justified. Similarly, when Paul rebukes the Corinthians for sins such as strife and jealousy, yet refers to them as "in Christ" at the same time (1 Corinthians 3:1-3), it's not as though they weren't aware of the fact that behavior such as strife and jealousy are wrong. The author of Hebrews rebukes his audience for needing to be reminded of what they were already taught (Hebrews 5:11-6:3), so they weren't ignorant of what he was addressing. Yet, he allows for their justified status. Similarly, Paul had already taught the Galatians the true gospel, yet he rebukes them for being unfaithful to that gospel. They weren't sinning in ignorance, yet he allows for their ongoing status as justified Christians. Etc. The Bible explicitly and frequently contradicts your position. And if you're going to refer me to your web site for further evidence of your position, then I'll refer you to the many Protestant commentaries and other sources that address passages like the ones you've cited from Hebrews and 1 John.

You wrote, "you haven’t addressed what I cited in Romans 3 and Galatians 3. Instead, you’ve addressed nearby verses...".

My brother, to say I haven't addressed those passages is the same as saying I "haven't addressed" John 6:56. Your logical basis for saying I "have not addressed" the passages is that I used nearby verses to interpret them. One could argue, on that same logical basis you are arguing with, that because I interpret John 6:56 according to John 6:63, I have not addressed John 6:56.

For instance, again, take John 6:56. “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” Ignoring the context of that passage could lead us to some very strange doctrines indeed! Instead, we must understand it in context to know that he is talking about spiritual eating… see verse 63 for that contextual interpretation. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit." (so Christ's words are spiritual, not physical... he is talking about spiritual flesh)

Using the same logical basis you are using to accuse me of "not addressing" the passages, you could also say I am "not addressing" John 6:56. Most likely, the only reason you believe I have addressed John 6:56 is because you tend to agree with my interpretation of that verse. Most likely, the only reason you say I have not addressed your Romans/Galatians passages is because you tend to disagree with my interpretation. I have addressed your passages. You just disagree with my contextual interpretation. That is all.

You are accusing me of “not addressing” your passages simply because I am putting them in context in order to properly understand them! I have addressed your passages. You simply don’t agree with my view of the context. And you don't believe James.

“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right… What good is it if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?… You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?… A person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”
– The Apostle James, James 2:8,14,20,24

You cannot be justified by works of the law of Moses.
– Paul, Acts 13:39.

You wrote, "Your claim that faith is a work of love is inconsistent with your earlier arguments." In my last post just above this one, I addressed this alleged "inconsistency." Unless you actually respond to my counter argument, this will simply turn into a childish "you did not" / "yes I did" argument. That is pointless.

You wrote, "Do you believe that a person is justified (is forgiven of his sins, receives the Holy Spirit, etc.) at the time he believes? Or only when outward manifestations of that faith, such as the ones James refers to, have been added to faith later? "[sic] My belief about justification is very similar to the orthodox christian belief about it. Justification is an aspect of theosis in orthodox Christianity. In other words, it is just another part of the process by which the individual is united to Christ and the life of Christ is reproduced within him. Thus, in one sense, justification is very much like salvation itself. Salvation is something that happened in the past, in the present, and the future. Salvation itself is a process that cannot be said to be entirely contained in a certain point of time. Ephesians 2:8-9 refers to Christians having been saved in the past, initial salvation. 1 Corinthians 1:18 refers to Christians presently being saved, present salvation. Romans 5:9 tells Christians that they will be saved, future salvation. James says we are justified by what we do. It is a continual process.

So yes, faith justifies us (just like any other work of love). But once it justifies us, our justification is not complete. It is a process. The only way to know if someone has been born again is if they stop *intentionally* sinning. If you don't believe me because your tradition taught you otherwise, than read these two verses apart from your tradition.
- 1) "If we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice of sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire." (Hebrews 10:26) Also, more importantly,
- 2) "No one who is born of God will continue to sin... This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are..." (1 John 3:9,10)

You wrote, "Have you read any Protestant scholarship on James? Or read any Protestant’s explanation of how he reconciles Paul with James?" Yes, my dear brother, of course I have. The only reason I didn't answer this question of yours earlier is because of space. And I won't answer it completely here because if I listed all the protestant authors and scholars I've read on that subject it would make this thread much longer. To see how I treat the most common arguments the people you are referring to make, go to my website acts420.com, click on the link to doctrine, and then read the entire piece I wrote on "justification." There is no sense in me re-producing it here.

May God richly bless you,

No, you haven't addressed what I cited in Romans 3 and Galatians 3. Instead, you've addressed nearby verses and have asserted, without argument, that the verses I cited must be referring to the same system of works. You've also ignored some of my other arguments, including ones I mentioned as early as my first post in this thread.

Your claim that faith is a work of love is inconsistent with your earlier arguments. That may explain why you aren't attempting to reconcile your recent comments with the ones I quoted from your earlier posts.

In addition to being inconsistent with your earlier arguments, your latest comments are often ambiguous, such as when you say that "faith is what saves us from the law". Do you believe that a person is justified (is forgiven of his sins, receives the Holy Spirit, etc.) at the time he believes? Or only when outward manifestations of that faith, such as the ones James refers to, have been added to faith later?

Have you read any Protestant scholarship on James? Or read any Protestant's explanation of how he reconciles Paul with James?

I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree with you. You, on the other hand, continually tell me that I'm not "addressing" the passages you cited. However, I've already addressed them many times.

I keep telling you over and over again that I beleive the context shows that Paul is talking about works of the law, works of the law of Moses. You think Paul is talking about all works when he says we are justified apart from works. That is where we disagree. We have both "addressed" the passages. There is no sense in accusing one another of "not addressing" the passages. We've both addressed them. We just disagree on the contextual interpretation. That is all.

Once again, you have asked me to explain how I can say we are justified by works of love (James 2:24) while also believing faith justifies us (Gen. 15:6). As I said above, “I have never said faith is not a work of love." Still, again, you again ask me to explain how this fits in with what I've said above.

So here, again, is the explaination. I have always maintained here that faith justifies us apart from works of the law of Moses. At the same time, I maintain that we are justified by works of love. You are accusing me of “contradicting myself”, but those two statements are not in contradiction. They do not contradict because faith is a work of love. We are commanded to believe God (1 John 3:23). To love is to obey his commands. (1 John 5:3). Therefore, faith is itself an act of love.

Faith justifies us just like the works that James lists in James 2 justify us. Just because Paul says faith justifies us apart from the law of Moses does not mean that nothing else also justifies us. James clearly says there are other works of love (besides faith) that justify us (read James 2:24).

You have simply chosen not to believe James. This is the same error Martin Luther made. You make the same error, probably because you were brought up in the tradition that follows Luther and his ilk (Protestantism). The truth is that Paul focuses on the work of faith because faith is what saves us from the law, that is Paul's narrowed in focus. When we believe Christ, we beleive the law is ended. That is because Christ ended the law. That is Paul's focus in those passages. James focuses, instead, on faith and other works of love because James is speaking more broadly. All works of love justify us, faith included.

I have not contradicted myself, nor have I misrepresented what you said. I am saying orthodox priests looked at and commented on my website in detail. I have spoken to them personally. You haven't spoken to them at all, and yet you have told me you doubt that they have taken "the time to examine your web site in much detail and give you an assessment of it." I'm telling you that they commented to me about it in detail. I had detailed conversations with them about it. By saying you doubt they examined it in much detail, you are doubting my word.

All that is a side issue though. Here is the truth:

“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right… What good is it if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?… You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?… A person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”
– The Apostle James, James 2:8,14,20,24

You cannot be justified by works of the law of Moses.
– Paul, Acts 13:39.

May God richly bless you,

"The context shows what 'the law' is that Paul is talking about, and the context shows what “works” he is referring to."

You're assuming that if Paul discusses the Jewish law, then he can't refer to other systems of work elsewhere. That's a ridiculous assumption. Let's say a Republican is discussing the faults of the Democratic party. Then he makes a comment about how the Libertarian party and others have some similar faults. It would be irrational to claim that the fact that he's primarily addressing the Democratic party proves that he couldn't have referred to any other party.

The fact that you keep trying to avoid addressing the passages I cited in Romans 3 and Galatians 3 is revealing.

You write:

"I have never said faith is not a work of love."

Then explain the comments I cited from your earlier posts.

You write:

"If you say we are justified by 'faith alone' (apart from acts of love), you are the one that is contradicting yourself!"

I'm not the one who's been contradicting himself. You are. I haven't denied that faith is an act and can be called a work in some contexts. See my discussion of the subject here, especially in the comments section of the thread. As I explained in my last post, categorizing faith as an act of love doesn't change the fact that we're justified through faith, not through faith combined with outward manifestations of that faith, whether you want to call them works of love or something else.

You write:

"So do you believe me now that I’ve had orthodox priests look at my website? Or, instead, are you going to stand by your other false accusation against me? Earlier you said you 'doubt' that I am being honest about getting comments from priests (even though you yourself have probably never gone to an orthodox church and talked to a priest yourself!)?"

You're misrepresenting what I said. I said that I doubt that Orthodox priests "have been taking the time to examine your web site in much detail and give you an assessment of it". I didn't say that I doubt that priests have commented on your site, especially if they think you're a potential convert. But I doubt that their examination of the site was deep enough to have much significance.

You write:

"Here’s some advice. Before you make such an accusation of dishonesty toward someone who strives to have a name characterized by honesty and integrity, how about you verify it first. It would not be hard for you to take my website to a local orthodox priest in your area and ask him about what I’ve said here."

Actually, you've just sinned by misrepresenting what I said.

You wrote, "When I cite passages like Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25 (”a law”, “a tutor”), which aren’t limited to the Jewish law, you aren’t addressing those passages by pointing us to other passages nearby that mention the Jewish law."

Here again you boldy admit that you are ignoring the context of those passages in order to interpret them according to the tradition you were raised in. The context shows what "the law" is that Paul is talking about, and the context shows what "works" he is referring to. Ignoring the context in order to understand the passages is the most fundamental mistake anyone can make in rightly dividing the Word. That is how cults operate around the world. I'm not trying to insult you. Please understand that I have love for you. All I am saying is that anyone who is willing to ignore the context can make the Bible say whatever he wants it to say, given how many individual passages there are in the book.

For instance, take John 6:56. "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him." Ignoring the context of hat passage could lead us to some very strange doctrines indeed! Instead, we must understand it in context to know that he is talking about spiritual eating... see verse 63 for that contextual interpretation.

I could name thousands of other similar examples. Nonetheless, here you are accusing me of "not addressing" your passages simply because I am putting them in context in order to properly understand them! I have addressed your passages. You simply don't agree with my view of the context.

You wrote, "You’re contradicting yourself. Earlier, you contrasted faith with works of love."

That is a straw man. I have never said faith is not a work of love. I have always maintained here that faith justifies us apart from works of the law of Moses, and I said, at the same time, that ultimately we are justified by works of love. Now you are falsely accusing me of "contradicting myself", but those two statements are not in contradiction. This straw man has allowed you to ignore the entire point I made: the Bible teaches that faith is a work of love.

We are commanded to believe God (1 John 3:23). To love is to obey his commands. (1 John 5:3). Therefore, faith is itself an act of love. If you say we are justified by "faith alone" (apart from acts of love), you are the one that is contradicting yourself!

So do you believe me now that I've had orthodox priests look at my website? Or, instead, are you going to stand by your other false accusation against me? Earlier you said you "doubt" that I am being honest about getting comments from priests (even though you yourself have probably never gone to an orthodox church and talked to a priest yourself!)?

Here's some advice. Before you make such an accusation of dishonesty toward someone who strives to have a name characterized by honesty and integrity, how about you verify it first. It would not be hard for you to take my website to a local orthodox priest in your area and ask him about what I've said here.

Proverbs 17:15 - Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the LORD detests them both.

peace to you,
Jason

"I have indeed addressed the verses you cited in Galatians. I already told you that the context surrounding them (and even *in* some of them) is 'the law.' So why do you accuse me of 'not even addressing them'?"

For reasons I explained earlier. Paul can primarily address the Jewish law, yet address other systems of work as well. When I cite passages like Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25 ("a law", "a tutor"), which aren't limited to the Jewish law, you aren't addressing those passages by pointing us to other passages nearby that mention the Jewish law.

You write:

"As far as reconciling Genesis 15:6 with the fact that we are justified by what we do and not by faith alone, that is actually quite simple. Believing God is an act of love like anything else. We are commanded to believe God (1 John 3:23). Faith is one of God’s commands, and 'this is love for God: to obey his commands.' (1 John 5:3). Believing is itself a work of love."

You're contradicting yourself. Earlier, you contrasted faith with works of love:

"The idea that works of love do not justify us is an invention of man. That is not what Scripture teaches. It is a distortion of Paul."

If faith is a work of love, and Protestants teach justification through that work of love, then why would you accuse them of believing that "works of love do not justify us"?

You also wrote:

"One of the most ironic things about Western Christianity is that it teaches people to not depend on works for eternal life, but instead to just believe."

Again, you were contrasting works and faith.

You wrote:

"You seem to be asking for evidence that Eastern Orthodoxy believes in justification by actions, not merely by faith."

You also claimed that James has your works of love in view when he writes about works and distinguishes them from faith. Again, you were distinguishing between faith and works of love. Yet, now you tell us that your position is that faith is itself a work of love.

Whatever you call faith, whether you call it a work of love or something else, the fact remains that we're justified through faith, not through faith combined with something else.

You write:

"I am not ignoring any of your points. I have responded to all of them."

No, you've repeatedly ignored multiple points I've made. I've already explained how you've ignored the relevant passages I cited in Romans 3 and Galatians 3. You've also ignored some of the points I made in my first post in the thread. See the closing sentences of my closing paragraph in that post.

May God bless you with peace and wisdom. I have indeed addressed the verses you cited in Galatians. I already told you that the context surrounding them (and even *in* some of them) is "the law." So why do you accuse me of "not even addressing them"? Just because you disagree with my take on the passages does not mean you can accuse me of "not even addressing" them.

As far as reconciling Genesis 15:6 with the fact that we are justified by what we do and not by faith alone, that is actually quite simple. Believing God is an act of love like anything else. We are commanded to believe God (1 John 3:23). Faith is one of God's commands, and "this is love for God: to obey his commands." (1 John 5:3). Believing is itself a work of love.

Nonetheless, Paul's point in quoting Gen. 15 where he did, if you look at the context, was to show that Abraham was justified through faith, itself a work of love, before he ever did any works of the law (specifically circumcision). I am not ignoring any of your points. I have responded to all of them. I have even responded to your point that "love is a work of the law." If you are in Christ, one day you will realize that love is also outside the law. Jesus himself said this, that the law hangs on love. Unlike any other command in the law, love is not only a work of the law but is also a work outside the law. Love is commanded even if the law never existed. God is love. Christ ended the law, He did not end love. We've been through this already. We don't have to obey the law. We *do* have to love, because it is outside the law too.

I don't have to sit here and listen to you tell me, " I doubt that Orthodox priests have been taking the time to examine your web site in much detail and give you an assessment of it." If you don't believe me, what is the point in even talking to me? I'm telling you what I've done. I have had a local orthodox priest I worship with look at it, and I've also had other priests I know online look at it. They have been more than happy to comment to me *in detail*.

Since you doubt my word about the priests, that means you not believe me to be an honest person. Given that fact, there is no point in further discussion. Trust is essential to communication. So I'll just leave you with a couple of very true verses for your reading pleasure.

"If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right... What good is it if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?... You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?... A person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."
- The Apostle James, James 2:8,14,20,24

You cannot be justified by works of the law of Moses.
- Paul, Acts 13:39.