Have I gone MAD???

[Jerry Shugart]

The answer is yes, Jerry.

The Old Covenant God had with Israel was primarily of works, but was undergirded by grace (It wouldn't have worked otherwise).

"Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation" (Ro.4:4).​

If salvation is according to works then it cannot be said that those works are "undergirded by grace."

The principle of salvation by works and the principle of salvation by grace are mutually exclusive. It is either by works or by grace and there is no in-between.

It's why God could show mercy to those who broke God's law and who were truly repentant, such as David, even though His law said they were deserving of a far greater punishment.

The Apostle Paul declares in no uncertain terms that David's salvation had nothing whatsoever to do with works:

"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (Ro.4:6-8).​

The Lord Jesus also said "Keep My commandments."

Yes, if a Jew kept the commandments perfectly then he would inherirt eternal life. But if he broke even one commandment he was guilty of all. That is why Paul wrote the following about anyone who thinks that salvation can be had by keeping the law:

"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. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident" (Gal.3:10-11).​

Yes, because you may be aware that 1 John was written AFTER Paul's conversion, and certainly after Paul was able to explain his theology to the Twelve... of whom John is the author of 1 John... and 2 John and 3 John...

You failed to address the words of the Savior which he spoke to the Jews who lived under the law before Paul was converted:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).​

And as I said, the Jews who received John's first epistle already had eternal life in the Son and that eternal life came as a result of their faith and nothing else:

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 Jn.5:11).​

I also said that the Apostle Peter said the following in regard to how he was saved:

"God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (Acts 15:8-11).​

To this you said:

Why does that preclude that he (and the other of the Twelve) had to keep the law?

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph.2:8-9).​

Again, the principle of salvation by works and the principle of salvation by grace are mutually exclusive.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Jerry.

Since you obviously do not understand that grace and works are mutually exclusive then what I said makes no sense to you:

Only those who wrongly divide the Bible come to the conclusion that the Jews who lived under the law were not saved by grace through faith alone.​

Believe Paul when he wrote the following:

"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Ro.4:16).​

 

[Idolater]

So King David was not a murderer that was shown mercy?

King David should have received the death penalty according to God's law.

Back to the drawing board for you.

The Bible itself doesn't see it this way. The child born of his adultery died in infancy, the prophet Nathan foretold that he would be punished for his crime (not shown mercy), and later he was punished as his son Absalom rebelled against him and was killed, fulfilling Nathan's prophecy. You and other MADs would have us believe that your facile "should have received the death penalty according to God's law" is enough to establish that he was shown mercy, like how Paul obtained mercy, but the Bible does not bear out this idea. King David was punished (according to Scripture), while Paul obtained mercy.

And besides, my point still stands. It is what most people read when we read that passage, that Paul was the first very grave sinner who obtained therefore very great mercy. It's not a MAD proof-text. That's importing /presuming the MAD idea into it.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Bible itself doesn't see it this way. The child born of his adultery died in infancy, the prophet Nathan foretold that he would be punished for his crime (not shown mercy), and later he was punished as his son Absalom rebelled against him and was killed, fulfilling Nathan's prophecy. You and other MADs would have us believe that your facile "should have received the death penalty according to God's law" is enough to establish that he was shown mercy, like how Paul obtained mercy, but the Bible does not bear out this idea. King David was punished (according to Scripture), while Paul obtained mercy.

Idolater, this is what the Apostle Paul said about king David:

"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (Ro.4:6-8).​

A believer can have his sins imputed to him in the "physical" sphere, as was the case of David. On the other hand, in the "spiritual" sphere when a person believes he will never perish because the LORD will not impute sin to him:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (Jn.3:16).​

 

[Idolater]

Idolater, this is what the Apostle Paul said about king David:

"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (Ro.4:6-8).​

A believer can have his sins imputed to him in the "physical" sphere, as was the case of David. On the other hand, in the "spiritual" sphere when a person believes he will never perish because the LORD will not impute sin to him:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (Jn.3:16).​

I appreciate your work, and I do not say what I'm about to say lightly, as I am repeating it to you itt, but this is exactly the Catholic position also. When we read what David's thoughts were, given what we know of his story, surely it adds weight to it when he says, "Blessed is the man to whom the LORD will not impute sin", because we know that the LORD did impute sin to David, he lost a little baby, and then he lost a grown son, and then even one of his other sons raped one of his daughters, the man paid dearly and it was explicit that it was because of his grave sins regarding Uriah the Hittite. It isn't mentioned but is it a case also of racism? Was a Hittite seen as equal to David's subjects? Members of the House of Israel? iow did David commit on top of it all, a hate crime? No matter, it does not detract from the scriptural fact that the LORD most certainly did impute sin to King David, and so we read with certainty his words, "Blessed is the man to whom the LORD will not impute sin". He knows directly how blessed is that man, to whom the LORD will not impute sin, because he, King David, is not that man.

Although Paul---he might be making the claim that it is him, that he is "the man to whom the LORD will not impute sin". He surely talked like that. There was really just his thorn, that he complained about, and even then he complained just a bit, and his answer from the Lord is as wise for Paul in particular, as it is for all the rest of us as well, perhaps this is the mercy he obtained, "My grace is sufficient for thee" 2nd Corinthians 12:9

 

[Jerry Shugart]

When we read what David's thoughts were, given what we know of his story, surely it adds weight to it when he says, "Blessed is the man to whom the LORD will not impute sin", because we know that the LORD did impute sin to David, he lost a little baby, and then he lost a grown son, and then even one of his other sons raped one of his daughters, the man paid dearly and it was explicit that it was because of his grave sins regarding Uriah the Hittite. It isn't mentioned but is it a case also of racism? Was a Hittite seen as equal to David's subjects? Members of the House of Israel? iow did David commit on top of it all, a hate crime? No matter, it does not detract from the scriptural fact that the LORD most certainly did impute sin to King David, and so we read with certainty his words, "Blessed is the man to whom the LORD will not impute sin". He knows directly how blessed is that man, to whom the LORD will not impute sin, because he, King David, is not that man.

Idolater, the following is what the Lord Jesus said about those who believe:

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (Jn.11:25-26).​

Those who were believing in Him died " physically" so when He said that "whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" He must have been speaking of another kind of death, the "second death":

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" (Rev.20:14).​

Those who believe in the Lord Jesus will never be cast into the lake of fire. They will always be saved:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (Jn.3:16).​

 

[Idolater]

Idolater, the following is what the Lord Jesus said about those who believe:

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (Jn.11:25-26).​

Those who were believing in Him died " physically" so when He said that "whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" He must have been speaking of another kind of death, the "second death":

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" (Rev.20:14).​

Those who believe in the Lord Jesus will never be cast into the lake of fire. They will always be saved:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (Jn.3:16).​

Amen.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Amen.

Idolater, according to the church at Rome faith by itself isn't enough to save anyone:

"The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: 'The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.'" (CCC # 2068).​

 

[JudgeRightly]

"Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation" (Ro.4:4).

It's not retroactive, Jerry.

If salvation is according to works then it cannot be said that those works are "undergirded by grace."

Because you say so?

The fact of the matter is, Jerry, that without Grace, NO ONE can come to live with God.

God chose to save men by grace, but for Israel, He put law on top of that as an additional requirement.

Or are you saying that God cannot do such a thing?

The principle of salvation by works and the principle of salvation by grace are mutually exclusive. It is either by works or by grace and there is no in-between.

:nono: Take off your Acts 13 dispensational glasses for a moment, Jerry.

Where have I said anything different?

I said above that the Old Covenant was primarily of works, but was undergirded by grace (It wouldn't have worked otherwise).

That doesn't mean that it was salvation through grace.

Being undergirded by grace doesn't make it of grace. It just means that the foundation is grace.

When you add works to grace, it becomes works.

That's what God did.

The Apostle Paul declares in no uncertain terms that David's salvation had nothing whatsoever to do with works:
"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (Ro.4:6-8).

Sorry, Jerry, but that verse supports my position, not yours.

If you go back into the Old Testament and read every passage that concerns David, you will find very little having to do with grace as we understand it. Paul, multiple times, took things in the Old Testament out of context to prove his points.

He couldn't do that if the law wasn't undergirded by grace.

God, had there only been the requirement for law, without grace as the foundation, would have had to require that everyone under the old covenant keep the law perfectly.

Yes, if a Jew kept the commandments perfectly then he would inherit eternal life.

No, Jerry, that's false. I would argue that they would have earned a spot in the coming kingdom of Israel ruled by Christ, but it's a moot argument, and here's why:

The fact is that no one can keep the law perfectly, except Christ. That's why there was an undergirding of grace for the law, because God knows that man is incapable of keeping the law perfectly.

So instead of being a stickler for the rules, God looked at the heart of those in covenant relationship with Him.

Had David broken the law, then offered a sacrifice without his heart being repentant towards God, God probably would have struck him dead on the spot. But because God is gracious and merciful, when He saw that David was repentant for the wrong He had done, He halted the punishment.

But if he broke even one commandment he was guilty of all. That is why Paul wrote the following about anyone who thinks that salvation can be had by keeping the law:

Supra.

"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. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident" (Gal.3:10-11).



You failed to address the words of the Savior which he spoke to the Jews who lived under the law before Paul was converted:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).

Do you somehow think that those words nullify what He said about keeping the commandments, and what He said about the law not passing away until heaven and earth pass away?

Jesus said "Keep My commandments."

That means keeping the law was a requirement.

And as I said, the Jews who received John's first epistle already had eternal life in the Son and that eternal life came as a result of their faith and nothing else:

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 Jn.5:11).

Repeating your argument won't advance the discussion, Jerry.

You're aware that 1 John was written literally decades after Paul's conversion, right?

In other words, 1 John doesn't help you, because it fits my position better than it supports yours.

I also said that the Apostle Peter said the following in regard to how he was saved:

"God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (Acts 15:8-11).

Are you even paying attention to what he said at all?

Yes, I'm talking about the portions you bolded.

Specifically: "He purified their hearts by faith" (speaking of the gentile believers) and "through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are"

Are you now asserting that Peter and the Twelve were not saved up until that point?

To this you said:

I would appreciate it if you spaced out your paragraphs a bit more. For a moment I thought you claimed I quoted the verse below, when I did not.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph.2:8-9).

Again, it's not retroactive, Jerry.

Again, the principle of salvation by works and the principle of salvation by grace are mutually exclusive.

Supra.

Since you obviously do not understand that grace and works are mutually exclusive

Supra.

then what I said makes no sense to you:

I understand clearly what you're trying to say, Jerry, but I'm telling you that it doesn't fit what the Bible says.

Only those who wrongly divide the Bible come to the conclusion that the Jews who lived under the law were not saved by grace through faith alone.

:yawn:

"Only those who wrongly divide the Bible come to the conclusion that the Jews who lived under the law were saved by grace through faith alone."

See how that works, Jerry?

Believe Paul

I do.

Look in a mirror.

when he wrote the following:
"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all" (Ro.4:16).

1) AMEN!
2) It's not retroactive.
3) Abraham was the father of MANY nations, not just Israel
4) And this shouldn't have to be said, but Abraham is not Israel, either literally or figuratively.

So what's your point?

 

[JudgeRightly]

The child born of his adultery died in infancy,

Are you actually trying to make the argument that God punished David by killing or allowing to die his firstborn?

the prophet Nathan foretold that he would be punished for his crime (not shown mercy), and later he was punished as his son Absalom rebelled against him and was killed, fulfilling Nathan's prophecy.

So you're saying that God never showed mercy to David for his crime?

You and other MADs would have us believe that your facile "should have received the death penalty according to God's law"

God said "Do not murder," "Do not commit adultery."

God said "put the murderer to death," and "put the adulterer and adulteress to death."

Did either David or Bathsheba receive the death penalty for their crime?

Or are you asserting that they didn't commit such crimes?

is enough to establish that he was shown mercy, like how Paul obtained mercy, but the Bible does not bear out this idea.

Again, God said to put the adulterer and adulteress, and the murderer to death.

David committed both of those crimes.

Paul was complicit in the murder of many people (which makes him just as guilty of murder as the ones who actually killed them).

Are you asserting that A) God was just messing around when He commanded that murderers and adulterers be put to death or B) that neither David nor Paul were guilty of such crimes or C) something else?

King David was punished (according to Scripture), while Paul obtained mercy.

Neither David nor Paul received their just dues, because God is merciful, and showed them mercy when they deserved none.

And besides, my point still stands. It is what most people read when we read that passage, that Paul was the first very grave sinner who obtained therefore very great mercy. It's not a MAD proof-text. That's importing /presuming the MAD idea into it.

See my post above.

It's not possible for it to be anything other than Paul stating, clearly, that he is the first person in the Body of Christ.

 

[Right Divider]

Don't be shy, Right Divider. Tell us what determined whether a Jew who believed in Jesus Christ was baptized into the Body of Christ?

In other words, why were some of those Jewish believers baptized into the Body of Christ and others not?

Your idea that the Twelve were not in the Body of Christ demands an answer.

Why?

It's hard to believe that this is so difficult for you.

The TWELVE already had a dispensational calling that included:

• Sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (includes the restoration of the kingdom of Israel).
• Water baptism
• Priesthood
• Land
• Law
• etc. etc. etc

That is NOT the same as the body of Christ.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Do you somehow think that those words nullify what He said about keeping the commandments, and what He said about the law not passing away until heaven and earth pass away?

Why do you call yourself a Christian and refuse to believe what Christ Himself told the Jews who lived under the law?:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).​

​

Do you think that He just forgot to mention other things? And what about what He told the Jews who lived under the law here:?

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).​

​

Are you so confused that you cannot even understand His words there? Again, do you think that He just forgot to mention other things which were necessary for salvation for those who lived under the law? And what about what He said to a person who lived under the law here:

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (Jn.11:25-26).​

Jesus said "Keep My commandments."

​

That means keeping the law was a requirement.

Here is what Paul said at a later time:

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Ro.10:5).​

And here is what Paul said about trying to establish one's own righteousnness by keeping the law:

"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. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident" (Gal.3:10-11).​

If law keeping was a requirement for those under the law then none of them would be saved because "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident."

Here is how David, who lived under the law, was saved:

"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered" (Ro.4:6-7).​

According to your ideas David could not be saved without works but Paul declares in no uncertain terms that God imputed righteousness to him without works.

 

[Right Divider]

The Bible itself doesn't see it this way. The child born of his adultery died in infancy, the prophet Nathan foretold that he would be punished for his crime (not shown mercy), and later he was punished as his son Absalom rebelled against him and was killed, fulfilling Nathan's prophecy.

That was NOT the murder that I was talking about. I was talking about Uriah the Hittite

The punishment for MURDER under the LAW is the DEATH of the murderer.

Exodus 21

You and other MADs would have us believe that your facile "should have received the death penalty according to God's law" is enough to establish that he was shown mercy, like how Paul obtained mercy, but the Bible does not bear out this idea. King David was punished (according to Scripture), while Paul obtained mercy.

It seems that you are grossly ignorant of the LAW in regard to premeditated MURDER.

Exodus 21

And besides, my point still stands. It is what most people read when we read that passage, that Paul was the first very grave sinner who obtained therefore very great mercy. It's not a MAD proof-text. That's importing /presuming the MAD idea into it.

Nope

 

[Right Divider]

I think you will find that site teaches that the Jews who lived under the law could not be saved apart from works.

From one of the "giants of MAD":

Now in the cases of Abraham and David, works were required for salvation, whereas in our case works for salvation are distinctly forbidden; yet it is clear from the passages above that Abraham, David and we were all saved essentially by grace through faith and that works as such have never had any saving value.

Stam, Cornelius. Things That Differ (Kindle Locations 366-368). Berean Bible Society. Kindle Edition.

Is this "giant of MAD" incorrect?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Is this "giant of MAD" incorrect?

Yes, he is incorrect. Anyone who actually believes the Scriptures know that the Jews who lived under the law were saved by faith alone, as witnessed by the following words of the Savior Himself:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).​

Will you give me your interpretation of the meaning of His words there?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It's hard to believe that this is so difficult for you.

The TWELVE already had a dispensational calling that included:

• Sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (includes the restoration of the kingdom of Israel).
• Water baptism
• Priesthood
• Land
• Law
• etc. etc. etc

That is NOT the same as the body of Christ.

What about the other Jewish believers?

Their heritage was the same as the Twelve. They were also baptized with water and also kept the law. Why were some of those Jewish believers baptized into the Body of Christ and not others?

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, he is incorrect. Anyone who actually believes the Scriptures know that the Jews who lived under the law were saved by faith alone, as witnessed by the following words of the Savior Himself:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).​

Will you give me your interpretation of the meaning of His words there?

It's called cherry-picking Jerry. You use some verses and completely ignore others that have a direct bearing on the question at hand.

When Jesus was asked "what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?", these are the words of the Savior Himself:

Mat 19:16-17 KJV And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? (17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

According to your theory, the Savior Himself should have said "just believe".

So you like some of the words of the Savior Himself, but ignore others from the Savior Himself.

 

[Right Divider]

What about the other Jewish believers?

What about them?

Their heritage was the same as the Twelve. They were also baptized with water and also kept the law. Why were some of those Jewish believers baptized into the Body of Christ and not others?

Because there are two groups of believers and it does not matter with regards to being "in Christ" which one that they are in.

Why do you feel the need to force all into one?

 

[Idolater]

Idolater, according to the church at Rome faith by itself isn't enough to save anyone:

"The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: 'The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.'" (CCC # 2068).​

I know that you and Catholicism differ in many ways, but your posts that I've commented on are where you and Catholicism do agree.

 

[Lon]

The Bible itself doesn't see it this way. The child born of his adultery died in infancy, the prophet Nathan foretold that he would be punished for his crime (not shown mercy), and later he was punished as his son Absalom rebelled against him and was killed, fulfilling Nathan's prophecy. You and other MADs would have us believe that your facile "should have received the death penalty according to God's law" is enough to establish that he was shown mercy, like how Paul obtained mercy, but the Bible does not bear out this idea. King David was punished (according to Scripture), while Paul obtained mercy.

And besides, my point still stands. It is what most people read when we read that passage, that Paul was the first very grave sinner who obtained therefore very great mercy. It's not a MAD proof-text. That's importing /presuming the MAD idea into it.

2 Samuel 12:11 “This is what the Lord says: I will stir up trouble against you within your own household, and before your own eyes I will take your wives and give them to someone close to you. He will go to bed with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did this secretly, but I will make this happen in broad daylight in front of all Israel.”

13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin; you will not die. 14 But since you have shown total contempt for the Lord by this affair, the son that is born to you must die.” 15 Then Nathan went home.

Genesis 9:6 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Numbers 35:31b "... you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, he shall surely be put to death."


Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife - with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."

Before forensics: Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

When Jesus was asked "what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?", these are the words of the Savior Himself:

Mat 19:16-17 KJV And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? (17) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Here is what Paul said at a later time:

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Ro.10:5).​

And here is what Paul said about trying to establish one's own righteousnness by keeping the law:

"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. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident" (Gal.3:10-11).​

If law keeping was a requirement for those under the law then none of them would be saved because "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident."

Here is how David, who lived under the law, was saved:

"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered" (Ro.4:6-7).​

According to your ideas David could not be saved without works but Paul declares in no uncertain terms that God imputed righteousness to him without works.

According to your theory, the Savior Himself should have said "just believe"

He didn't need to say " just believe" because he only named " faith" as a requirement to be saved. He said the following to the woman who anointed His feet with oil:

"Thy sins are forgiven...Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace" (Lk.7:48,50).​

I can just imagine the scene if you were there, saying, "Jesus, you forgot to add that her faith plus her keeping of the commandments have saved her."

And He would reply, "You dare question my plain words, ye of little faith."

The same can be said about the following words He spoke to the Jews who lived under the law:

"Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life" (Jn.6:47).​

Do you think that He just forgot to mention other things? And what about what He told the Jews who lived under the law here:?

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).​

Are you so confused that you cannot even understand His words there? Again, do you think that He just forgot to mention other things which were necessary for salvation for those who lived under the law? And what about what He said to a person who lived under the law here:

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" (Jn.11:25-26).​