UNDER THE LAW!
- Thread starter HARK!
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Amen! Well said.
Thanks MM. I like your focus, as well as your "deliveries," too!
We do not enter into fellowship with the Lord by keeping the law. We enter into fellowship with the Lord by faith; and keeping the law is the result. Not by an attempt to keep the law but by bearing the fruit of the Spirit; as I have said on many occasions now.
Therefore the Israelites didn't fellowship with the Lord through the Old Testament law either.
Now you equate code breakers between warring countries as translating of ancient scriptures of defunct languages?
Are you a preterist?
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
You run contrary to the Scriptures. Nothing God did with Israel was designed to be exclusive of faith! Do you really think God sends His word to anybody and not expect faith to result?
What you're doing is taking a few Scriptures of Paul and misinterpreting what he's saying. The implication of his statements are that the Law does not of necessity produce faith when those who receive it put it into use. Not all choose to do works *with faith!*
Beyond this, Paul makes the point that something more than Law was needed, beyond human ability, to provide for the final redemption needed beyond redemption under the Law. Not only did God's Law require faith to produce works properly, but those works were incomplete apart from faith in Christ's works.
Paul called that "faith." Faith, for Paul, was an appeal to something beyond the Law and beyond its temporary means of redemption. Animal sacrifices were only good on a temporary basis, and even they required faith. It just wasn't the kind of faith that was intended to produce *eternal redemption.*
This was what Paul referred to, and his terminology abbreviated this argument and can be completely misunderstood, as even Peter indicated. Paul was *not* saying that the Law was not intended to produce faith! On the contrary, Paul assumed the reader would know the Law to some extent and recognize that faith, in a limited scope, was included in the Law.
Deut 30.14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
Rom 10.8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim.
So "faith," for Paul, was just shorthand for "faith in Christ's eternal redemption," as opposed to a faith in the Law, which provided only temporary redemption.
Not equate, relate. I'm astonished that you can't see the similarity. To me it's axiomatic.
No. How is that relevant?
Gal 4:21, Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Gal 4:22, For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23, But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Gal 4:24, Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25, For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26, But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Gal 4:27, For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Gal 4:28, Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29, But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Gal 4:30, Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31, So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Gal 4:22, For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Gal 4:23, But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Gal 4:24, Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25, For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26, But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Gal 4:27, For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Gal 4:28, Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29, But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Gal 4:30, Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31, So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Yes, you just confirm to me that you know how to quote the Scriptures without really understanding them. As I said, this for Paul was shorthand for the following:
The Law does not produce a faith that enables permanent redemption. It is only a temporary means of redemption. Eternal redemption depends on Christ.
It is in Christ's works that we must put our faith, if we are to be eternally redeemed.
Having faith in the Law as a temporary means of redemption was genuine faith, and was accepted by God. It genuinely brought blessings to Israel, and pleased God.
But to make those works and that faith count for eternity was more a matter of extending faith in these animal sacrifices to faith in Christ himself, who completed redemption by fulfilling all of these images in himself.
You have to accept the legitimacy of the 1st Covenant along with the legitimacy of the 2nd Covenant. God was author of them both. It's just that without the 2nd Covenant, the 1st one never went far enough. It lacked faith *in Christ.*
So when Paul speaks of the Law not having "faith," he was not speaking of the Law not having *any* faith. Rather, he was speaking specifically of faith *in Christ,* who alone completes our redemption. In other words, the Law was insufficient for salvation.
To "live in" the Law is to honor God's word and to perform what He requests. But what is the end result of this? For Israel it was that they did good and did evil, as well. And the only covering they had for the evil they did was a temporary covering by animal sacrifices. It could *never* win them a resurrection to glory.
So to live in the Law was good. But it did not include a faith that would extract them from the fallen human condition. In this sense it lacked faith in the very object that could do so, namely Christ.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Keep in mind the context in which Paul wrote this. Paul was talking about those who wished to still be under the Law even after that covenant had been annulled! While the Covenant of Law was in effect, it operated *through faith!* But it did not have faith that could yet release Israel from the curse of sin.
So Paul is talking about a unique kind of faith that could release men from the eternal curse of sin. And that faith is faith in Christ. So when we hear that the Law did not include faith, it is not talking about faith generally, but more, about faith in Christ, who alone is able to fulfill the Law.
It is all about a kind of faith that releases us from the debt of sin and grants us immortality. The Law could not do that, irrespective of its ability to please God and irrespective of its having operate by some level of faith.
The Law did operate by faith, but it did not have THE faith in Christ that was necessary to complete the objective of the Law, which is our eternal salvation.
The law does not bring about redemption at all.
In Psalms 19:7 (kjv), it is declared that the law has the power to convert the soul. However, we find in Galatians 3:21 that it does not have the power to save (impart life). What the law does is to point out the fact that we are sinners; and that is all (Romans 3:20). Its only function, as far as salvation is concerned, is as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3:24).
I believe that you are speaking of the ceremonial law; and that is acceptable. However, putting faith in the moral law as a means of salvation, even temporary salvation, is not valid; because everyone who is of the law is under the curse: because cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them (Galatians 3:10).
God found fault with the 1st covenant according to Hebrews 8:6-8.
I agree. However your former statements appear to be in contradiction to this one. Perhaps you should try to be more clear and consistent in what you relate to people.
And of course, the post in question was not addressed to you per se but to anyone and everyone who wants to be under the law.
If that is you, then consider that the passage in question refutes your position.
If that is not you, then ignore the passage or else simply take it as edification to your heart and not as any kind of rebuke.
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Don't play naive, brother. You posted that right after we had an exchange about whether the Law is based on faith. Your position was that it is *not.* My position was that it *is.* And then you posted how the Law is *not* of faith. Either that is total coincidence, or you still have yet to answer the question: Did the Law operate through faith?
Once again, you have to answer the question: was the Law intended to operate by faith or not? You are side-stepping the issue by questioning whether I personally believe the Law is still in effect. You should know, by my answers, that I do *not* believe the Law is still in effect!
And so, you're just avoiding the matter that I raised, or ignoring it altogether. In that case, I'll assume you don't have an answer or simply do not feel a need to respond.
Again, my view is that the Law, as all systems of God, do operate through faith. But this is just of the generic kind, and not of the kind in which Paul used "faith" as a shortcut for "faith in Christ." The Law did not have "faith in Christ" because Christ had not come yet, and also because the Law in itself could never have done what Christ alone could do.
The object of both the Law and Christ was to lead Israel towards eternal life. That required eternal redemption. Only Christ could do that. But the Law was a step in that direction, by leading Israel, through faith, to Christ, who would fulfill the Law. That is, obedience to the Law could lead to obedience to Christ. Both operated by faith, but only Christ could provide the end goal, which is eternal salvation.
So when Paul said that the Law did not have faith, he used "faith" in a very technical way, and we should understand that. We should *not* understand that to mean the Law did not operate through any faith at all. Comprendes?
Look at the period of time between posts. I actually was laying on my bed for a while thinking about the doctrines that have been purported here recently; and that scripture in Galatians came to mind. Actually, to be more exact, I happened to be reading in Galatians and came across that scripture and understood that it applied to much of what has been being said.
So, while it may have appeared to have been addressed to you, it was in all actuality addressed to the concepts that have been here purported where some posters seem to want to be under the law and also put other people under the law.
I haven't read the rest of your post yet, will look at it shortly.
I believe that I have answered this question in post #53 (UNDER THE LAW!).
The law is still in effect, as a schoolmaster to lead men to Christ. Psalms 19:7 (kjv), Romans 3:20, Galatians 3:24.
The only sense that the (ceremonial) law could do this was in pointing people to Christ, who would be a sacrificial Lamb to take away the sins of the world.
The moral law also had the power to convert the soul (Psalms 19:7 (kjv))...but this was only in the sense that it declares men to be sinners in need of a Saviour; which is a necessary revelation is one is going to come to Christ to be forgiven of sins.
There is no obedience to the law (see Galatians 3:22, Galatians 6:13, Romans 3:23) apart from Christ.
He actually said that the law is not of faith.
I see.
So, if I learn a code to a modern foreign language I am automatically qualified to translate 2000 year old Greek.
The Law is not only five books, but the entire O.T.
With that said, we are not just free from the 5 books, but the entirety of the 39 books.
The 5 book idea was not addressed as "the Law" per the 1st century teachings, but came later on.
Malachi, Isaiah, Psalms etc are all "the Law".
With that said, we are not just free from the 5 books, but the entirety of the 39 books.
The 5 book idea was not addressed as "the Law" per the 1st century teachings, but came later on.
Malachi, Isaiah, Psalms etc are all "the Law".
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
I would like you to answer in light of my responses--not just double down on your original thoughts. This is an exchange of ideas. I'm narrowing the focus.
I've already addressed this elsewhere, and nobody is questioning these Scriptures. We know the Law is still effective as a lesson connected to an outdated covenant. The Law *as a covenant* is *not* still in effect! And you should not obscure this fact.
The Law specifically indicated that it was more than just pointing to Christ--more, it was about obtaining temporary sanction to work on behalf of God, to do good, to please God, and to obtain redemptive value on a temporary basis *until* Christ actually came. God actually chose to look to animal sacrifices as having value in terms of *forgiving Israel,* and to thus enable them to continue in a covenant relationship despite personal failures. This also should not be obscured.
The Law did far more than just tell men they are sinners. Any prophet could've done that! No, the Law was a system by which an entire nation could approach God, despite the fact they still had a sin nature and committed sins. They could live in righteousness, and have their flaws covered, as long as they operated under this Law in faith! You really seem to rob the value of the Law as God presented it!
That's crazy, and you should be clear about this. The Law *preexisted* Christ!
Paul expressed that the Law did not yet operate by Christian faith. Paul utilized a nuanced sense of "faith," referring to *Christian faith.* The Law operated successfully by faith but did not achieve the kind of faith that led to fulfillment of the Messianic Hope.
Faith, for the Jews, was more than just believing in God. The object was to reestablish relationship with God for all eternity. The Law did not provide that--it only provided a temporary basis for relationship with God until Messiah comes to make that relationship permanent. That is the *faith* Paul is talking about!
To say that the Law did not operate by faith at all flies in the face of Scriptures I have already provided, that the word of God "near Israel" was a "word of faith."
Rom 10.8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim.
Similar threads
