mailmandan
Well-Known Member
Anti-Christ anti-Scripture? You just rejected the Scriptures I quoted so where does that leave you? Your judgmental, mean spirited and self righteous attitude is so telling.
Colossians 2:14-16 - The Law That Was Against Us
- Thread starter BarneyFife
- 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
Yes, my whole point was that Paul can be confusing in his use of words like "faith" and "law." They must be understood *in context,* or confusion results. Those who wish to cast aspersions on Paul simply refuse to admit the difference in contexts.
Paul recognized that OT faith would ultimately save, but did not save *yet.* As such, it was not "saving faith." Thus, the Law was not of "faith," ie "saving faith." It brought Israel exactly what it deserved, which were blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience.
And being exact, it had to disqualify Israel from eternal life, because by Law only one sin would expel Israel from the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life. And without Christ's justification, all Israel would be found guilty of sin under the Law, since they all had a Sin Nature. Their atonement for sin under the Law was only temporary, since they needed atoning rituals repeatedly.
I completely agree with you, that Faith, Christ, and Justification arrived when Jesus arrived. Again, "faith" must be understood in context as "saving faith." Faith obviously existed in the OT!
So Paul was speaking in context of a special kind of faith, a faith that had previously existed in expectation of final justification. Faith must have an object in order to benefit from justification. Thus, prior to Christ, faith did not yet have an object for justification--only the hope in that as exemplified in the temporary rituals of atonement under the Law.
But when Christ came, faith had its object for justification. It saw Christ die for all sin and forgive all of humanity who repented in his name, receiving his life as the basis for this repentance. We leave our own ways for his ways.
Under the Law, Israel knew God's ways. It's just that God's ways had not yet provided an object of justification for their faith, which was indeed quite real before Jesus came. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and David, etc. all had real faith before Jesus came. But when Jesus came, their faith had an object that justified them in history. That's what I believe Paul meant when he spoke of "faith" coming--he was speaking in an abbreviated way of "saving faith," or "justifying faith."
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Why do you call Colossians "Antichrist anti-Scripture"? That is a very serious charge against God's Word. Colossians 2:16-17, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days— these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is Christ!"
So mailmandan's post is doctrinally correct according to God's Word.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree with you, but let me put a finer point on it. I am defining "religion" as the collection of ritual behaviors intended to please a god so that the god will either bless with favorable circumstances, protect from enemies, or refrain from arbitrary acts of capriciousness leading to mayhem and destruction. In this view, a man performs the rituals, not for his own sake, but in the belief that the god wants it.
By contract or covenant, a religious man sacrifices a bull, which is what the god wants, in exchange for what he wants: lots of crops, lots of children, a happy marriage, and protection from enemies. The ritual by itself has value to the god, which is why the god wants it done. Perfunctory observance is irrelevant in this exchange. The relevant issue is whether the bull was sacrificed or not.
Some religions understand the rituals from a practical standpoint, useful to the god in some way. In this case, the religious man offers a bull to the god because the gods are busy beating back the chaos, helping to maintain the ordered universe. The belief is that offering food to a god helps the god keep up his strength.
Other religions understand the rituals from a civil standpoint, useful to pay homage to the local god because the god is the ruler of his lands and is in a position to grant favors to his servants. A religious man offers a bull because the offering indicates the fact that ALL bulls not only belong to the god, the god's protection from disease, predators, and accidents brought about the circumstances for great bounty. The religious man pays honor to the god.
In any case, the religious man deems the offering to have intrinsic value because the god places value in the ritual for it's own sake, which must be performed even if carried out with the very minimum of reflection and/or feeling. Obedience is rewarded even if the religious man is indifferent, lacking intense feeling or deep affection.
By contrast, the God of the Bible needs nothing at all from human beings: neither sustenance nor respect. Anything God does for the religious man is purely an act of grace and unmerited favor. The religion God prescribed for Israel was intended as the means for the religious man to give expression to righteous sentiments: devotion, love, honor, penitence, thanksgiving, sorrow, and grief.
In this case, the rituals have extrinsic value to the degree that they manifest the proper inwardness. YAHWEH gives no value to the ritual “in itself,” or “for its own sake.” The ritual only has value in so far as it gives expression to matters that he finds valuable, such as justice, righteousness, goodness and love.
Thus, God is not rewarding the religious man because he performs the ritual with sincerity. God's rewards are blessings that give expression to his grace; and his punishments are pedagogical, intended to teach his subjects that he is the only God that matters.
Please go read this whole thread. MMD pretends it has no posts by me.
And I did not <<call Colossians "Antichrist anti-Scripture">>. Ek's nie onder 'n kalkoen uitgebroei nie. I called MMD's abuse of Colossians 2 what I called it. For reasons apparent in this thread. I won't be lured into an extended exchange or rather one-sided exercise in ad hominem here.
Gal. 3: 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
Context tells me what Paul meant by “the law was not of faith”. Paul is not contrasting two faiths ~ one you call saving faith and one you say is not saving faith. Paul is contrasting the law (as being of works) and faith. That the law is of works and is not of faith. The following passages is where that is coming from.
Gal. 3: 2This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal. 3:5Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 6 just as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
In verse 6, he points to the faith of Abraham, which establishes what faith he is talking about in v.2&5. Now, did Paul by that meant to distinguish this faith in v.2, 5 &6 to be different from that in v.12? I don’t think so. To the contrary it goes to show that his use of faith in v.12 is as he use it in v.2 & 5-6.
Paul in v.6-10 points to the obvious answers to his questions in v.2&5, that is, faith, concluding that those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham~ they are justified.
Now in verse 10-11, in contrast to those of faith, Paul tells us of those of the works of the law, that none will be justified for the reason that “the just shall live by faith.” It is at this point that Paul said of the law, that it is not of faith. That since the law is not of faith, is why no one will be justified by the works of the law. Had the law been of faith, then there will be justification.
So, that is why I don’t see anything to resolve about the use of faith there by Paul. The context will tell us what it is. It is faith that comes from God, such as is that in the case of Abraham.
Tong
R1645
Last edited:
God did not bring YOU, out of the land of Egypt, bondage?
YOU define 'Egypt', 'bondage', but 'the Israelites' may not be defined, 'The People of God' like in Hebrews 4:9?
Is not 'the Lord', YOUR God?
As long as He is not Lord of ths Sabbath the one He gave 'the Israelites'?
You're toot good because you're a Christian?
Was not the Christ of the Christians "the SAME" in the eternal past, in the eternal future?
Unfounded; unscriptural. Untrue.
As I understand it, Adam did not <<practice Sabbath>>, GOD did! As I understand it, Moses did not <<practice Sabbath>>, GOD did! Genesis 3:8-24 Exodus 14:13,14.
And as history tells us, Israel never hallowed the Sabbath, GOD did! Time and again and again, God, not Israel, and nobody else, ever, except for "The Son of Man that keepeth the Sabbath", that "repaired the breach" which mankind through SIN caused, "honoured the Sabbath" by "doing Your pleasure (will) on Your holy day".
Last edited:
Come now, let's be honest. When I read this, and read, God "gives the commandments to Israel. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb" I felt and cannot help to BELIEVE "our God", my, God, made a covenant "with us" -- with me -- with us, Christians, believers, the Israel of God.
Is it so easy to just shrug off God -- easier than to 'switch off your (my) computer' on the screen....
Ah! Where were <the Israelites> who were <<to observe the Sabbath>> "when in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the Seventh Day rested"? They were "IN ADAM" - "the first man Adam" JUST LIKE in these Last Days the "Israel of God" are inclusive and included in "the Last Adam the Lord" Jesus Christ who "made the heavens and the earth, and on the Seventh Day rested".
Now look at Nehemiah speaking to / with <the Israelites>, see Nehemiah calls them, "you" and refers to, "them", and does not speak of 'us', at all. Now was not Nehemiah an Israelite himself, were not the People 'our people', his People? Was "you", not - 'us', 'we', ourselves, Israel the Israel of the Only God who is One, the God of Israel to whom God indeed did speak?
So what about the Sabbath Nehemiah mentions? Wasn't his Sabbath as well? Did Nehemiah negate the Sabbath but preached it to another people not his own, not the Israel of God?
At the same price one negates the Sabbath as the Sabbath of ALL TRUE BELIEVERS IN CHRIST JESUS SAVIOUR LORD AND GOD, at the same price does one negate GOD as the GOD of ALL TRUE BELIEVERS IN CHRIST JESUS SAVIOUR LORD AND GOD. And-- at the same price does one negate and betray the People of God - ourselves - as the People of the God of ALL TRUE BELIEVERS IN CHRIST JESUS SAVIOUR LORD AND GOD.
God shall not be mocked.
Last edited:
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Well Cady, this is quite a bit to take in, and I'm not sure I can be that precise. I believe you're describing the pagan gods, who the worshipers believed provided value in the offerings themselves, without regard for how sincere those gifts were given. After all, pagan gods are largely impersonal, and quite detached from human feeling. The sacrifice from the human is what is wanted--not a "relationship."
By contrast, the God of the Law was very much interested in sincere offerings to close and sustain a covenant relationship with Israel. Insincerity spoiled such offerings. Offerings given in good faith meant everything to God.
I suppose you could say that God did not find intrinsic value in offering bulls and goats, because to One who is immaterial and transcendent, this would be no better than "breaking a dog's neck." On the other hand, God required it so that *we* would feel the pain of the loss of material value. And in this sense, it *did* have value to God.
These offerings, which therefore did have some intrinsic value to God, were replaced with the more meaningful offering of Christ himself, which was both a loss to God and a loss to us. It was the sacrifice that gave the offering value, since God had already given up much, in terms of time and anguish, as He endured the sins of men for many centuries. Losing His Son was the epitome and the summation of all that went before, leaving no stone unturned. Final salvation was won when God Himself suffered and every sin was covered.
It's not that I'm disagreeing with your characterization--I think it makes good sense. It just doesn't work for me making your distinctions because it can lead some to think that 1) animal sacrifices weren't really important under the Law, and 2) obeying God in mundane matters don't matter to a transcendent God.
At any rate, I feel that Israel's carrying out instructions on such elemental matters was important if for no other reason than it was a necessary act of obedience to God's word. Whatever form our obedience takes, it does matter to God. That being said, yes--animal sacrifices were transient in form, and were never intended to be eternal forms of worship. God was aiming at a much greater sacrifice--His own sacrifice of His Son. And we should therefore see this as the greater form of worship, as well!
Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Yes, I never meant to say that Paul was contrasting 2 types of faith. I was saying that his particular use of the word "faith" is determined by context. And in this particular context, his reference to "faith" implies "saving faith." By contrast, Paul uses "faith" in other contexts in which the application is different, and can speak of faith through which men obeyed the Law.
To say that Israel observed the Law without faith is patently absurd, and I'm surprised you would argue this! To say that David, for example, obeyed the Law, and spoke glowingly of it in Psalm 119, and yet did not regard the Law with faith sounds crazy!
Clearly, God expected men of faith to obey the Law *in faith* when they observed the Law of Moses. Clearly, Paul was saying something else, and I'm trying to explain that.
Paul is saying that the Law gave a person what he deserved--if obedience, blessing, if disobedience, cursing. And if after an atoning ritual a person committed a single sin, eternal life was denied. This kind of faith pleased God, because it held people in relationship with God, but it was not the kind of faith that appropriated Saving Grace. And Paul's use of "faith" here implies NT Grace. It is faith that bypasses the guilt of sin to appropriate eternal life.
The Law of Moses made no provision for obtaining eternal life. Much the opposite, it showed a way to please God even while he remained condemned by his sin nature. Not even temporary atonement rituals could remove the guilt of sin permanently.
Yes, the implication is clear that one kind of faith falls short, namely the faith of Abraham and the faith of those under the OT Law, whereas NT faith actually appropriates the thing that Abraham hoped for. OT faith is not useless because it is directed towards NT Grace. But it is only NT faith that actually achieves Salvation. OT faith was virtuous only because it waited for NT Salvation, instead of relying on OT systems of justification.
S, not even Abraham appropriated Salvation by his OT faith, even though his faith predated the Law. The Law simply confirmed what already existed in Abraham's time, that the sin nature of Man prevented all men from gaining new access to the Tree of Life. Until Christ actually came and died, OT faith did *not* appropriate NT Salvation!
Paul's point was only that Abraham recognized his own faith would not be enough to achieve Salvation. It would only achieve Salvation by relying on something beyond his own flawed record of obedience, hoping for a permanent grant of clemency.
Similarly, the faith of those under the Law properly recognized that the purpose of the Law was to show their inadequacy, and their need for God's mercy to overcome their deficiencies. True OT faith was successful because it depended on a record that transcended their own record under the Law.
That is what made Abraham's faith special, and it is also what made the faith of those keeping the Law special. They were dependent on God's mercy and not on their record of perfection under the Law. They used animal sacrifices to express sincere dependence on God's grace for forgiveness. They depended on atonement rituals to express their short-comings and their need for God's mercy.
Abraham's faith appropriated God's mercy, and was the right kind of faith. But it did not achieve Salvation until Christ came to be the object of his faith. Paul may not have distinguished one faith and another, but the implication is clear. OT faith had not yet achieved Salvation. NT faith does achieve Salvation. But the faith in both testaments will likewise achieve Salvation in the end.
They are only justified *after* Christ came and died. Abraham was only temporarily justified during the OT era. His faith, however, was the right kind of faith at that time, and was directed at final justification from God, which we now know has come through Christ.
Again, Paul is not saying that Abraham by faith obtained eternal justification. Paul wasn't trying to distinguish between temporary justification and eternal justification. We have to read these words in their proper context to understand what Paul was saying.
Paul is saying, in his somewhat-obtuse way, that these "works of Law" are works done by those who don't have faith, who are trying to find intrinsic value in observing the Law without faith. In such a case, the Law only serves to condemn them because it was the purpose of the Law to show that all are disqualified form eternal life who have a sin nature.
By contrast, Paul is suggesting that those under the Law who actually had faith in what the Law represented would appropriate the mercy that the Law suggested was necessary. Man could never be redeemed by his own record of obedience alone. He required one who perfectly obeyed the Law, and did work on our behalf that could not be disqualified. Not only so, but our Redeemer had to be Divine so that his forgiveness represented God's forgiveness for all sin.
Under the Law men either operated under true faith or not. When Paul said the Law is not of faith he's describing how Israel depended on the Law apart from faith. That is what he meant by saying "the Law is not of faith." In other words, those who depend on obedience to the Law are not of faith, because they are failing to see that depending on the Law only condemns them for having a sin nature.
You may have to read my response a few times to get the argument. But at its face, it's transparently wrong to say that the Law was not intended by God to be observed by faith by men of faith. Obviously, everything God gave Israel through His word was intended to be responded to in *faith!*
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
What about the cattle, the servants, and the strangers that were visiting...were they Israelites? No. What of the Gentiles who were joined to Israel by adopting the Israelites' God as their own? Were they to keep Sabbath? Yes. What of Gentiles in the NT era who are joined to Christ along with Jewish Cristian converts? Are we now not all Israel? If we are to keep Sabbath i the new earth (see Isa.66) then where's the logic in dispensing with it today? Because that is what you are doing. There is no explicit instruction anywhere in scripture, including Colossians 2, where the weekly Sabbath is said to be dispensed with. That is an invention of your own making, and historically began with the apostate church and compromising believers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and made ecclesiastical law by Rome in the 4th. If you reject Sabbath, you are appeasing Rome.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
"For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast. For we are his creative work, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we can do them."
The Sabbath is supposed to be a day of rest, but that is up to the individual. Jesus "violated" the Sabbath on quite a few occasions (as did David, His ancestor) A strict adherence to the "rest" of the Sabbath is not mandatory (or else Jesus violated God's command -- which He obviously didn't).
The Sabbath is supposed to be a day of rest, but that is up to the individual. Jesus "violated" the Sabbath on quite a few occasions (as did David, His ancestor) A strict adherence to the "rest" of the Sabbath is not mandatory (or else Jesus violated God's command -- which He obviously didn't).
<<the new command to love>>?? That Christ gave his People that Commandment ANEW is all that is 'new' about it-- exactly the case in the OT, hat Yahweh - Christ - gave his People Israel <<the new command to love>>, ANEW, was everything 'new' about it.
That you ignore, evade and disdain this, betrays ulterior motive.
Look at your 'arguments' in whole -- do you do it all JUST to justify yourself of not keeping the Sabbath holy? Amazing, flabbergasting! I have nothing else to say to you but that I notice the one Scripture after the other robbed of its purity at your abuse for personal delight.
Similar threads
