Colossians 2:14-16 - The Law That Was Against Us

[Randy Kluth]

Thanks Randy.

So you believe that a Council that was held by the Apostles (Council of Jerusalem) "was not perfect"!!! Fascinating..... Well, I guess if the Apostles couldn't get it right no man or council after them could either.

Also, what is AoG??
Mary

Yes, we tend to "worship" our religious leaders, founders, apostles, councils, denominations, and yes--even the Scriptures. All were the products of imperfect human beings.

Does that mean they have to get it wrong, simply because they were imperfect? No, imperfect people can indeed get things right.

I think the Scriptures are a good example of flawed people getting things right. But a council that arbitrarily set rules, when they were not said to have been told to do so by God is a good example of how God often leads us. He gives us wisdom, and expects us to make good decisions. We can make things work by any number of courses we choose to take.

I think the Council of Jerusalem was wise, but not the word of God. It was recorded in the Scriptures, but the Scriptures do not say they were God-ordained rules.

And I think the reason God did this is plain. God did not want to be seen laying down rules from heaven that do not apply in all situations in all places in all times. Certainly, those rules wouldn't apply today, would they?

 

[Randy Kluth]

And Nobody is saying otherwise.

<<<It was just not faith in *Christ's work.*>>>

Obviously. For when the law was given, Christ’s work on earth was not yet. However, in that part of Gal.3 until verse 12, Paul was not talking about the work of Christ, but about the Law. He said that it was not of faith. In the positive, he is saying of the law, that it is of works.

Here is where we're in disagreement. I believe Paul was indeed talking about Christ. It is inferred. Hence, I call his words a shortcut, so that he does not have to mention Christ in every sentence.

Paul was saying that the Law did not have faith because Christ had not yet come to become the object of faith for eternal life. Obviously, there was faith under the Law. So Paul was not speaking of generic "faith," but rather, of faith *in Christ.*

After saying what the Law could not do, even though we know it operated through men of faith, Paul says:

Gal 3.13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

And so we know Paul was not speaking of faith under the Law, but rather, of faith in Christ!

Now, see what Paul was saying in verses 9 and 10. In v.9 he said those who are of faith (e.g. Abraham) are blessed.

They were blessed not because they had eternal life already, but only because *faith was necessary to receive atonement for their sins.* Apart from this, no blessing was possible.

But not even Abraham, with his faith, could obtain eternal life. He was an example of one who had faith to demonstrate the importance of looking to a redeemer from sin so that the necessity of forgiveness for sins could be demonstrated. If Abraham looked to God to forgive his sins, then ultimately, after Christ came, Abraham's faith could be placed in the work of Christ so that he would be forgiven forever.

While in v.10 he said those who are of the works of the Law, are under the curse. With that, it is my understanding that even those who among Israel in the OT times, who are of faith, as was Abraham, are blessed as was Abraham. That they are blessed is because of faith and does not have anything to do with the Law, though they are under the Law and are to do the works of the Law.

But that is illogical because it was in *obeying the Law* that Israel was blessed. It was both their faith for forgiveness and their obedience under the Law that brought them blessing. It just didn't bring them eternal life, because the very Law that blessed them through their obedience also cursed them by pointing out that they were transgressors of the Law and ineligible for eternal life.

The point is, people in the OT could have faith, be blessed, and obey the Law, and they were found to be ineligible for eternal life. The Law was based on the inadequately redeemed works of men, whose redemption under the Law was transient and incapable of final redemption.

<<<They could offer animal sacrifices, and thus have their sentence reduced or be acquitted.>>>

Could you point me to the scriptures where we can find that?

It is so ubiquitous is shouldn't require proof! The purpose of animal sacrifices was given. They could avoid death for the meantime, but death would eventually come regardless. Even if they were guilty of some things, they could be let go as if innocent, only by repenting and performing the necessary rituals of atonement.

That is because the law was given to Israel not for the intention that through it, they will obtain eternal life. With regards salvation, it was given to keep them under guard and bring them to Christ, and have faith, by which they might be justified, in like sense that Abraham was justified by faith. Further regarding the law, no matter how you look at the law, no law was given that would give eternal life. All there is but works that they must and must not do to keep God from sending His wrath upon them.

We're generally on the same page here, though perhaps I might word it a little differently. The Law was a temporary system of righteousness by which Israel could obey God and obtain a covenant relationship with Him, as well as receive blessings from Him.

It was never intended to provide eternal life, because it spoke the truth. It showed man that he was a sinner and had to deal with his sins all the time in order to enjoy fellowship with God. By showing that man was a sinner the Law basically rendered man ineligible for eternal life, just as it was after the Fall. The Law simply restated what God had already judged in the Fall.

And so, the Law was never intended to be the conduit of eternal life. It was intended to show the necessity of faith for forgiveness, without which Man cannot enjoy fellowship with God. By showing faith for forgiveness Israel could indeed enjoy a covenant relationship with God. They just couldn't get eternal life until Christ came to bring final forgiveness.

And so, faith was the conduit of forgiveness, without which Man cannot enjoy a relationship with God. And thus, faith became the basis of our receiving eternal life, because now faith can be placed in Christ, the final atonement for our sins.

That's the "faith" that had not been available as long as the Law still stood. As long as the Law stood, Man was found to be a sinner and ineligible for eternal life. He could only have faith for temporary forgiveness, because he had a sin nature, and would always sin again, rendering himself ineligible for eternal life.

I could see our differences in our view. You see two faiths, NT faith and faith before NT, the former as achieving eternal life and the latter as something short of that. I on the other hand see one faith, through which man is saved by God, then and now.
Tong
R1672

Yes, very astute of you. You characterize that right. Now please explain to me why you don't agree with me, that faith in the OT did not yet achieve eternal life?

In my book, faith "came" only when Christ came and became the historic source of eternal life. Until he came, the Law disqualified men from eternal life, including Abraham and Israel under the Law. Their faith was admirable, looking to God for forgiveness. But it could not yet achieve eternal life.

Their faith did, however, achieve that when Christ came. Maybe we're saying the same thing in different ways? Yes, Abraham's faith obtained eternal life. But I would say that his faith did not achieve that until after Christ actually provided his atonement for sin.

You're not actually saying Abraham, by his faith, *had* eternal life before Christ came, are you? If not, then in effect you're agreeing with me, that Abraham's faith fell short of salvation until Christ actually came. His faith looked to God for Grace, but that Grace did not actually become eternal life until after Christ rose from the dead.

Again, when Paul implied that "faith had not yet come," he was referring to *faith in Christ.* Faith obviously preexisted Christ in the Law and in Abraham. So Paul was speaking in abbreviated form of *faith in Christ.*

 

[Randy Kluth]

Can you expound to clarify what you mean by “those who lived by the Law achieved blessings,” ?

Yes, you can read the blessings read by Moses and Israel on Mt. Gerizim. That can be found in the recitation of the blessings and curses of the Law in Deuteronomy.

Blessings came to Israel through obedience to the Law, by the works of obedience under the Law. This did not mean they had no need for atonement. Indeed, the Law was replete with atonement.

No, the Law operated by men of faith. But that was not faith in Christ, without which only blessings were available, and their sins would continue to render them ineligible for eternal life...at least until Christ came, the object of our faith.

The law was a shadow of realities that are in Christ and will be brought by Christ and be revealed through Him and in Him.
Tong
R1674

No question about that. Forgiveness was under the Law, but it was not *final forgiveness.* Redemption was under the Law, but not *final redemption.* Atonement was under the Law, but not *final atonement.* Israel was saved from her enemies many times in the OT Scriptures. But never were they *saved unto eternal life* until Christ came, in whom they could place their faith.

Faith in the OT was designed to get men to look to God with repentant hearts, crying out to Him for mercy. This then became the basis for NT faith in which we are saved by directing our repentance towards Christ, in whom we have final atonement.

Men who in the OT genuinely looked to God in repentance for forgiveness have been saved now that Christ has come. They just didn't *have* eternal salvation until after Christ had accomplished his work of atonement. Their faith was real, but it had to be completed in the work of Christ.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No one denies that there is grace under the law, even before the law. Only that grace is not all the same.

Grace under the Law is not the same as Grace under Christ. Grace under the Law brought genuine atonement for sin, but it had to be repeated because sin was not fully dealt with. Only in Christ is sin fully dealt with such that we need not experience Grace through continued sin offerings.

Faith and grace.....could not achieve faith and grace ....? How is that?

Until Christ came and did his work of atonement, *nobody was yet saved!* Their faith was genuine, but premature. It could not actually achieve eternal salvation until Christ had come and had provided an eternal atonement for sin. Those who had genuine faith in the OT did obtain eternal salvation once Christ had come and provided what they had hoped for in redemption.

The Law.......achieve.....kind of faith? I can’t understand.

It's really a matter of understanding biblical redemption, OT and NT, for yourself, putting it in your own words. Faith was in my view a genuine looking to God for forgiveness of sin. It was something that could not be earned, because *mercy* was needed.

And yet, faith, as much as it would lead to final forgiveness, could not achieve final forgiveness until Christ actually came and did his work of redemption in history. This is not disparaging the faith of OT saints. It's only saying they had to wait until their desire for final forgiveness could take place in history.

As I said in my other reply post to you, the law was given to Israel not for the intention that through it, they will obtain eternal life. With regards salvation, it was given to keep them under guard and bring them to Christ, and have faith, by which they might be justified, in like sense that Abraham was justified by faith. And also, that the law was a shadow of realities that are in Christ and will be brought by Christ and be revealed through Him and in Him.

Yes, and you should understand that this means until Christ actually arrived to justify them they were not yet justified completely by their faith. Yes, they obtained partial justification, because of their cry for mercy. But final mercy could not be shown until Christ had actually come to justify them! Christ did not accomplish this before he actually came!


<<<the Law did not provide the consequent reward of faith....>>>

I am not sure if I get that right. Nonetheless, let me just comment based on what I am getting out of that. I don’t have that view on faith, as getting a reward for it ~ reward of faith. In my view, faith (the kind that is from God) by itself is grace from God. It is simply through which God saves the man or through which man is saved. It is not something that man does to get a reward for doing it.
[/QUOTE]

Well yes, of course. Faith achieves atonement, but a man of faith is at God's mercy to receive that atonement. That's why Paul contrasted works with receiving a free gift. By faith a man depends on God for mercy, and does not expect it as a reward. This kind of faith does have as its "reward" God's forgiveness. He doesn't earn it--he just gets it. This is a semantics issue.

"Works" achieved things under the Old Covenant, and it did obtain atonement that was nevertheless undeserved. This was an example of God's mercy, which a man could obtain by obedience to the ritual but not obtain by virtue. He did not actually earn anything, except what the Law said he could earn--blessings but be disqualified from eternal life.

My view of eternal is that it is a gift of God ~ grace. While it is something to obtain for man, man is not able to because of his sinful nature. As it is, man could only obtain it, by the grace of God, as a gift to him.

Tong
R1675

Completely agree on that. Even though Israel worked under the Law, performing rituals of atonement, at best all they could "earn" were blessings. At the same time they would show they did not deserve final forgiveness by the very fact they had to offer regular offerings for their sins.

This showed they always had sins that were undealt with in a complete way under the Law. And this meant they did not earn eternal life--only temporary blessings, and temporary forgiveness.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Why say such a thing? Aren’t you a Christian?

Be comforted, Paul was a Pharisee.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well I did not mean to say that God no longer judges men in the NT era.

What I meant to say is that, men of the past, before the NT, with faith pleased God, as was with Abraham. That is why I said that the law was not given by God as showing a way for Israel to please Him.

I can't believe you're saying this! The whole reason God explicitly said He was giving the Law to Israel was so that they could be His People and please Him, and live in covenant relationship with Him!

Only through faith will man be able to please God. The only thing that I can think of that it could be said that the Law showed a way for Israel to please God, is that the Law is that which could bring them to faith (that comes from God through Jesus Christ. And that having faith, with it , pleases God who justifies them (justified by faith as Abraham was, through faith).

Tong
R1676

I can agree with this last part. OT faith did not consummate eternal life, but it achieved that only after Christ had come and had provided his work of redemption.

Faith pleased God in the OT because it was an acknowledgement by men that they were sinners and wanted to repent, requesting forgiveness for their sins so that they could reacquire a relationship with God. This faith never obtained final redemption until Christ came to fulfill their ambition to live in a permanent relationship with God, no longer disqualified due to the sin nature of man.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Abraham was justified there and then, not temporarily even. For it is God who justifies.

But that's not what Paul said! He said that as much as Abraham was justified for doing good works, for obeying God, he still could not "boast before God!" What Paul means, in short, is that Abraham's justification did not enable him to measure up to a permanent relationship with God. It was faith for forgiveness, but forgiveness that depended on God for mercy.

And when He justifies one, he is justified. Regarding the eternal life, it is also God who gives it, and that, as a gift. And to whom He gives it and have given it, that one would have it. And I believe Abraham was given the gift of eternal life even then. For even then, God has prepared a city, a heavenly country, for all of the men and women of faith, both before and after Christ.

I believe you're wrong. Abraham did not receive eternal life "even then!" Eternal Life requires the historic work of Jesus, to atone from sin. Without this work, nobody had eternal life.

Was Abraham justified as righteous? Yes, he was indeed a righteous man, and he did obtain a measure of justification. He looked to God for forgiveness, and God gave it to him. But final forgiveness had to await the coming work of Christ. Until then, Abraham's justification was just a temporary justification. It was not yet *Salvation!*

That is not to say that God ignores the work of Jesus Christ regarding that. But that with God, there really is no past and future. Does God wait for the work of Christ before He could give Abraham eternal life? I don’t believe so that is the case with God.

Tong
R1679

That's too theoretical for me. Yes, God is the Beginning and the End, and all that. But it did require Christ's work in history to redeem men from sin eternally. God Himself made it a necessary act *in history.* You can't get around that!

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
“Works of the law” refers to the do’s and don’ts of the written code. They are works for Israel to do, which if kept, they will live by them, as no curse and judgment according to the law will fall upon them. It bounds all the children of Israel, both those who have or have not faith, even the stranger within their gates, who sojourns with them or are their servants, native born or not who are circumcised.

I already explained in one of my response post, that the matter of having or not having faith has nothing to do with what Paul is saying about the law, that it is not of faith. He is by that, telling what the law is not. He is by that making a contrast between the law that has come to the Jews and the faith that has come to the Christians in Galatia. That the former is not of faith and the latter needless to say, is. He did not say “the law is not of faith”, to make a contrast between Israel (as depending on obedience to the Law for justification) and the Christian (as depending on faith). He is contrasting law and faith, not people nor about people.

I don't think we can separate the people who were under the Law, Israel, from the system of Law itself. So they operated by faith under the Law at times, and sometimes did not. But even when they served the Law by faith, "faith had not yet come."

Well, I think otherwise. We can look at the Law and at faith, separate from people, and make comparison. They can be compared in many regards, such as in this case, to justification. Other comparison for example could be with regards to receiving the Holy Spirit.

What that meant was that the object of faith for eternal life had not yet come. That is what I mean by saying that Paul used "shortcuts" in his theological expressions. He had to abbreviate things or he would become too long-winded. He expected us to recognize that he meant Christ was the object of our faith for eternal life.

So Paul was not saying that Israel didn't operate by faith under the Law. He was only saying that the faith that results in eternal life had not yet come, and did not operate that way under the Law, because Christ had not yet come.

The way the Law operated also had grace, just like NT Grace, the difference being, once again, that NT grace provided for eternal life, and OT grace did not. OT grace brought temporary forgiveness of sins, until the next sin was committed. So sin was never completely done away with, in terms of redemption. Final redemption had not yet come.

But the Law did enable Israel to experience blessings that they did not deserve. They were able to avail themselves of grace by which their sins were pardoned, and they could therefore present their obedience with the reward of blessing. They could avoid some of the curses of their failures.

This kind of limited grace still did not achieve for them eternal life. For that Christ had to come and do a perfect work, a divine work, to forgive their sins for all time on behalf of God and His Son, who completely suffered all of their sins.

The limited grace under the Law, therefore, was not the faith that was to come, which would provide for eternal pardon and eternal life. The Law was not of faith, because even though it achieved righteousness, and some blessing, it still could not achieve eternal life. They earned a reward for their obedience, but their obedience was not perfect enough to replace what only Christ could do.

What Paul was saying was that the faith Christians were to have in Christ had not yet come until Christ actually performed his task of eternally redeeming us. That "faith" had not yet come while the Law was still in effect.

The Law had faith, and it produced righteousness, through grace, achieving a limited reward. But the reward Christ brought had not yet come, and that "faith" had not yet come. The things that men could "earn" under the Law was limited, and could never produce eternal life. That had to come when "faith" came.

When Paul talks about us not "earning" Salvation, he is not talking about earning blessings alone. He is talking about earning eternal life.

So it requires faith to obtain grace for something we don't deserve. We do good works, but they never earn for us eternal life, because our sins need to be forgiven and disposed of. Apart from Christ, works under the Law could achieve both righteousness and blessings. But they could not achieve eternal life, because grace needed to cover man's sins completely, and not just for the moment. Christ had to do this by extending his spiritual life as a gift to us.

Abraham exercised faith in order to obtain grace, just as later Israel would obtain grace under the Law. That's because grace only comes by faith, it being that forgiveness is not something that can be earned. And it is able to obtain eternal life once Christ has come and accomplished his work of final redemption.

Paul used "faith" as the means of grace, both obtaining pardon for sin during the era of Law, and finally achieving eternal redemption after Christ came. So "faith" was all important before the Law, during the Law, and in the Christian era.

As such, the Law was not of faith because it only obtained limited pardon, and in fact, disqualified Israel for eternal life. The faith by which they obeyed the Law at the same time prevented them from obtaining final grace. Thus, "faith had not yet come."

I think I have addressed all that which you say here in my recent reply posts to you where you mentioned those which you say here. But let me here go over some points.

<<<What that meant was that the object of faith for eternal life had not yet come.>>>

The object of faith for eternal is the same for all time, that is, God. It is not as though it changed or that it is different with Jesus Christ. Notice,

Jesus said “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me.”(John 12:44).

Paul said concerning imputed righteousness to Abraham, “It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead (Romans 4:24).”

<<<So Paul was not saying that Israel didn't operate by faith under the Law.>>>

Yes, he was not.

<<<The way the Law operated also had grace, ..>>>

Yes, there is definitely grace in the Law. Only not the same grace as that of faith.

<<<The Law was not of faith, because even though it achieved righteousness, and some blessing, it still could not achieve eternal life.>>>

With my view, this is how ot goes. They could not have the gift of eternal life because the Law is not of faith.

<<<He is talking about earning eternal life.>>>

Eternal life is not something that is earned as though one could work for it, but is a gift of God.

<<<Abraham exercised faith in order to obtain grace, just as later Israel would obtain grace under the Law. >>>

Yes. But I’d like to share here about how faith comes.

Faith has come to Abraham. That is, grace had come to him. Nothing had brought him that grace, but that God had chosen to give him that. He would not have faith if God had not sent His word to him. That is how one have this faith that comes from God. And the faith that Paul was referring to in Gal.3:23 comes in like manner, sending His word, first to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. But in these last days as so it was written by the writer of Hebrews, He sent not His word as He had done in days of old, but send The Word Himself, coming in the flesh, in the person of the Son, Jesus Christ, that the elect, Jews and Gentiles, might have faith in Him, as it was then with Abraham.

Tong
R1680

 

[Tong2020]

There is no <<former covenant>> of God's ever <replaced with a new covenant whose mediator is Jesus Christ>. The New Covenant whose Mediator is Jesus Christ is God's Eternal and therefore only Covenant ever. GOD HAS HAD NO 'Old Covenant' or any covenant that could get old, till this day. <The old covenant> is just another futile attempt by Christians to justify themselves in their hatred of the Seventh Day Sabbath OF THE LORD GOD.

That is certainly what I read in scriptures. For Even Jesus Christ Himself, speak of the new covenant. And if new, then there was an old.

You legalist theologians demanding Law for the Sabbath under the New Covenant,
first go look for that Law UNDER THE NEW COVENANT IN THE OT, CONFIRMED, IN THE NT, No.1.

Next: Open your eyes to the ABSENSE of any New Covenant Law which should cancel the Fourth Commandment, No.2.

Then look for and BRING the New Covenant Law that introduces "another day thereafter" -- "after" or other than "the Seventh Day GOD, CONCERNING SPAKE, God the day The Seventh Day from all His Works Rested", No.3.

AND BRING THE LAW'S COMMAND where God in the New Covenant command the First Day of the week should be remembered and kept holy, No.4.

You might have mistaken me for somebody else.

Tong
R1681

 

[mailmandan]

You talking to you as far as I am concerned, smug judge.

Smug judge describes you. (Colossians 2:16-17)

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Perhaps, but that was not the point of the scriptures I quoted. The point is that the law are of works, not of faith. Do you not see that in the passage in Romans 9:31-32?

As I've been saying, these are what I'm calling "shortcuts," or abbreviated statements. What does the Law being of "works" mean? It means the Law required works that brought blessings by faith, but could not completely remove sin, thus denying a person faith in a final atonement.

"Works" means works that retain residual guilt from sin--enough to condemn a man to death, with no hope of resurrection. It does not mean that doing "works" are bad, or that the works of the Law didn't achieve anything. They simply couldn't achieve eternal life, which comes only when Christ becomes the object of our faith.

The Law had good works, but it didn't have faith in Christ until he actually came. So the works of the Law failed to achieve eternal life.

But faith in Christ does obtain eternal life. The Law is works that do not achieve eternal life. Faith is Christian faith that does obtain eternal life. There was faith in the Law, but it did not achieve eternal life because it was based on the works of men *before Christ.*

Paul was *not* saying there is no faith in the Law. Rather, he was saying there was no faith that leads to eternal life in the Law. "Faith" is therefore a short cut for "faith for eternal life."

Before I comment on the points you make there, let me just ask you a few questions with regards Romans 9:31-32.

What do you say was Paul saying that Israel was pursuing?
What is the reason why Israel has not attained what they were pursuing?
Why was it that the Gentiles, while even not pursuing what Israel was pursuing, had attained it?
What was Israel doing in the pursuit of it?

A deeper question, though this is not found in the passage, would be, how is it (to your knowledge of scriptures) that Israel was pursuing it as Paul say they do?

<<<What does the Law being of "works" mean? It means the Law required works that brought blessings by faith, but could not completely remove sin, thus denying a person faith in a final atonement.>>>

It means that the Law is made up of actual works or practical deeds required of Israel to perform, keep, observe, live by, governed by~ their covenant obligations.

The Law denied nothing to Israel. To the contrary it provided what is good for them, according to the wisdom and grace of God.

<<<"Works" means works that retain residual guilt from sin...>>>

Works refer to the do’s and don’ts contained in the Law. Works therein falls in various concerns in their life, one of which is that of sin. There is sacrifices to be made to atone for their sins as a people as well as individuals. Now, the sacrificial works for atonement of sin, if done, provides for the forgiveness of sin. However, it was evident that the Law could not with those same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect, who still have consciousness of sin or felt guilty for their sins, for those sacrifices reminded them of their sins year after year.

<<<The Law is works that do not achieve eternal life.>>>

Finally. Law is works ~ not of faith.

<<<Paul was *not* saying there is no faith in the Law.>>>

Yes. What Paul is saying is that the law is not of faith. In the positive then, the law is of works.

Tong
R1682

 

[Brakelite]

So you have no specific command in the New Testament for Gentiles to keep the sabbath? Thought so.

The Sabbath & Sunday

For what purpose? For evangelism and not sabbath worship. Acts 13:43 "Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God."

Acts 14:1 "In Iconium they entered the synagogue of the Jews together, and spoke in such a manner that a large number of people believed, both of Jews and of Greeks."

Acts 17:4 "And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.

Acts 18:4 "And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks."

The sabbath doesn't offend me. I'm only offended when misguided teachers of the law turn sabbath keeping into a legalistic prescription for believers in the New Testament. So what are the requirements to keep the sabbath for New Testament believers according to you? What are the consequences for failing to do so according to you?

I've said yes and have done many things that God has asked me to do. Now where does God specifically command me and the entire body of Christ to keep the sabbath day in the New Testament?

It's a straw man. The early church gathered on Sunday. (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) You are stuck in the old covenant. So why are you so offended by Sunday worship? In LEVITICUS 23:5-11, Look at verse 11: "And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord for you to be accepted; on the day after the sabbath the priest shall wave it." The day after the Sabbath is Sunday.

Read on specifically looking at Leviticus 23:15 - "'You shall also count for yourselves from the day after the sabbath, from the day when you brought in the sheaf of the wave offering; there shall be seven complete sabbaths. You shall count fifty days to the DAY AFTER THE SEVENTH SABBATH; then you shall present a new grain offering to the Lord.'" This is the Feast of Pentecost. It was one of the compulsory feasts of Israel.

Note on the day of Pentecost, a Sunday God's people were commanded to worship. God says, "On this same day you shall make a proclamation as well; you are to have a holy convocation. You shall do no laborious work. It is to be perpetual statute in all your dwelling places throughout your generations." (Leviticus 23:2)

Two points, which make the rest of your post above invalid.
Frist, the early church did continue to observe the 7th day Sabbath. Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 were not sacred Sunday meetings. The Acts one was what we would now call Saturday night. It was but a continuation of the Sabbath meetings held earlier, and continued to midnight. Paul walked several hundred Kls the next day. 1 Cor. 16:2 simply says, on the first day of the week, (a normal working day) lay aside some offerings for the church in Jerusalem which I shall collect when I come next. That's it.
Second point. The Ceremonial Sabbath of Pentecost and the wave sheaf after Passover had nothing whatsoever to do with Sunday, the first day of the week. You completely misunderstand the timing and intent of the feasts and annual Sabbaths.
Feast of Unleavened Bread
TEXTS: Exodus 12:15-20; M5-9; Leviticus 23:6-8; Numbers 28:17-25; Deuteronomy 16:8.
TIME: Fifteenth to twenty-first of Abib. (These could be on any day of the week)>
OFFERINGS: For burnt offering, daily, two bullocks, one ram, seven lambs, with appropriate meal offerings; and one kid for a sin offering.
CEREMONIAL SABBATH: On the first day and the seventh day shall be holy convocations. No servile work may be done. That first day mentioned above again could be any day... It's the first day of a period of 7 days.

Ceremony of the Wave Sheaf
TEXT: Leviticus 23:10-14.
TIME: Sixteenth of Abib, the second day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
OFFERINGS: Wave sheaf or omer of barley, waved before the Lord; yearling lamb and its appropriate meal offering. “Ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn,' nor green ears, until the selfsame day that you have brought an offering unto your God.” Leviticus 23:14.
Pentecost
TEXTS: Leviticus 23:15-21; Numbers 28:26-31; Deuteronomy 16:9-11.
TIME: Fifty days from the wave sheaf. OFFERINGS: Two loaves to be waved; and- For the day, two bullocks, one ram, seven lambs, for a burnt offering, with appropriate meal offerings; one kid for a sin offering. Numbers 28:26-30. 2. For the bread, one bullock, two rams, seven lambs, for a burnt offering, with appropriate meal offering; one kid for a sin offering; two lambs for a peace offering. Leviticus 23:15-21.
CEREMONIAL SABBATH: On this day shall be a holy convocation. No servile work may be done.

Here are a few passages that destroys the teaching the men of the Reformation gave you:

Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.

But we ask you, brothers, to acknowledge those who work diligently among you, who preside over you in the Lord and give you instruction.

Keep watch over yourselves and the entire flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.

Destroys? Hardly. God is not stupid. He knew, and He told us through Paul saying, after I'm gone grievous wolves shall enter the flock etc. God warned us of these people and in no way expects His people to obey grievous wolves.

Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

It would be utterly foolish to obey blindly those who no longer are walking in the faith. That is why I asked you before, which you preferred not to answer, "who's responsible for your eternal destiny? You, or the church you believe is infallible? "

 

[mailmandan]

Paul saying, after I'm gone grievous wolves shall enter the flock etc. God warned us of these people and in no way expects His people to obey grievous wolves.

Your points remain pointless and grievous wolves certainly have entered and pervert the gospel by teaching salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works. I've ran across multiple such wolves on various Christian forum sites.

It would be utterly foolish to obey blindly those who no longer are walking in the faith. That is why I asked you before, which you preferred not to answer, "who's responsible for your eternal destiny? You, or the church you believe is infallible?

Everyone is responsible for their own eternal destiny. Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. We must choose to believe the gospel, but unfortunately, many people who are mixed up in false religions and cults (nominal/pseudo Christians) instead believe a "different" gospel. (Galatians 1:6-9)

 

[Marymog]

I think the Council of Jerusalem was wise, but not the word of God. It was recorded in the Scriptures, but the Scriptures do not say they were God-ordained rules.

Soooo your theory is that when they concluded at the council that “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit” the Apostles lied? Their binding decision upon all Christians was a lie?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well, I think otherwise. We can look at the Law and at faith, separate from people, and make comparison. They can be compared in many regards, such as in this case, to justification. Other comparison for example could be with regards to receiving the Holy Spirit.

You said:
“Works of the law” refers to the do’s and don’ts of the written code. They are works for Israel to do, which if kept, they will live by them, as no curse and judgment according to the law will fall upon them. It bounds all the children of Israel, both those who have or have not faith, even the stranger within their gates, who sojourns with them or are their servants, native born or not who are circumcised.
I already explained in one of my response post, that the matter of having or not having faith has nothing to do with what Paul is saying about the law, that it is not of faith. He is by that, telling what the law is not. He is by that making a contrast between the law that has come to the Jews and the faith that has come to the Christians in Galatia. That the former is not of faith and the latter needless to say, is. He did not say “the law is not of faith”, to make a contrast between Israel (as depending on obedience to the Law for justification) and the Christian (as depending on faith). He is contrasting law and faith, not people nor about people."

Here's what wrong with that statement. When Paul said the Law is not of faith, you're right--he is not describing whether people have faith or not. Rather, he's saying something about the effect of the Law in the end. He is saying that the Law, functioning properly, could not result in faith for Salvation.

So he was contrasting the faith of Israel, which fell short of Salvation, with the faith of Christians, whose faith does result in Salvation. At least, this is how I view these words of Paul.

We are not comparing people *today* who have faith or don't have faith, who have Salvation or not. Rather, we are comparing faith under the Law with the "faith" that Paul was talking about, which had not yet come, while the Law was still in effect.

The Law prohibited Salvation from happening yet. Once Christ had come and had done his work of redemption, "faith had come." That is, Paul was speaking of "Saving Faith," or "Faith that Saves."

I think I have addressed all that which you say here in my recent reply posts to you where you mentioned those which you say here. But let me here go over some points.

<<<What that meant was that the object of faith for eternal life had not yet come.>>>

The object of faith for eternal is the same for all time, that is, God. It is not as though it changed or that it is different with Jesus Christ.

That God is the source of all covenants is not in dispute. What I would argue with is the idea that God provided the same Salvation under the OT as under the NT. I don't believe that's true.

On the contrary, Paul said the purpose of the Law was to expose sin, and to thereby disqualify Israel and everybody from Eternal Life. The Law was thus a contradiction in terms. At the same time it produced hope in Eternal Salvation, it disqualified those who practiced it from having it.

Notice,
Jesus said “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me.”(John 12:44).

Paul said concerning imputed righteousness to Abraham, “It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead (Romans 4:24).”

People under the Old Covenant were led in a system that was intended to ultimately bring Eternal Life. But until Christ came and did his work, the Law prohibited Israel from actually having it.

What was imputed to Abraham was different from what is imputed to us in the NT. In both cases, OT and NT, righteousness is imputed to us. But righteousness in the OT was not yet allowed to be viewed as "eternal righteousness," or "Salvation."

<<<The way the Law operated also had grace, ..>>>
Yes, there is definitely grace in the Law. Only not the same grace as that of faith.

I don't understand how Grace can be separated from Faith? What I do, rather than separate Grace and Faith, is separate OT Grace from NT Grace, and OT Faith from NT Faith.

I agree that they both involve the same God. But what distinguishes and partitions them is the necessity of the historical act of Christ's atoning death. Until that happened, Grace and Faith in the OT had to be separated from Grace and Faith in the NT.

<<<The Law was not of faith, because even though it achieved righteousness, and some blessing, it still could not achieve eternal life.>>>
With my view, this is how ot goes. They could not have the gift of eternal life because the Law is not of faith.
[/QUOTE]

I know. We both agree that the Law was not of NT Faith, and so could not provide the gift of Eternal Life. But you think that because Faith existed apart from the Law in the OT that it could provide Eternal Life. I don't believe that's true.

1st of all, Faith in the OT cannot be distinguished from the Law. Faith can only be distinguished from that aspect of the Law that concerned what we earn. Hence, Paul depicted Faith in the OT and in the NT as something we cannot earn.

He specifically associated Faith with seeking forgiveness, which by definition is something we cannot earn. We must rely on the forgiver to receive forgiveness.

We cannot demand it. We cannot therefore earn it. We need the cooperation of the forgiver.

So yes, Faith can in some respects be distinguished from the Law, describing what we cannot earn from what we can earn. But the same was true under the Law, inasmuch as some things under the Law could be earned, and other things could not be earned. Forgiveness under the Law still required the consent of the forgiver, even if performing the rituals earned blessings for doing so.

But the Law represented the operating system in that entire era, governing even all those who had Faith, as well. It governed those who lived before the Law, as well, including Abraham. So the Law determined the condition of Abraham, as well, even though he preexisted the Law.

So as much as Israel operated by Faith under the Law, they still had to rely on their Faith for forgiveness, through the rituals of atonement under the Law. They could only receive forgiveness from the forgiver, no matter how much they complied with the Law and "earned" blessings. They could not "earn" forgiveness. They could only do the work that leads to that, and they would still have to rely on the forgiver to forgive them. They had to have Faith!

In this sense, you cannot distinguish Faith from the Law. Even Abraham comes under its jurisdiction, because the Law declared the condition of all men in that era. They did not earn the right to Salvation. Indeed, by Faith they could obtain forgiveness from God, but it could not be earned under the Law, nor under any OT system.

Faith was fully dependent on God for forgiveness. And in the OT, the Law proved that all men did not qualify for Eternal Life even if by their Faith they obtained forgiveness from God. Until Christ came and accomplished his atoning work, Eternal Life could not yet be had--not even by Faith.

Eternal life is not something that is earned as though one could work for it, but is a gift of God.

Agreed.

<<<Abraham exercised faith in order to obtain grace, just as later Israel would obtain grace under the Law. >>>
Yes. But I’d like to share here about how faith comes.
Faith has come to Abraham. That is, grace had come to him. Nothing had brought him that grace, but that God had chosen to give him that. He would not have faith if God had not sent His word to him. That is how one have this faith that comes from God. And the faith that Paul was referring to in Gal.3:23 comes in like manner, sending His word, first to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. But in these last days as so it was written by the writer of Hebrews, He sent not His word as He had done in days of old, but send The Word Himself, coming in the flesh, in the person of the Son, Jesus Christ, that the elect, Jews and Gentiles, might have faith in Him, as it was then with Abraham.

Tong
R1680

We agree on that.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

In my book, faith "came" only when Christ came and became the historic source of eternal life. Until he came, the Law disqualified men from eternal life, including Abraham and Israel under the Law. Their faith was admirable, looking to God for forgiveness. But it could not yet achieve eternal life.

You obviously do not believe faith is the gift of God's grace, meaning, not saved not graced no faith -- no 'saving faith'. Faith achieves nothing; grace gives faith, free. I.o.w. you cannot be a Protestant.; you must be a Roman Catholic.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Men who in the OT genuinely looked to God in repentance for forgiveness have been saved now that Christ has come. They just didn't *have* eternal salvation until after Christ had accomplished his work of atonement. Their faith was real, but it had to be completed in the work of Christ.

What you are saying is, that Christ would be triumphant was not sure. He might have failed and kaplaks, all intermediate or conditionally saved, fell down into eternal torment.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

And if new, then there was an old.

And if ETERNAL, it's eternally NEW, then there never could have been an old.
What is so difficult, Israel, man, Adam, New Testament era believers, there is NO ONE who did not covenant with God just to break his oath at the first trial. The old covenant of the OT AND the NT is the covenant of man, not God's. God's Covenant is eternally New; man's is ever old, flopped and rot.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

You might have mistaken me for somebody else.

Sorry. The 'old covenant' idea is common to divers generic groupings.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Smug judge describes you. (Colossians 2:16-17)

O I love this sort of best attempt at argument; it gives me such a good, satisfied - SMUG - feel.