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

[CadyandZoe]

Thank you CadyandZoe. That is an interesting interpretation. One that I have never heard before. You have put a lot of study into this. Or did someone else teach you this?

How does your interpretation (or the interpretation you were taught by some other man) line up with Jesus other statements in the Bread of Life Discourse: "whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b whoever eats this bread will live forever.” Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. How do you CadyandZoe eat His flesh and drink His blood like He commanded you to do?

Good question Mary,
In order to answer this question I need to make three observations. First, the passage you quote was spoken in a different context than the last supper. Unlike the occasion of the Passover, where Jesus spoke metaphorically about his body and blood, the Lord makes another reference to his body and blood after he had miraculously fed five thousand people (perhaps more depending on how crowds are typically counted.) And here, Jesus is using a different metaphor to make an entirely different point.

The next day, the crowds followed Jesus to the other side of the lake where they were hoping that Jesus would feed them again. To this he answers,

John 6:26-27 Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.”

Who wouldn't want someone to deliver bread to the door step every day? These folks were hoping that Jesus would continue to feed them bread, just as Moses did. Bread is sustenance and maintains life and getting bread is hard work. What a blessing it would be if Jesus could lighten the work load.

Even so, those who eat the bread that perishes will eventually get hungry again and they will die eventually anyway. In order to live forever, in order to receive eternal life one must find a source of another kind of food -- another kind of "bread", if you will. Jesus asserts that he has a source for this particular "bread", one that will sustain a person's life forever. Jesus hasn't yet told the crowds what this bread is, at this point all he has said is that he will give it to anyone who works for it.

Secondly, during his conversation with the crowds, they reminded Jesus that Moses fed the people with Mana. The crowds are pressing the issue. If Jesus is greater than Moses, and Moses was able to feed bread to the people, then why not Jesus? And since the crowds mentioned the mana, Jesus decides to employ the mana in his argument to make the point again. Moses gave the people the mana that perishes. If Jesus were to feed the people mana (or any other kind of bread), they would eventually perish. They need a different kind of "mana" that doesn't perish, such that when they eat that "mana" they will live forever.

John 6:32-34 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”

The Lord has already made several audacious claims about himself and chief among these is his claim that the Father, God, has given him the authority to grant eternal life to whomever he wishes. He claims that God has give him the ability to give to someone a form of life-sustaining bread by which if one were to eat it, one would live forever. In this context, he seems to suggest that eating his body and drinking his blood is the spiritual food that will sustain a person forever. For those who first heard this statement, this was an absurd statement seeming to recommend cannibalism. Zoe says it's a waste of time for me to explain that Jesus didn't mean this literally. I told her that some people actually believe it. Nonetheless, the crowds, living at the time knew it to be an absurd statement.

Why would Jesus employ an absurdity to make his point? His purpose is to argue that his people need to change their way of thinking with regard to what sustains their life. Does bread sustain life? Yes, temporarily. But the lesson of the mana is that man can not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. And by "word" he means "promise." People need more than food; they need hope, and meaning, and love also. Jesus isn't speaking literally when he talks about ingesting him; he means that one must ingest his teaching and follow him in order to obtain the "bread" that sustains life forever.

Finally, Jesus eventually says what the bread IS.

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Eating the actual body and blood of Jesus profits nothing. The flesh profits nothing. It is the Spirit that gives life and it is the Spirit that Jesus will give his disciples at Pentecost.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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?

Israel was and is in pursuit of eternal salvation. They were literally inundated under the Law by the hope of returning to the Tree of Life. They were promised the "Jewish Hope," namely a time when their nation would finally be delivered from the oppression of opposing nations, never to be judged again.

This Hope could not be found under standards of the Law, which I insist was given both to give Israel hope through its temporary atonements, and also discourage them from thinking they could obtain eternal life by their own efforts under the Law. As much as it was good for them to obey the Law, they were discouraged from thinking that it was by that system that eternal life would come. Rather, it would come through Messianic deliverance, which we know now was the case.

<<<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.

This is false, and where you go wrong. The Law was an absolute obstacle to Israel achieving eternal life, which was indeed their goal. Their goal was ineed to obtain the eternal salvation of national Israel. They simply failed to accept that they could not achieve this themselves, by the Law.

It was not saying that they achieved *nothing* under the Law. They could and did achieve a lot! But they absolutely could not achieve their goal of obtaining eternal life and eternal salvation for the nation. They had to depend on Messiah to do this work of atonement for them.

<<<"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.

That was my point, yes. Works under the Law pleased God and obtained the benefit of blessings, the reward of obedience. But Israel absolutely was prohibited from obtaining eternal life under the Law. Israel's national salvation could *not* be had by the Law! The Law, together with its regular animal sacrifices, were a regular reminder that Israel retained the guilt of the Sin Nature, and therefore could not obtain their eternal hope until Christ actually came and dealt with our Sin Nature for all time.

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

Finally. Law is works ~ not of faith.

You keep saying this, but Faith was present under the Law. Paul is speaking of "Faith that Saves for Eternal Life." That particular kind of Faith had not yet come. The Law was not of that particular kind of "Faith." It had faith for temporary forgiveness, temporal blessings, and could obtain a regular display of Grace in covenant with God. But the "Faith" we're talking about is "faith in Christ," which is more than what Faith could have under the system of Law, or even at any time during the OT era.

<<<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

That is *not* the distinction Paul is saying. He is using an abbreviated form of "Faith in Christ for Eternal Life," as opposed to Faith that does not achieve Israel's ultimate objectives. Paul assumes his listeners have already learned that much from him. But in our day, we need to review these things. We're 2000 years removed from Paul's time!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

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.

Your accusations are false. God knows, and you know. <<I've ran across multiple such wolves>>-- YOU ARE SUCH WOLVE!

 

[Randy Kluth]

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?

No, of course they didn't lie about this. The Holy Spirit sanctioned a decision *they made.* God did not make the decision for them. Are you reading into the Bible that the Holy Spirit dictated the findings of this Council? I don't see that there.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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.

I'm a Protestant brother--one who has studied for himself, in consultation with *many* teachers of the word of God, in history, in Bible School, on the internet, etc. Faith is the basis for obtaining a certain kind of Grace. Faith in the OT obtained Grace, but not the kind of Grace that delivers Eternal Life.

Let me put this as clearly as I can. Faith in the OT obtained Grace through repentance. But it could not obtain eternal life.

Without Faith nobody in the OT era could please God. But even those who had Faith, who pleased God, who pleaded for and obtained the forgiveness of sin, could not obtain eternal pardon.

That had to await Faith in the NT, in which our Faith is now placed in Christ as its object. Without Christ, and his eternal pardon, Faith in the OT could not yet obtain this value.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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.

Not at all. It was certain, in advance, that God would provide eternal pardon for those who had the right kind of faith in the OT era. Only God, however, decides who had that kind of faith.

My point is, until Christ actually came to become the object of our faith, OT faith could not yet obtain eternal pardon. It could only obtain temporary pardon until God completed what their faith hoped for in the atonement of Christ.

 

[marks]

But Israel absolutely was prohibited from obtaining eternal life under the Law. Israel's national salvation could *not* be had by the Law! The Law, together with its regular animal sacrifices, were a regular reminder that Israel retained the guilt of the Sin

Very well put!

Much love!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

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)

<<We must choose to believe the gospel>>. Thanks, it tells me everything about <<people who are mixed up in false religions and cults (nominal/pseudo Christians) instead believe a "different" gospel>>. EVERYTHING.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I must say, this thread holds the record for cumbersome laboured tormenting lengthy bulky lofty super intelligence incomprehensibility.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Several years after the death of Christ Paul taught that Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Paul also told us to examine ourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup further saying for all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. According to the interpretation that you were taught eating/drinking his body/blood is symbolic. How can we eat/drink a symbol in an unworthy manner and how does not discerning a symbol bring judgment against us???

I decided to employ two posts to answer your questions. In my experience, this passage is misunderstood by many, thinking that one must take stock of unconfessed sins before eating the communion. In this view, to eat the communion before confessing all known sins, one is eating the communion in an unworthy manner. But this is NOT what Paul meant.

In order to understand the issue, we need to review a couple of verses and understand the significance of eating the Passover meal.

Exodus 12:26-28
And when your children say to you, ‘What does this rite mean to you?’ you shall say, ‘It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord who passed over the houses of the sons of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, but spared our homes.’” And the people bowed low and worshiped.

During the Passover meal, the children are supposed to ask their father what the Passover sacrifice means to them. Why is it significant. Why celebrate it every year? Why does EVERY household celebrate it? The Passover meal, though symbolic foods, tells the story of the Exodus, when God rescued his people from slavery, but only after the angel of death visited the house of every first born son of the Egyptians. Once in awhile we experience an event that transcends the "everyday" life of a single individual. Some events are so momentous, and the effects are so wide spread, that the experience itself forms the genesis of a common bond between those who lived through it. Some people remember Peral Harbor; others remember 911, while others remember the assassination of JFK. And everyone remembers where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news. These events are universal, important, significant experiences that each person shares in common. To memorialize them in official ways is to remember what we all share in common.

The Passover event is such a unifying and universal event that unites ALL Jews, even those who do not believe in God. It was THAT significant. For Christians, the cross is such an event; an event that transcends all history and culture and the one thing that all Christians share in common. To memorialize that event is to celebrate what we all have in common, what unites us.

1 Corinthians 11:17-22
But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

Eating the communion supper was intended to celebrate the most significant and transcendental event mankind has ever experienced. And those who eat the meal are supposed to be united by an event that they all share in common. To eat the communion in an unworthy manner, is to eat the supper in a way that minimizes or berates the event of the cross. If some are hungry while overs are gorged with food, then they are not acting like a people who share a significant event in common. A man with much food, sitting next to a man with no food is a contradiction of the spirit behind the memorial celebration. If these men truly have something in common, then the man with much food should share with the man who has none.

 

[Jim B]

Very nice distinction, BarneyFife. You make a very cogent argument for the difference between God's Law (the Ten Commandments) and Moses law of ordinances. This does not mean that by keeping the 10 commandments we can be saved. This is where some get confused, suggesting that one like yourself is placing people under the law. Your argument does not reinstitute the covenant wherein we are saved by keeping the Law. Instead, by following the Ten Commandments we are more pleasing to God, but never are we justified by the Commandments.

BTW, the New Testament has a variety of such ordinances, too. Women wearing bonnets in church, men not having long hair, etc. These are New Testament laws that Christians should not follow according to the letter (we should follow their the spirit of such laws and remain modest in our dress).

This is a great post! I can't tell you how many times I have debated the issue of women covering their heads in church (for example); that Paul did not create a new law, one similar to the OT laws. People use Paul's written instructions to create a hard-and-fast rule instead of being led by the Holy Spirit.

And that is just one example of people not understanding the difference between the Covenants.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Very well put!

Much love!

Thank you. A brother seemed resistant to admitting this obvious truth. I needed confirmation that the world was not flat! Thanks much!

 

[marks]

Thank you. A brother seemed resistant to admitting this obvious truth. I needed confirmation that the world was not flat! Thanks much!

The Law can only condemn. That's why it is for the ungodly. We have no condemnation. We are not governed by the Law. We are governed by Jesus in our hearts. He does not condemn us. He changes us. The Law cannot make one righteous. Jesus can.

Yes, it seems many think that the Law can make them righteous, or declares them righteous, it does not. It only condemns.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Thank you. A brother seemed resistant to admitting this obvious truth. I needed confirmation that the world was not flat! Thanks much!

That is something I really love about a good forum! Smart people who know their Bible who have different ideas from mine, this is an excellent venue to test my views, and to become better at articulating them.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

"Every day is the Sabbath." Those still on milk cannot understand this teaching. Just as Jesus revealed the truth behind the Ten Commandments ('do not be angry' in addition to "Thou shalt not kill"), Paul revealed the truth behind the forth Commandment ("every day is the Sabbath"). Since the end of the 6th day of creation, God's rest had begun. We remain in the "rest" today. But, most people are unaware of it. When Jesus advised us not to care about tomorrow (don't worry about having enough money for your retirement), He was reminding us that we can "rest" from our labors because God will provide all of our needs (as He provides for the "birds of the air"). We have entered God's "rest", but we act as if we are still laboring to provide for ourselves. This is evidence of a lack of faith on all our parts. Instead, many Christians follow the non-Biblical law 'god helps those who help themselves': work for money and save for your future; no need for God, even non-Christians follow that law.

Sorry, can't look at it completely this way. Some parts I can agree with. Paul said "one person considers all days the same." Perhaps that's what you mean by "every day is a Sabbath?"

The reality is, not every day is a Sabbath, because Sabbath no longer applies, and is merely a Jewish custom in the NT era. It is not, according to Christianity, a Jewish law any longer.

Neither is the Sabbath that God entered into after Creation the same rest we enter into in our day. God rested after creating the universe. We didn't create the universe with Him so we don't need His rest!

But Hebrews does talk about a future Rest--one that has nothing to do with God's Sabbath rest after Creation. We will enter a rest of our own, following the termination of the trouble on this planet having to do with sin. I believe that when the Millennial Reign of Christ begins, this is when the world will experience a kind of rest from all the sin problems that have characterized the present age. There will still be sin, but some rest will take place, I believe.

As far as NT Sabbath observance, it doesn't exist. In the NT Christ fulfilled the total Law. As a Covenant, the Law no longer exists. It existed in preparation for Christ's eternal atonement. Now that we have Christ, we trust in that work of atonement, and no longer work in order to wait for that atonement.

Sabbath under the Law was just something Israel had to do to show they were waiting for Christ's atonement, for final atonement. As long as Christ had not yet provided final atonement, Israel had to show their dependence upon that historic event by showing that they were not there yet. They had to show that by taking periodic rests from their work, indicating their work would never be enough to obtain eternal atonement. That had to come from Christ himself.

I agree that we are told by Christ not to worry about our provisions. Our main concern is to focus on his will. We certainly still have to work jobs, etc. But we're not to go it alone, and can now trust in a partnership with Christ. When we walk with him, we have all we need. And we can indeed rest in that fact.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is something I really love about a good forum! Smart people who know their Bible who have different ideas from mine, this is an excellent venue to test my views, and to become better at articulating them.

Much love!

Exactly how I use forums too! Most of the time I come across like a know it all. But that's because I grew up in a teacher's family. I'm not a teacher myself, but I have that gift naturally. Even when I don't know something I "teach" it as if I know it.

I home-schooled my daughter. I taught her things I never learned myself when I went to school! Sorry if I come across that way--it's just me being me! These forums always keep me on my toes. And in reality, it helps me to know how little I do know.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
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!

And yes, it seems we are in disagreement here.

<<<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. >>>

What Paul said is “the law is not OF faith” and not that the law did not have faith because Christ had not yet come. And he said that even with prior reference to Abraham’s faith.

And as I said in my other response post you, the object of faith is God, before and after Christ. That hasn’t change at all.

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

Yes he was not speaking of faith under the law, but was speaking of faith, faith in contrast to works. Of faith, the object of which is God.

I understand what is your position. That Paul was saying really is that the law was not of faith in Christ, but abbreviated it into “the law was not of faith”, for the reason you say so that he will not be having to mention Christ repeatedly.

I just do not see it that way, and I don’t think it to be likely. Unless you know Paul that well or is pretty certain that Paul actually did that, that will somehow make a difference.

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

They were blessed with Abraham because they too were justified by faith just as Abraham was.

The fact that God had justified Abraham, speaks well of him. Please read Romans 4 as it tells us a lot about Abraham and faith. Verse 22-24 is very telling about faith ~ of Abraham and of Christians. But please go through the entire chapter.

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

Not in my view which take this into account.

Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

Needless to say, the fault was not with God and so not with the Law, but with the man.

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

If you say we are on the same page here, then I’ll take it to be that in all that you said there, it is generally the same as what I said. With that, I would be a fool to disagree on anything there, as it would appear that I will be in effect arguing against myself.

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

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?

As I said, in my view, there are not two faiths, only one. Paul clearly said that in one of his epistles, we only have one faith. Also in my view, the matter of having eternal life is beyond man. For it is not something that is earned ~ it is a gift. In that sense, eternal life is neither a matter of works or of faith. It is not a matter of whether your faith is a kind that achieves it or not. Taking for granted, for the sake of argument, that if it were that before Christ, God has not given eternal life to anyone yet, I don’t see it as though it is because God looks at faith then as lacking or falling short of sort or that because faith at the time before Christ is a kind of faith that is different from faith after Christ.

That is why I don’t agree with you on that with regards faith.

As I said, I believe that there is only one and the same faith from the beginning, the faith that comes from God, the object of which is God, of course.

Tong
R1693

 

[Tong2020]

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.*

<<<Maybe we're saying the same thing in different ways?>>>

I hope we are saying the same thing.

<<<You're not actually saying Abraham, by his faith, *had* eternal life before Christ came, are you?>>>

Yes, I am not. What I am saying is not that his faith had achieved eternal life. What I am saying is that I believe that even then, God had given him eternal life when He justified him. Whether that is actual to Abraham or not is outside the scope of what I said. For that is another matter. And what I am saying is that eternal life is it is not something that is earned ~ it is a gift. That I am saying, in that sense, eternal life is not a matter of faith.

It seems to me that we view faith differently. Perhaps, that one reason why we find it difficult to have our minds meet.

Paul speaks of faith as one that comes. Does that influence your view on faith?

Tong
R1694

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I'm a Protestant brother--one who has studied for himself, in consultation with *many* teachers of the word of God, in history, in Bible School, on the internet, etc. Faith is the basis for obtaining a certain kind of Grace. Faith in the OT obtained Grace, but not the kind of Grace that delivers Eternal Life.

You confessing <<Faith is the basis for obtaining a certain kind of Grace>> and <<I'm a Protestant>>, as well as, <<one who has studied for himself>> and <<in consultation with *many* teachers>> tells me everything one could know about you better than you could dream of knowing yourself. Thanks very much, it's edifying information.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

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

This cannot be a question for one person only to answer. If you are a Christian, this is the kind of question you will answer whether you are asked the question, or someone else. Therefore I say, MOST CERTAINLY DO I BELIEVE Abraham, by his faith, *had* eternal life before Christ came BY GOD'S G.R.A.C.E -- grace, "by grace through grace of grace"!

Stating <<Abraham's faith fell short of salvation>> means - implies - takes for granted for truth and fact, that faith -- if the right kind or degree or era of faith, saves ... if not, does not save.

Now it is true that kinds of faith, like 'faith' of devils, do not because it cannot, save, BUT DAMNS. But degree or quantity OR ERA is of no consequence when it is saving faith which is the gift of God from the heart of love and compassion that acts-- God's

So, Stating <<Abraham's faith fell short of salvation>> means - implies - takes for granted for truth and fact, that faith -- if the right kind or degree or era of faith, saves. Abraham's kind of faith - according to you - because it was faith before Christ, failed to save but were it your sort of faith of after Christ, it might have saved the poor fellow. Unfortunately he chose to be born in the wrong time-slot.

But what's the difference in faith between faith before Christ came to save the lost, and faith before Christ will / must come again to save the saved? (Weren't they lost as well?) Now according to you the old chaps got saved conditionally and partly only - finality depended upon whether Christ would come OR NOT. What makes the difference then that the newbies will be saved unconditionally? Must they not also wait until Christ shall HAVE come again before they will be finally saved?

You say you are a Protestant, but don't believe 'ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED'?

Confusion and the mother of confusion!