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

[GerhardEbersoehn]

It is not my church. It is about your heretical teaching. Teaching that we are under the Law of Moses, including just the Sabbath Law, is not NT teaching, but the very thing Paul spoke out against.

You accuse me falsely. And you know you do. And you cannot forget that God is Judge, and if you forgot anyway, I remind you that God will be your and my Judge.

I also believe that judgement day of God shall be The Day of the LORD the Lord's Day COMING SOON AND FAST. Yes on that Sabbath Day OF THE LORD GOD, the redeemed OF THE LORD shall go up to the New Jerusalem AND SHALL SEE BESIDES THE WAY THE CARCASES OF THE LORD'S SLAIN LYING.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

You may be a Christian, for sure. But the doctrine you teach of Sabbath observance is not NT teaching. It is *your own* teaching. It is your denomination's teaching. And the historic Church has not taught it except for independent groups that were considered heterodox.

Crap

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

It is not my church. It is about your heretical teaching. Teaching that we are under the Law of Moses, including just the Sabbath Law, is not NT teaching, but the very thing Paul spoke out against.

You may be a Christian, for sure. But the doctrine you teach of Sabbath observance is not NT teaching. It is *your own* teaching. It is your denomination's teaching. And the historic Church has not taught it except for independent groups that were considered heterodox.

The Sabbath is not being used in Hebrews 3-4 as a 7th day of the Week Sabbath rest, as in the Law of Moses. Rather, Psalm 95.11 is speaking of entering into God's rest following the battles to conquer the land of Canaan.

Neither is God's rest following Creation a 7th day of the Week rest as in under the Law of the Moses, which were not days of creation, but rather, every week of the year.

You are conflating Sabbath rest in Creation and Sabbath rest after working to possess the land with regular weekly Sabbath rests. Sabbath rest for God after Creation was not in the Law of Moses. Sabbath rest promised to Israel in the land of Canaan in the future is not part of the Law of Moses. It's no wonder you're not interpreting NT theology properly!

<<It is not my church.>> Thank God it isn't. If this must reflect the faith of True Believers I pray that I may not be member of it.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

No. You did not just provide a list of Bible verses. The intent of your posting was to convince me, or anyone else that was reading, that first...
in other words, "existing" (whatever that means) under God's commandments is intimating that we shouldn't obey God's commandments, and that by doing so, we are living outside of grace. That my friend is nonsense. You are, without saying so, that anyone who seeks to obey God's commandments is doing so in order to be justified by their obedience, which is nothing more than a diversion...a straw-man...because you don't want to obey God's commandments for any reason. You also provided that list in order to prove

which is true, and why are we no longer under the law? Because we have been granted, by grace, the righteousness of Christ. Such a precious gift however does not remove the law as the standard of that righteousness. As to your list to "prove" whatever point you were making, it was not just a list of scriptures. To each scripture quoted, you introduced each and every one with a commentary of your own...presumably to convince the reader, me, to look at said scripture through your eyes, and in tune with your understanding. Sorry, no. That I will not do. The following two examples are why...

This is wrong in the sense that strictly speaking, the law only brings wrath upon them who transgress it. I would presume you are talking about the Ten Commandments, because I assume you are intelligent enough not to attempt to convince anyone that the law of Moses, that is the civil laws and services and sacrifices of the sanctuary are still the guide for anyone in this discussion. The law we are focusing on is the decalogue right? That same law Americans are so upset about being removed from the walls of the courthouses and lawns of the local councils? That same law so many Americans believe is defunct? That law right? So yes, it brings wrath upon those who transgress. But, and this is a big BUT, does it bring wrath upon those empowered by the Spirit of God to obey that law? This text here...that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit Romans 8:4.

Again, your commentary lacks context and is presented to convince of an untruth. The law isn't in and of itself weak. It is powerful...perfect...and accomplishes exactly that for which it is intended. What made the law weak in its effect was the flesh of man. Read those scriptures you quoted again, and include verse 4 as I quoted above to give the full context. It is NOT the law that is weak...it is you.

The Lord bless you
Thanks, your post is welcome positive Christian encouragement. You are graced with patience and tact. I feel so blessed by the reading.

It breaks my heart we do not see eye to eye on (other) essentials regarding the Lord's Sabbath Day. You know what I mean, am alluding to.

Lord, Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<He just didn't look to something like the Law to justify him, because its purpose was to condemn all those in the OT era who had not yet obtained eternal justification through Christ.>>>

Wow, you memorized Romans 4. Great for you. Then you find there that Abraham was justified by faith, righteousness having been imputed to Him by God. It is not that he was righteous, or that he looked forward to someone else, that he was justified. If there is any that Abraham looked at, it is God. His justification came freely from God, God by grace, having imputed to him, righteousness.

It was so long ago, but I believe I memorized most all of Romans back in 72-73. I'm not bragging--it's insulting when you tell me I need to read something that I memorized. Of course you didn't know that. I'm just letting you know.

"Imputation" is another of those "doctrinal" words we learn in Bible School. I have my own way of describing it. Christ provided in himself what we couldn't provide, in terms of living in perfection in order to obtain eternal life. He achieved that perfection for us, and then let us live in him by the Spirit he gave us. Since he gave us his Spirit he knows that we embrace his way of life as our righteousness. And he forgives us our failures to do so perfectly. The important thing is that we have chosen his life and live by it.

Obviously, this means faith embraces his forgiveness of our sins. It's a mistake if you think this has nothing to do with faith. Faith recognizes that Christ is Deity, and has perfect righteousness. And it recognizes that we also can live in that righteousness and have our sins not counted against us when we do so.

Well, I am not talking about that imputation which you talk about. I used the word imputed or imputation coming from the passage I quoted in Romans 4:23-24.

Tong2020 said: ↑
I can’t even imagine such a thing. I don’t believe that God made a covenant with those whom He took out of slavery from Egypt, and gave them His law to condemn them. What scriptures says why He made a covenant with them is so He could fulfill His promises He made to Abraham and his seed, even make them, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. Also scriptures is clear as to why God added the law and that is not to condemn them, for He had already condemned them even at Sinai, when they made an idol and worshipped it as the God who took them out of Egypt. If not for Moses’ prayer and pleading to the Lord on their behalf, God would have destroyed them all at that very moment.

I don't know what you do with the Scriptures that say that the Law was given to bind all men up in their sins, so that they must turn to Christ for complete redemption? Redemption under the Law was temporary. And it was temporary so that Israel would then turn to Christ for final redemption. It was their only option.

Rom 3.20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

What the passage tells us is that the law makes man conscious of their sin or that by the law is the knowledge of sin. The passage does not speak of redemption, more so of temporary redemption. The point of the passage, which is what Paul was trying to say, is that no one will be justified by the works of the law in the sight of God.

As a side, what do you think Paul said “in the sight” of God?

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<You make no point here. I said that the faulty record of man disqualified them for eternal life until Christ provided works of eternal redemption.>>>

My point is simple. The law is good and holy and so was given for their good. Why the law was against them is not because the law was faulty, but that the fault was with or in the man. As I said, the law was not added as a means for them to attain eternal life, but for some other purpose. So we can’t take the law as though it has to do something with attaining eternal life.

I agree with that. But I *never* said the Law was "faulty." I said the Law proved that men are faulty, and thus disqualified from eternal life apart from the eternal atonement of Christ. By the Law no man could be eternally justified.

Yes, I never said you said that.

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<He had a Sin Nature, and it was this record that disqualified him, whether under the Law or not, from having eternal salvation.>>>

I want to ask clarification of those in bold letters. Please clarify what you refer to as sin nature and what record that you say disqualifies the man.

You don't know what our "Sin Nature" is? Most every Christian I know understands that we are sinners saved by grace. We now live in righteousness, since we've invited Christ into our hearts. But even as we live in righteousness, we continue to be flawed. We regularly have to cleanse ourselves through apologies. But we persist in living in the righteousness of Christ, because we've chosen that way of life.

The Sin Nature is something that will go away once we have received immortal bodies. The bodies we currently have can hold the righteousness of Christ. But it also holds the selfish nature that strives to do the opposite of what God's word wants us to do. We can resist the temptation at an autonomous life by embracing fellowship with God, and by submitting to the will of God.

It’s a question just to be clear that I understand what you meant by it.

So, thank you for the clarification. That when you say Sin nature, you refer to the sinful flesh of man, what Paul called “body of death”. So let me now address your statement: <<<He had a Sin Nature, and it was this record that disqualified him, whether under the Law or not, from having eternal salvation.>>>

From what I understand now, is that you are saying that because man had a sin nature, that he is disqualified for eternal salvation? Would that not mean that all men are disqualified then for salvation? But is it not that it is actually the man, whose flesh was corrupted by sin, is the object of God’s salvation?

God did not disqualified Abraham for salvation. In fact he saved him. Many were not disqualified for salvation, were not disqualified for salvation even when they still have sin nature. We, Christians were not disqualified, even while we still have this body of death.

Perhaps, I am mistaken in my understanding of your statement there. The term “disqualified” perhaps needs be clarified.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Not that I am confusing Paul’s with yours. I was just pointing out my view that there os only one kind of faith, that is, faith that comes from God, and the object of which is God. And that, that is what Paul speaks of in the ultimate sense. NT faith, OT faith, if there is any distinction there, it is not the faith, for faith in NT and OT came from God and the object is God. The difference I can say is that in the OT it was Moses through whom faith came to Israel while in the NT it was through Jesus Christ. And yes that certainly is a great difference. But it does not make of two kinds of faith, but only one, God being the object. For this is what Jesus said it means to have faith in Him:

John 12:44 Then Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me.”

Faith did not come from Moses in the OT. You were right the 1st time--faith comes from God. When God's word comes to our conscience, whether we are conscious that it is God or not, we respond in faith when we accept that word and follow it. Moses was an agent of that word, but he was not himself that word.

And so men put their faith in God, and not just in Moses. We are talking specifically about faith in God. But there is clearly an OT faith and a NT faith. Both are faith in God, but one pre-existed Christ and followed God's word to obey Moses' Law. The other post-dates Moses' Law and trusts in the word of Christ. Trusting in Christ's word, post-resurrection, means that there is no longer any need for observing the Law. It is trusting that Christ provided for final atonement for sin.

<<<Faith did not come from Moses in the OT.>>>

Never said that. How would I when it is from God that faith comes from? Please read again what I said in the quote.

Tong
R1760

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Jesus Christ is God. Faith in Jesus Christ is actually faith in God. It’s not like when a Christian says his faith is in God that he says that as though Jesus Christ is not God or is not his God. Or not like when a Christian says God is my savior that he says that as though Jesus Christ is not the Savior or not his Savior.

Jesus Christ said “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me“. What do you understand there? How did you take that in your reading?

I agree with it. Believing in Jesus is believing in God. Jesus' word is God's word. Jesus himself is God's word.

So, you agree that the object of the faith of Abraham is God and that of the Christian is God? If so, then you understand what I mean when I say that faith through which God saves is the same faith whose object is God, for all time.

But just to be even more clear, it is not that believing in Jesus is believing in God, though that is true, is what Jesus really is saying in that passage. Please go over it again.

Jesus Christ said “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me“.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Maybe it's just a matter of point of view. Then I think it is also a matter of how one understand eternal life. For many Christians died too as did Abraham and Moses. Then there is Elijah who was said to had not died but was translated. Translated to where? Did he eventually die?

Yes, the body needs an earthly environment. He had to lose his body to survive where he went.

My argument is that, even Christians still die. If you contend that Abraham did not have eternal life then when he had faith, and Christians have eternal life when they had faith, then why did both die and not Abraham only?

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<. But that still did not give them eternal life--not until Christ actually purchased that for them.>>>

I don’t think that eternal life was purchased by Christ nor is something that could be bought.

He had "purchased" it, which is somewhat metaphorical, but nevertheless, biblical and real.

Rev 5.9 And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.

I don’t take it as you do. What the passage refers to that was “purchased” by the blood of Jesus, are the people, not eternal life.

Tong2020 said: ↑
I think not really. Moses had told Israel about Christ. Christ was in fact with them in the wilderness. Even Abraham knew of Christ. Jesus even said regarding Abraham “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then we have in the scriptures knowledge about the Messiah and we know that Jesus Christ fulfilled scriptures.

Christ did preexist in a different form, as the word of God sent into the world to bring eternal redemption for men. That process began the moment Mankind fell into sin. But that is not the same thing as saying Christ had already come. I'm talking about the nativity and the crucifixion. That had not yet happened before Christ came. Eternal Life was not yet won until Christ rose from the dead and gave us his Spirit.

My point is that, Abraham have knowledge of Christ and because He have faith in God, he believe what he knows of Christ. That goes as well with Moses. And Israel too was given word and knowledge about Christ. So that, the faith of Abraham and Moses is not empty of Christ. And so too under the law, to whom the word of God concerning the Messiah came , those to whom the knowledge and understanding of it came, and were given faith, that they believe it, like Zechariah and Elizabeth, Mary, for example, their faith were not empty of Christ, even before Christ actually came. Thus, there is only one and the same faith that is the faith before Christ and after Christ through which God saves.

Tong
R1761

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Jesus Christ is every thing to me. So why would I give no importance or diminish His works especially his sacrificial death that he had done for me? So I do not say that. Why do I say that? For to me, eternal life is a gift, and is given freely to whom God wills to give it, anytime He wills to give it. It is not earned. Work could not earn it and neither could faith.

What I said is that, I believe that when God justified Abraham, he gave him the gift of eternal life. And that is not to give disservice to the importance of Christ’s dying. For I see no reason why God could not give it to him. That is why I always point you to Romans 4, and look into what Paul is saying concerning Abraham’s blessedness, the moment God justified him.

Romans 4:6just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered; 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”

That verse does not say David or Abraham had "eternal righteousness"--just "righteousness." There is a righteousness, that existed prior to Christ's coming, which looked forward to eternal righteousness.

I don't think you're disrespectful towards Christ's sacrifice. I just think you're "selling it short" by depreciating its value for eternal redemption. You have said it had value even without Christ's death, specifically before his death. That depreciates the necessary link between his historic resurrection and our receiving eternal life. It was only after the resurrection that we received eternal life.

I have already explained to you in my other post why my view is that the righteousness that God accounted or imputed to Abraham is not just for the moment or what you say as temporary. That passage is only to show you the basis of my view.

And I am not selling short Christ’s sacrifice. Perhaps in your view of what is faith, eternal life, and justification, that is what it looks like, but it is not with respect to my view.

Tong2020 said: ↑
God imputed righteousness to Abraham. What righteousness is that? Righteousness apart from works. What blessedness is that? All sins are forgiven. What else? No sin shall be imputed to him.

Abraham was viewed as righteous despite his Sin Nature. He had enough righteousness in him for God to view him as a righteous man. This involves the forgiveness of sins, which Abraham obtained by valuing the life of obedience to God's word higher than going his own way.

Israel was viewed as righteous apart from the works of the Law in a sense. In one sense, by keeping the Law they showed that they valued the righteousness of God. In another sense, their attendance to God's Law showed that they recognized their need for atonement for their sins. As such, they needed a righteousness higher than what they themselves could do under the Law. The Law showed not just their obedience, but also their sins.

Abraham was not viewed righteous but righteousness was imputed to him by God no less.

Israel (nation, not Jacob) was not viewed righteous either, apart from the works of the Law. There is not a scriptures I know of that says that.

Overall, I can’t see how that argues against or refutes what I said in my post quoted in the quote box.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Is that righteousness and blessedness only for the moment or temporary? It seems unlikely. Three truths I take into consideration. One is that no sin shall be imputed to him. Two, faith that comes from God is continuing and abiding. Three, such righteousness and blessedness are apart from works.

Works exist as part of faith. But the Scriptures here speak of works that do not eternally justify, because in obeying God they also show they disqualify for eternal life.

Faith in the OT brought temporary righteousness, and temporal rewards. They could receive only temporal blessings.

But that faith was intended to last. And so, OT faith was designed to lead to eternal faith in Christ. OT faith needed a better object than laws that could not fully purge Israel of their Sin Nature. OT faith proved a need for faith in Christ as the pure means of dealing with sin.

Sorry, but I can’t see how that argues against or refutes what I said in the quote box.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Now if he was forgiven of all his sins, and if no sin shall be imputed to him, and if righteousness apart from works have been imputed to him, there is nothing that Abraham would do that would bring him death, unless God change His mind and impute sin to Him whenever he falls into sin. Now that sounds like eternal life, does it not?

Abraham died. His justification was temporary, and could not deliver him from death. Only Christ could do that. Abraham's faith was intended to lead him to embrace Christ as the object of his faith.

Yes he did. And so too did the apostles, and many genuine Christians now dead. Would you say their justification was temporary also?

Tong2020 said: ↑
Some may argue, what if he stop believing? He won’t. For the faith he have is one that came from God and was given to him, is one that is continuing and abiding. That faith is the one Paul refers to in Gal.3:23. That will be shown in the following paragraphs.

So that is what was imputed to Abraham. All those then who are of faith as Abraham, who lived before Christ, God imputed the same to them. Now this will also be imputed to the Christians.

Romans 4:23Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24but also for us.It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

So, it is clear, the Christians too are justified by God like Abraham. The proof of that is in v.25, the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Yes, we share in like faith with Abraham. But we have the advantage of having received Christ, the eternal object of faith. Abraham was on his way there. And we start there.

I don’t think I would view it that way when I consider the scriptures I quoted throughout our discussions.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Let me also share my thoughts here which I think is relevant to our discussion on eternal life. God had the tree of life for Adam and Eve to freely eat anytime they wanted to. When Adam and Eve sinned, this is what the Lord said “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”. Clearly, Adam and Eve still were with the capacity to take and eat of the tree of life and have eternal life. So it seems that, that suggest that the sinful nature is not really a reason regarding that concerning eternal eternal life.

I think you're reading that wrong. God was saying that He was preventing Adam and Eve from taking of the Tree of Life--not that they had the option to do so. They lost their capacity to live an immortal life. Now we have to receive eternal life spiritually first, and then suffer physical death, so that we can be restored to the Tree of Life.

I think not. You see the preventing of God. But what I was pointing to you is the capacity of Adam and Eve to take and eat of the tree of life and have eternal life, despite their sin nature. They were capable to have eternal life. God preventing them only makes my point even stronger, isn’t it?

What I am presently pondering about is why God prevented them. Is it because of their sin and sin nature or because of what is found in the passage itself which says “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.”

Tong
R1762

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

From what I understand now, is that you are saying that because man had a sin nature, that he is disqualified for eternal salvation? Would that not mean that all men are disqualified then for salvation? But is it not that it is actually the man, whose flesh was corrupted by sin, is the object of God’s salvation?

AMEN

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
My view is that the salvation of God was and is by grace through faith. I don’t see any change regarding that.

My view is that, the faith through which God saves also did not change.

I've said this before, but you don't seem to get it. Faith is the same, but it is in different time periods, one before and one after Christ's work. When faith was before Christ's work, its object was God, but the system it relied on was inadequate, and only temporary. After Christ came, the object of faith came to be Christ, who had not yet been available under the Old Covenant, and whose system could not yet be put into effect. Is that clear enough?

I can get what you mean of faith that its system that it relied on was inadequate. I don’t take as relying on a system or what. Faith is not anything like that. It wasn’t in the time of Abraham, it wasn’t in the time of Moses, it wasn’t in the time of Christ.

Can I have your comment on this?

That the salvation of God was and is by grace through faith.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Well then, if you believe that law is faith and I believe that law is not faith, then I am afraid it will be difficult for us to have a meeting of mind on that then. Anyway, let’s just pray and hope that God will intervene that somehow we would have the same mind on that.

I appreciate your brotherly spirit on this. However, the way you're phrasing this is not quite right. Obviously, I'm not disagreeing with Paul when he said the Law is not of faith. What I'm saying is that Paul was using a technical definition of faith. Otherwise, another definition of faith could easily be said to be "of the Law." For example, obedience to the Law could easily be said to be "of faith." And that's because it is by faith that a man would appeal, through the sacrifices of the Law, for God's mercy.

So when Paul said the Law is not of faith, what he really meant was that the Law had works that fell short of faith for eternal life. To rely on those works was not the equivalent of faith for eternal life. It could not achieve what only Christ could achieve. Only after Christ achieved eternal life for us could our faith be placed in a system that could be said is "of faith."

Well, we just repeat ourselves here. I already know your stand on that, that Paul really meant to say there that the law is not of faith in Christ. On the other hand I take that as Paul meaning to say exactly what is written, that the law is not of faith which in a positive tone is that the law is of works.

We have said out side of it, so perhaps we can agree to let be that way and perhaps it’s time for us to give the Holy Spirit the space to do what we both are not able to achieve, the meeting of our kind regarding that.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Now, the questions:

1. What is the law for?
2. Is the law faith?

The Law is a temporary system of obedience, in which Israel could live in fellowship with God, obeying His word for their lives. But the basis of that fellowship could not last--it had to be fulfilled in an everlasting covenant.

Therefore, the Law also showed that its system was intended to be temporary, simply confirming what had been decided in the Garden of Eden, that Man was prohibited from having access to the Tree of Life. The Law, in other words, confirmed Man's death sentence, showing by its principles that Man could not enter into eternal fellowship with God under the provisions of that system.

So now, in this sense the Law was not "of faith." It was specifically not "of faith that establishes an eternal covenant. It depended on works that were imperfect, but which could nevertheless earn rewards, or blessings. It just could not obtain what only Christ could obtain--eternal life.

I am sorry, but my questions there are in the context of the new covenant. Please see my post in the quote box. Thanks.

So, moving on, now that Christ had come, I think we will agree that there is still a covenant between God and His people, and there is still a law given to them. Only this time, God had written His law in the minds and hearts of the people.

Now, the questions:

1. What is the law for?
2. Is the law faith?

Tong2020 said: ↑
While you say “But yes, your view of "faith" is exactly what my definition is.”, you have faith to mean more which I don’t have in my take of faith. So, I think that is a problem.

We agree that faith is the same, OT and NT, in the sense that it is always placed in God, and obtains a measure of justification. But we do not agree that faith in the OT obtained, in the OT time period, eternal justification--only temporary justification, a righteousness that did not qualify for eternal life.

We agree that faith has God for its object. That is the only thing we agree on, I think. For I don’t agree that faith obtains a measure of justification.

Tong2020 said: ↑
This is where we differ with regards law. For law is not the word of God just as faith is not the word of God. The word of God is different from law and faith. So that’s another problem we have.

Many, many times God said the Law He gave Moses was *His Word.* You are battling problems with semantics, my friend!

I am just trying to show that law, faith, and word of God are not the same and are distinct from each other. They may be interrelated but they are distinct matters.

Tong
R1764

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Now that Christ had come, there is still a covenant between God and His people, the Everlasting New Covenant of God's eternal grace, and there is still a law given them, The Eternal Word of God, written in the minds and on the hearts of the People of God by HEARING by faith through grace the Gospel preached according to the Scriptures.

 

[Tong2020]

Let me share.

Even before the law was given as it was given, in the form of a written code, sins and transgressions are committed by man. And it is a given that such actions were condemned, for if not, man would not gave been called sinners or transgressors. Before the law, it was man’s conscience that condemns them. The law was given at the time of Moses. But it was not given to all peoples, but was given to them whom God had taken out of slavery in Egypt by Moses. So, for the rest of the peoples in the earth, conscience remain to be that condemns them of sin.

God gave the law in covenant with children of Israel through Moses, as a written code which they should perfectly observe and keep and so live by it, and in turn God will prosper them and bless them and make them a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. Now, in any event that one or the whole nation transgress the law, it is the law that condemns them. But, the law provided for them to atone for sin through the Levitical priesthood system of atonement, for the forgiveness of sins, and the judgment of God shall not come upon them, and be reconciled to God.

So we see the goodness of the law. While it condemns them, it provided a way for them to be forgiven of their sins and be reconciled and be at peace with God. Thus, it is not that the law condemns them that it denies them entrance to the Kingdom of God. To the contrary, it kept them under guard and provided them even, a way to be reconciled to God and a chance to live on with peace in covenant with God, and not remain in a state of condemnation and in certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation of God.

But of course we know by now that the law was only a shadow of the realities that which would come later and be revealed. And that is the Gospel story concerning Jesus Christ.

Tong
R1731

I agree with what you write, one thing here though, my understanding is that by the Law sins were not removed, but were instead covered. Has Jesus not died a sinless death, they would not have been saved to eternal life.

Much love!

<<<that by the Law sins were not removed, but were instead covered. >>>

If you’ll read the law regarding sacrifices for sins, whenever it says that the sins shall be forgiven them, then they are forgiven.

But ,

What do you mean sins were not removed? What do you mean “covered”?

Regarding eternal life, the law has nothing to do with it. The law was not made and given by God to Israel for the purpose of having eternal life. I know you know what scriptures says the reason why the law was added by God in covenant and it’s purpose.

Tong
R1765

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I am just trying to show that law, faith, and word of God are not the same and are distinct from each other. They may be interrelated but they are distinct matters.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I can get what you mean of faith that its system that it relied on was inadequate. I don’t take as relying on a system or what. Faith is not anything like that. It wasn’t in the time of Abraham, it wasn’t in the time of Moses, it wasn’t in the time of Christ.

Can I have your comment on this?

That the salvation of God was and is by grace through faith.

Sure. My claim is that faith operates in OT and NT through the systems that God has put in place in those respective times. In the OT the Law was in place. In the NT the Law is not in place.

The OT and NT are indeed "systems" through which faith operated. To say the "Law is not of faith" is not to say the Law did not operate through faith. It is only saying that the Law doesn't complete what faith was meant to complete, namely eternal life.

Paul defines "Faith" in lesser and greater senses, as I've been saying. He speaks of faith that operated under the Law, and of faith that Abraham operated in the OT period before the Law. Clearly, this is faith in a sense lesser than in the NT sense of faith having achieve eternal life through Christ.

But Paul also speaks of "faith coming" through Christ. This brings about eternal life for those who put their faith in him. In this sense, "faith has not yet come." Paul is defining "faith" in a unique way that is different from how he applied it to OT saints. You should recognize this, whether you agree with my overall argument that Paul uses "shortcuts" or not.

Again, "Faith," for Paul, is a short term for "faith that leads, through Christ, to eternal life." It is faith that is not short-circuited by the prohibitions and by the condemnation of the Law. Faith is not discouraged, nor disrupted, by the Law any longer once Christ has arrived and has provided his atonement for sins. In this sense, for Paul, "faith has arrived." It was not that faith did not exist prior to Christ, but only that using this greater definition of "faith," Faith, with a capital "F," has arrived.

The Law was a system that operated by faith but which could not complete faith. Faith for what? Faith, in context, was for the purpose of bringing about Israel's eternal promise, through the covenants that God provided.

The Law, as a system, could not provide that, and faith fell short of its goal. But in the NT, faith found its objective through Christ. Eternal life could be had through him. Faith arrived at its zenith through Christ, but not through the Law.

Well, we just repeat ourselves here. I already know your stand on that, that Paul really meant to say there that the law is not of faith in Christ. On the other hand I take that as Paul meaning to say exactly what is written, that the law is not of faith which in a positive tone is that the law is of works.

Yes, you simply reject my proposition that Paul uses "Faith" as an abbreviation, or shortcut, for "faith, by Christ, for eternal life." That's okay. You have to decide for yourself.

....I don’t agree that faith obtains a measure of justification.

Yes, I find often that brothers and sisters are leery of letting me speak my own words in place of the literal rendering of the Scriptures, and I understand that. Unfortunately, the literal rendering often requires explanation, in my experience.

But you have to have confidence within yourself--otherwise, it seems you're compromising the word of God. The only way to have confidence in what *I say* is to understand my argument, and see if it truly explains what Paul is saying.

This is the nature of language. The more arguments and theology built up around a particular biblical statement, the more difficult it is to extract in context what is being said.

I am just trying to show that law, faith, and word of God are not the same and are distinct from each other. They may be interrelated but they are distinct matters.

Tong
R1764

Well, yes, different words have different applications. You might say the Law is not the word of God anymore in the sense that the covenant undergirding the Law is no longer relevant. On the other hand, you can also say the Law was the word of God given to Israel. It's all about context.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have already explained to you in my other post why my view is that the righteousness that God accounted or imputed to Abraham is not just for the moment or what you say as temporary. That passage is only to show you the basis of my view.

And I am not selling short Christ’s sacrifice. Perhaps in your view of what is faith, eternal life, and justification, that is what it looks like, but it is not with respect to my view.

Granted.

Abraham was not viewed righteous but righteousness was imputed to him by God no less.

Both were true. Abraham had righteousness imputed to him, and he was viewed as righteous. Again, I don't think you understand how Paul abbreviated things, using "shortcuts" in his terminology. To say "Abraham had righteousness imputed to him" sounds as though God did not see him as righteous. But it is actually a technical statement, not indicating Abraham was unrighteous, but only that God viewed him as righteous through grace.

Israel (nation, not Jacob) was not viewed righteous either, apart from the works of the Law. There is not a scriptures I know of that says that.

There are actually *many* Scriptures that say Israel, the nation, was righteous under the Law, and by implication, apart from the Law. The many times that the Prophets predicted Israel's restoration by grace indicated that righteousness would come by mercy, and not by their obedience. They could be righteous under the Law, but they would also fail, as a nation, under the Law, requiring that they return to righteousness by grace, apart from their record under the Law.

Yes he did. And so too did the apostles, and many genuine Christians now dead. Would you say their justification was temporary also?

Righteousness in the OT and under the Law was a "temporary righteousness." It was like Adam's innocence before the Fall. It was a "temporary innocence." After the Fall, it proved that Adam's righteousness had been "temporary."

It is the same with all of the OT saints. They could be righteous by faith in God's mercy, or even by obeying the Law. But this righteousness was always stifled and frustrated by the record of their sin. No matter how many times they were forgiven they still had the Sin Nature, and they still sinned, destroying any grace that had been operating to forgive them. They were continually forgiven, but they could not achieve eternal life, because apart from Christ their record of sin could *not* be removed! Their righteousness was "temporary," their experience of justification was also "temporary."

I think not. You see the preventing of God. But what I was pointing to you is the capacity of Adam and Eve to take and eat of the tree of life and have eternal life, despite their sin nature. They were capable to have eternal life. God preventing them only makes my point even stronger, isn’t it?

No.

What I am presently pondering about is why God prevented them. Is it because of their sin and sin nature or because of what is found in the passage itself which says “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.”

Tong
R1762

Good question. Many have said that God didn't want Adam and Eve to live eternally in a state of sin. Obviously, that is why they died. But why were they prevented from partaking of the Tree of Life after their Fall? I believe it is because God relegated the gift of eternal life to Christ alone, and not to man before Christ's work of atonement. Jesus also had to die.

 

[Randy Kluth]

So, you agree that the object of the faith of Abraham is God and that of the Christian is God? If so, then you understand what I mean when I say that faith through which God saves is the same faith whose object is God, for all time.

But just to be even more clear, it is not that believing in Jesus is believing in God, though that is true, is what Jesus really is saying in that passage. Please go over it again.

Jesus Christ said “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me“.

This is yet another example of the peculiarity of biblical language. The words cannot be accurately understood unless the context for those words is properly understood. Jesus is not denying that people believe in him. He is simply pointing out that believing in him doesn't count as proper faith if it does not also include faith in God.

Yes, faith is faith in God in both testaments. Again, faith in God in the OT brought temporary salvation and limited justification--not eternal life. Faith was the same in the NT--faith in God, but it brought different results. It brought eternal justification and eternal righteousness. It also brought resurrection from the dead and eternal life.

My argument is that, even Christians still die. If you contend that Abraham did not have eternal life then when he had faith, and Christians have eternal life when they had faith, then why did both die and not Abraham only?

It has to do with qualifications. People died in both testaments, but people were not qualified to rise to an immortal life under OT provisions. This has come only by NT provisions, and the Spirit given to us provides evidence that this eternal life has come, and that we no longer require offerings for our sins.

We receive the Spirit apart from the law of animal sacrifices, and have confirmation that we are now adopted as God's children. Nothing may remove the gift of the Spirit in our lives, short of our own rejection. We no longer have to worry about being rejected for our Sin Nature.

What happened to Israel under the Law indicated that their sins cut short their temporal blessings. This indicated that their sins were still at work, cutting off their hope of eternal redemption.

But now, in the NT, we have received the Spirit from Christ, indicating that by our faith we will never lose the promise of eternal life, no matter how many problems we face. Nothing can separate us from Christ, whose Spirit has been given to us now as a permanent gift.

I don’t take it as you do. What the passage refers to that was “purchased” by the blood of Jesus, are the people, not eternal life.

That is what I call a "distinction without a difference." It means the same thing. To be purchased for eternal life is to have eternal life purchased for us.

My point is that, Abraham have knowledge of Christ and because He have faith in God, he believe what he knows of Christ. That goes as well with Moses. And Israel too was given word and knowledge about Christ. So that, the faith of Abraham and Moses is not empty of Christ. And so too under the law, to whom the word of God concerning the Messiah came , those to whom the knowledge and understanding of it came, and were given faith, that they believe it, like Zechariah and Elizabeth, Mary, for example, their faith were not empty of Christ, even before Christ actually came. Thus, there is only one and the same faith that is the faith before Christ and after Christ through which God saves.

Tong
R1761

Yes, they all had faith that Christ would come. That's not the same thing as placing their faith in Christ's "finished work" of redemption. Until Christ provided an atonement for sin, the OT saints could not place their faith in it. They merely hoped for it.

This is not arguing against the quality of their faith, but only with respect to a lack of content. They did not yet have Christ's atonement to place their legitimate faith in. Thus, "faith had not yet come." They did have faith, but this must be understood as a language problem.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well, I am not talking about that imputation which you talk about. I used the word imputed or imputation coming from the passage I quoted in Romans 4:23-24.

Right.

What the passage tells us is that the law makes man conscious of their sin or that by the law is the knowledge of sin. The passage does not speak of redemption, more so of temporary redemption. The point of the passage, which is what Paul was trying to say, is that no one will be justified by the works of the law in the sight of God.

Actually, the entire Law indicates by the failure of Israel under the Law that their justification under the Law was temporary. They required animal sacrifices for their sins while they were in compliance with the Law. And ultimately, they as a nation, even failed to comply with the Law, indicating even more that they needed to have atonement made for their sins. Their justification, however you look at it, fell short.

As a side, what do you think Paul said “in the sight” of God?

Rom 3.20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

It's talking about God's own innate need to see our sins properly dealt with in order to have a permanent and adequate atonement for sins. To have something done "in God's sight" is to have it done properly by God's own standards.

And by God's own standards, sin was only temporarily dealt with in the OT period and under the Law. Proper atonement for sin was only dealt with properly, in God's sight, by Christ's death.

From what I understand now, is that you are saying that because man had a sin nature, that he is disqualified for eternal salvation? Would that not mean that all men are disqualified then for salvation? But is it not that it is actually the man, whose flesh was corrupted by sin, is the object of God’s salvation?

Of course man, still with a Sin Nature, was the object of God's Salvation. It had to be adequately dealt with by the death of Christ. It was a *legal matter.*

It has nothing to do with whether people still have a Sin Nature or not in the Christian world. It is about whether Christ's death has already atoned for sin, and whether we've placed our faith in that work.

Before that work had been done, we could not have placed our faith in it, and our Sin Nature had not yet been completely dealt with--only temporarily through the Law or by some means of grace.

God did not disqualified Abraham for salvation. In fact he saved him. Many were not disqualified for salvation, were not disqualified for salvation even when they still have sin nature. We, Christians were not disqualified, even while we still have this body of death.

Christians are not disqualified from Salvation because we put our faith in the work of Christ's atonement for sin. Abraham, and all those in the OT period, did *not* qualify for eternal life at that time. Their Sin Nature disqualified them inasmuch as God's grace did not yet legally cover their sins permanently.

Christ had to come and die for that to take place. So I wouldn't agree with you that Abraham had qualified for eternal life in the OT period.

 

[marks]

Jesus said they were the same.
Matthew 7:12 ¶ Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The law of liberty...
James 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
who also said...
James 2:8 ¶ If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. ( James is not saying here that because we may offend in just one point, we should give up the whole lot, as many suggest. No, what James is saying is that if we for example, ignore the Sabbath, we are guilty of all.)
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

and thus directly identified what law of liberty he was talking about...the law of love...the law of liberty...the Ten Commandments...the law of God, are all one and the same thing, and apply to every Christian under the sun.

I don't think the Law of Christ, the Law of Love, the Law of Liberty are the same as the OT Law.

In the case of the OT Law, the one who keeps them shall live by them, to this is the ultimate in compulsary. The Law of Liberty is anything but, instead, comes naturally from inside. It is also called the Law of Christ because, what I think, what it really is, Christ in me, living through me, conforming my life to what He wants it to be, like His life.

So also the Law of Love, as Christ loves me, and loves others through me, and creates in me love for Him, and for others. And in love, OK, here's an example.

The first and greatest commandment, Love the LORD with all your heart, and mind, and soul, and strength.

When we trust in Jesus, He comes to live in us, and begins to interact with us. My primary relationship is with Jesus, over my wife, over my family, friends, over everything.

No command can create nor enhance my communion with Jesus. Only faith, trusting in Him and not myself, or my abilities to obey, only by faith do I maintain my part in that communion. Whenever I weigh myself by my behavior, my thoughts, I fall far short. I trust that Jesus has truly reconciled me to God, and I trust that Jesus is working His work in my right now.

Has the commandment to love God ended? No, I don't think so. Does the commandment produce love in us? For me, it took getting to know Him.

( James is not saying here that because we may offend in just one point, we should give up the whole lot, as many suggest. No, what James is saying is that if we for example, ignore the Sabbath, we are guilty of all.)

I think something else he is saying here is that the Law is a single unit. So that to break any part of it is to break the Law. If you like bay shrimp in your salad, or fail to have the priest check the mold in your wall, that's it, you are a lawbreaker.

The Law of Liberty is liberty not because, The one who keeps the law will live, but because, we have eternal life, nothing will produce death in us. Now we can live the way God wants us to. Which is to walk in love and trust.

Much love!

 

[marks]

<<<that by the Law sins were not removed, but were instead covered. >>>

If you’ll read the law regarding sacrifices for sins, whenever it says that the sins shall be forgiven them, then they are forgiven.

But ,

What do you mean sins were not removed? What do you mean “covered”?

Regarding eternal life, the law has nothing to do with it. The law was not made and given by God to Israel for the purpose of having eternal life. I know you know what scriptures says the reason why the law was added by God in covenant and it’s purpose.

Tong
R1765

I was thinking about this earlier this morning. Like David, Nathan told him his sin was forgiven. So he wrote of the blessedness of the one to whom God did not impute sin.

The OT word that's frequently translated atone, atonement, appease, for instance,

Leviticus 4
28Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. 30And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. 31And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

32And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. 33And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering. 34And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar: 35And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

These are from the Hebrew 'kaphar', to cover. Strong's Hebrew: 3722. כָּפַר (kaphar) -- 104 Occurrences

While of Jesus, John the Baptist spoke,

Behold! The Lamb of God Who bears away the sin of the world!

With the removing of sin in Christ, justifying us judicially, God gives us rebirth, justifying us in nature.

Much love!

 

[Behold]

Show .. SCRIPTURE, for saying: <<the Old Covenant shows you that you are unrighteous>>, .

Isaiah 64:6

then...

Romans 3:23


Go and study.
That is why i didnt post the verses.
You need to read them for yourself.

 

[Behold]

I agree with most of what you have said here. But you are still confused I think as to what and why God made the covenant in the first place.
Do you know when and to whom the first covenant was made? And more importantly, do you know why?

Yes i do.

And what i teach is the NEW TESTAMENT, (Pauline Theology)... because that is Where Jesus Lives.
He Lives in the NT, because He wrote the New Covenant with His Blood.
If you want to keep living in the Old Testament, where Jesus is not yet given, except by prophecy...., then that is your decision..