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

[GerhardEbersoehn]

If you want to keep living in the Old Testament, where Jesus is not yet given, except by prophecy...., then that is your decision..

Yes, true, and the difference implied is also real and true. The INCARNATE Christ: CRUCIFIED, BURIED, AND RESURRECTED and indeed ascended, is the Jesus and the Anointed Saviour in, and of, the Old Testament Scriptures.

So it is the one difference making all the difference which also is the equalizer, IDENTIFYING the one and only Saviour : OF THE WORLD -- the elect of ALL TIME -- Jesus Christ 'THE SAME yesterday, today, and, tomorrow' maybe tomorrow on the clouds of heaven coming home -- to His Own.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

The Law has served its purpose in my life—- it lead me to Jesus....

In mine too. But no more, as I discovered long after, when I discovered the Father by the Spirit of Christ "convinced me of my sin" -- rebellion against God's Law of Love;

and of judgement -- convincing me that God The Spirit judges transgressors of His Law of Love, sinners like me;

and of Righteousness, the Good News of CHRIST MY RIGHTEOUSNESS -- no different than in the OT "in times past", "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" used to be Jesus Christ their Righteousness.

 

[Tong2020]

I was saying that the Jews were pursuing, under the Law, eternal righteousness--righteousness that leads to eternal life. I wasn't talking about the Gentiles in this regard.

Sorry about that. I misread.

For purposes of this discussion, it's important that you recognize I predicate my arguments on the reality of the "Jewish Hope" under the Law. They looked forward to a situation in which all of their enemies were conquered, and they would never again be abused by others.

Israel's regular failure under the Law frustrated and seemed to prolong this process, when in reality, Paul said they could *never* obtain their goal in their present condition. Christ had to come and separate them into two camps, one to be judged and the other to lead the nation to the Promised Land.

The "Faith" that Paul, therefore, spoke of in abbreviated form referred to something that was not present under the Law and could never be present under the Law. Even the presence of "faith" under the Law could not accomplish this. And so, the "Faith" Paul spoke of was clearly NT Faith.

I have nothing new to say concerning those which you only repeat here.

Tong2020 said: ↑
The verse says plainly, it is because they pursued it as if it were by works and not by faith. I could not have said it any clearer than the verse.

My whole point in this discussion is that Paul cannot be properly understood if we don't understand his words properly in context, and recognize that Paul uses "shortcuts" to avoid going down endless rabbit holes, or indulging in excessive chatter. Paul had an enormous amount of information, and had to reduce it somehow to manageable bits.

When Paul spoke of not being able to be saved by "works," he was reducing the kinds of "works" down to "works of the Law." He expected his readers to understand that, because that was the context. He was not saying "works" only exist under the Law, or that all "works" under the Law are useless in leading towards Salvation. He was only saying that in general, "works" under the Law were intended to fall short of bringing Salvation because works of the Law consist of flawed human works that are rendered illegitimate as far as obtaining Salvation.

Your position that Paul use abbreviation is well noted. But you can’t take that as an argument against my understanding of scriptures written by Paul.

Like for example, the passage in consideration in this segment, Romans 9:32. What is in what I said in the quote box, that you do not agree? What is your understanding of the passage we are considering here, which is, Romans 9:30-32?

Tong2020 said: ↑
Paul was referring to Israel as a whole or as a nation. Their past generations have been led astray by their leaders who were at the seat of Moses, by false teachings, and who had made for doctrines the commandments of men. And this had become their tradition for which the generation of Paul’s time hold to and believe as their way to attain righteousness. They knew not really about the true Messiah, even while their scriptures had a lot about Him. Their leaders failed to teach them the truth. Either due to ignorance, or deliberate neglect, or selfish self-interest and gain. One thing is sure, they have gone astray from the truth, so that what faith they have, is not that which if from God, but from men.

Yes, the leaders and the masses in the nation went astray and lost the purpose for which the Law was given. But the Law was never given to provide them with eternal justification--only with a temporary justification until Christ came to bring eternal justification. Somewhere, over time, Israel lost this sense of Messianic Salvation, or corrupted it, thinking that Salvation would come by their own record under the Law, through animal sacrifices. But they were always intended only to be a temporary justificatioin.

What I was trying to show you in what I’ve said in the quote box, is to point out a fault in the old covenant, that a new covenant is made by God to take care of the faults.

Regarding what you repeat to say about temporary justification and that the law was not given to provide them eternal justification, even while it has nothing to do with what I said in the quote box, I am compelled to repeat my view on that. The law has nothing to do with faith. That said, no one is justified by the law in the sight of God.

Tong2020 said: ↑
We learn that the righteousness God seeks after men is the righteousness of faith.

Yes, Israel had lost their proper sense of temporary justification under the Law, which was indeed a righteousness by faith. But it was only ever designed to be a temporary justification.

When Israel lost their true sense of reliance upon God for mercy, and trusted only in their perfunctory observance of animal sacrifice, they became dependent on works without faith. None of this means that true faith would bring eternal justification. What it really meant is that they couldn't even have *temporary justification* under the Law apart from faith.

What happened with Israel is that, they failed to understand the purpose of the law, and even while God sent word through the prophets of Israel concerning it, prophecies about their Messiah and what the Messiah will do for them, their teachers failed as well to teach them about that. Worst is, they were even led astray by false teachings concerning that. So that, they the Messiah they are hoping to come is a different Messiah altogether. And in addition to that, their leaders became greedy, that they used the law for selfish gain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men instead of that of God, and having the people of Israel to believe that justification in the sight of God is attained by the works of the law, by observing and keeping all that they tell them to do, in the disguise that all were commanded by God. The people believed them because these men seat at the seat of Moses, whom they look up to and believe as God’s great prophet to whom God talks to and mediates for them. And that in time, effectively blinded them of the truth that the righteousness that God seeks after men is the righteousness of faith.

Tong2020 said: ↑
For me, the righteousness of faith is the righteousness in surrendering and trusting your life and will, with all heart, body, mind and soul, to God, and not to self or to any other else other than God, acknowledging Him as the only creator and the owner of all that there is, including him. It is devoid of anything concerning self - trust, effort, reliance, confidence, desires. It is a total surrender of oneself to God. If I were to look for a man wherein this can be found, of course it would be the man Jesus.

Yes, that's true Faith, but not *the* Faith that Paul was referring to that had not yet come under the Law. The best faith in the world under the Law could still not qualify for Eternal Life. Christ had to come and become the object to that Faith for that to happen. The best faith in the world still required Christ's work as its object to obtain Eternal Salvation.

You see it that way, and I see it differently.

God accounted and imputed to Abraham such righteousness, the righteousness apart from works, the righteousness of faith. Those who are of faith, as was Abraham, God will also account and impute such righteousness. And Paul said that such righteousness will be accounted and imputed to those who believe in Him who raised up Jesus from the dead. All that is coming from what the scriptures says.

Romans 4: 3For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 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 Lordshall not impute sin.”
.
.
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.

Tong
R1771

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Yes, for that was their tradition and what their tradition had taught them to be the truth. They were ignorant of the words of God, of the truth, especially about the promised Messiah.

Perhaps. But the idea that the law was given with the intention to be an obstacle for them concerning their salvation is absurd, if not an offense to the goodness and righteousness of God, at least to my thinking.

What you're doing is calling Paul absurd for saying this. I'm not saying it on my own. The NT authors all indicated the Law proved the innate sinfulness of Fallen Mankind, and proved they were ineligible for Eternal Life apart from Faith in the Finished Work of Christ. I've quoted you the verses. Calling them absurd doesn't prove anything other than you refuse to believe NT teaching. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

Not at all. In you view perhaps.

I agree that the NT scriptures proved that “the Law proved the innate sinfulness of Fallen Mankind”. But the scriptures does not mean to say that the law was given by God with the intention to be an obstacle for them in obtaining salvation. The Scriptures tells us why the law was added and was given to Israel, and what is the intention and the purposes of the law. And to be an obstacle to their salvation is not one of that.

Tong
R1772

 

[Tong2020]

Personally, I think the Law of Love AKA the Law of Liberty AKA the Law of Christ is much much more a reflection of God's character than the Mosaic covenant Law. Not that the Mosaic covenant is contrary to God of course.

Much love!

For the old covenant law was a but a shadow. But Christ is the light, the very substance of which the law is a shadow of.

Tong
R1773

 

[Tong2020]

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.....

The standard of righteousness, in my view, is in and found in Jesus Christ.

.......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.

The law brings wrath to those who walk according to the flesh.

To those who walk according to the Spirit, the law has nothing at all to do with them.

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.

Romans 8:3For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,

It is clear, there is one thing that the law could not do. That is to condemn sin the flesh.

Tong
R1774

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

I get what you are saying. However, I just don’t have the same view and mind as you do regarding that.

But what I really was asking you to comment about is on this:

That the salvation of God was and is by grace through faith (not through law or works or whatever).

Tong2020 said: ↑
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 didn’t simply reject that without basis. It’s just that you also reject the reason why I don’t subscribe to the idea of abbreviation. I took context. But you claim to have taken context as well. And so we don’t agree in that regard.

Tong2020 said: ↑
....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.

Not that you aren’t allowed to speak in your own words. One may express an objection, but does not mean you are prevented in any way to speak how you like.

Tong
R1775

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

As I said I do get your idea of abbreviation. However, I have reasons why I don’t subscribe to that idea of yours.

<<<To say "Abraham had righteousness imputed to him" sounds as though God did not see him as righteous.>>

From before the time that God imputed righteousness to Abraham (Gen.15:6), the righteousness of faith, the righteousness apart from works, what scriptures could you point to that is the basis for your saying that God viewed Abraham as righteous? And what righteousness is that?

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

Please cite some among the many Scriptures that say Israel, the nation, was righteous under the Law, and was viewed righteous, apart from the Law. Thanks.

Tong2020 said: ↑
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."

Innocence is different from righteousness. Nonetheless, I don’t think that Adam’s innocence as having been lost and viewed as a temporary innocence could be an argument to prove that there is such thing as temporary (imputed) righteousness or temporary justification by God of a person. I must emphasize, we are talking of the righteousness of faith imputed by God to a person like Abraham, a righteousness apart from works, and not some other righteousness.

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

Why no?

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.”

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.

<<<Many have said that God didn't want Adam and Eve to live eternally in a state of sin.>>>

So many believe that, with their sin nature and even in a state of sin, they could live eternally, since they have such thinking.

<<<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.>>>

And your question there too indicates that you too believe that they could eat of the tree of life and live forever, since they were prevented.

Your thoughts sure could be why as also the thoughts of the many you mentioned. As for me, I am still pondering on that.

Tong
R1776

 

[Behold]

Perfect! You showed SCRIPTURE, for saying, the Old Covenant shows you that you are unrighteous.

Is God unrighteous?
Is God a sinner?
The neither am I, as i possess "the righteousness of GOD, in Christ".

That's me.
Thats ALL the Born again.

You should join us, GerhardEbersoehn.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

<<<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, He is not denying anything there. He is telling them what it means when they believe in Him.

Tong2020 said: ↑
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 think you have not addressed the argument.

You contend that Abraham could not have eternal life because of sin nature. And one of the reason you gave was that he died. And you contend that is the same for OT saints. Regarding the christians you contend they they have eternal life. So I argued, why then did they die, if you say the death of Abraham is proof that he have no eternal life? And also, do not the Christians also still have the sin nature or the sinful flesh?

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

Perhaps, but your take of it as such does not apply for all or is not how it is for all. I believe eternal life is not something that Christ purchased from the Father.

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

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.

Not only that Christ would come, but knows the person of the Christ, what He will come to do and accomplish, that He is the Lord, the Savior.

Tong
R1777

 

[Randy Kluth]

<<<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, He is not denying anything there. He is telling them what it means when they believe in Him.


I think you have not addressed the argument.

You contend that Abraham could not have eternal life because of sin nature. And one of the reason you gave was that he died. And you contend that is the same for OT saints. Regarding the christians you contend they they have eternal life. So I argued, why then did they die, if you say the death of Abraham is proof that he have no eternal life? And also, do not the Christians also still have the sin nature or the sinful flesh?

Obviously, the difference is that Christ rose from the dead for NT saints, but not for OT saints. When OT saints died, it was evidence that they died under a curse without legal guarantee that they would rise from the dead. They were promised salvation, but it had not happened yet.

Death is evidence in both testaments that we've been cursed due to our sins. It's evidence that we all still have a Sin Nature in our lives. But Israel in the OT was given a system of worship that temporarily advocated for them, keeping them in covenant with God, while covering their sins on a case by case basis--they were not atoned for for all time.

But in the NT we have eternal atonement, and have received God's Spirit for all eternity. We don't have to repeatedly make sacrifices, going back to the curse every time we sin. It was a constant reminder that they had not yet been eternally pardoned when they had to repeatedly offer sacrifices for their sins.

But we have received the Spirit forever and are no longer required to seek atonement for our sins. It's finished. We still sin, we still die, but we will rise from the dead. The legal part has been done.

Perhaps, but your take of it as such does not apply for all or is not how it is for all. I believe eternal life is not something that Christ purchased from the Father.

You are arguing over semantics. Things can be said in different ways, and has to mean what the speaker means. By saying "eternal life is purchased" I'm saying that eternal life has been legally provided for God's People. By saying "people were purchased for God" you're saying that they were "redeemed," which refers to a "purchase," resulting in their being given eternal life.

 

[Randy Kluth]

As I said I do get your idea of abbreviation. However, I have reasons why I don’t subscribe to that idea of yours.

<<<To say "Abraham had righteousness imputed to him" sounds as though God did not see him as righteous.>>

From before the time that God imputed righteousness to Abraham (Gen.15:6), the righteousness of faith, the righteousness apart from works, what scriptures could you point to that is the basis for your saying that God viewed Abraham as righteous? And what righteousness is that?

The Scriptures indicate Abraham used his faith to obey God--not just believe in Him.

Heb 11.8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.

I believe we need to not try to prove doctrines. Rather, we're trying to understand what the Scriptures *mean!*

Please cite some among the many Scriptures that say Israel, the nation, was righteous under the Law, and was viewed righteous, apart from the Law. Thanks.

Deut 6.25 And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.”

Psa 119.44 I will always obey your law, for ever and ever.

Innocence is different from righteousness. Nonetheless, I don’t think that Adam’s innocence as having been lost and viewed as a temporary innocence could be an argument to prove that there is such thing as temporary (imputed) righteousness or temporary justification by God of a person. I must emphasize, we are talking of the righteousness of faith imputed by God to a person like Abraham, a righteousness apart from works, and not some other righteousness.

Israel sometimes obeyed the Law and sometimes not. Some people obeyed even when the nation, as a whole, did not. At any rate, the nation's blessing for conforming to God's Law was temporary, as we can see from the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. They had had a temporary righteousness and a temporary blessing.

Adam and Eve, we have to assume, were righteous, and not just "innocent," before the Fall. They regularly walked with God in the garden. Their righteousness was temporary, and their unmarred fellowship temporary as well.

Why no?

God prevented Adam and Eve from partaking of the Tree of Life. This did not mean they *could* have the fruit of this tree. It means the exact opposite, that God prevented them from partaking of the fruit of that tree!

And your question there too indicates that you too believe that they could eat of the tree of life and live forever, since they were prevented.

You're just arguing over words. God stopped them so that they could not. If God's justice was inconsistent, yes they could have access to the tree. But God's justice is consistent, and thus He prevented them from accessing a tree of life apart from Christ. They could not just *take* eternal life from God. It had to be given to them by the means at God's disposal.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I get what you are saying. However, I just don’t have the same view and mind as you do regarding that.

But what I really was asking you to comment about is on this:

That the salvation of God was and is by grace through faith (not through law or works or whatever).

You must define "grace" as "Christ's Grace." Otherwise, you may be talking about OT acts of divine grace that fell short of giving Man eternal life. "Grace," thus, is for Paul another "shortcut," or abbreviated term.

Both Grace and Faith are abbreviated terms, both referring to NT Grace and Faith. Neither one excludes works or obedience. What they exclude are works that take place *apart from Christ,* such as existed under the Law. Those works were temporarily accepted by God, but they were never designed to bring eternal life to Man.

"Salvation" also is a "shortcut" word. There were many instances of "salvation" in the OT, including the deliverance of Israel from their enemies. But NT Salvation has to do with receiving eternal life through the works of Christ. It is an eternal salvation, as opposed to temporal forms of salvation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Not at all. In you view perhaps.

I agree that the NT scriptures proved that “the Law proved the innate sinfulness of Fallen Mankind”. But the scriptures does not mean to say that the law was given by God with the intention to be an obstacle for them in obtaining salvation. The Scriptures tells us why the law was added and was given to Israel, and what is the intention and the purposes of the law. And to be an obstacle to their salvation is not one of that.

Tong
R1772

Adam and Eve were barred from the Tree of Life due to their having adopted a position of independent judgment, separate from God's counsel. The Law was given to Israel to similarly bar them from eternal life by any method short of Christ's works. The works Israel was given to do under the Law were just temporary, to keep them in covenant with God until Christ could come and actually do his historical work.

You don't think the Law was designed to bar Israel from achieving eternal life by their own works? The tabernacle was separated from the people, and even from the priests, unless particular measures were taken to assure them that they were there by God's mercy and kindness.

Heb 10.3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Like for example, the passage in consideration in this segment, Romans 9:32. What is in what I said in the quote box, that you do not agree? What is your understanding of the passage we are considering here, which is, Romans 9:30-32?

Rom 9.30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal.

Paul is identifying 2 kinds of "works" that approach righteousness. That's why we need to see "works" as an example of Paul's abbreviations! Otherwise, how can we differentiate works that do not save from works that save?

Paul is saying that works that predate Christ or that discard Christ altogether do not achieve final righteousness. But the works of faith, which is obedience to Christ's word, does achieve eternal righteousness and eternal life.

The law has nothing to do with faith. That said, no one is justified by the law in the sight of God.

I've already proven to you that the Law operated by faith. Therefore, it has everything to do with faith. Israel was to obey the Law by faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God. It pleased God for Israel to obey the Law. Therefore, they obeyed it *by faith!*

This underscores the importance of what I'm saying about understanding Paul's use of terms in an abbreviated way. You must understand his use of terms by their context! Unless you do so you will fail to understand how the Law operated by faith when you hear Paul say, "the Law is not of faith."

Paul simply meant that the system of the Law did not accomplish faith for eternal life. The object of faith was designed to be to arrive at final righteousness, at eternal life. You only understand that by the context of Paul's reference to this particular kind of "faith."

What happened with Israel is that, they failed to understand the purpose of the law, and even while God sent word through the prophets of Israel concerning it, prophecies about their Messiah and what the Messiah will do for them, their teachers failed as well to teach them about that. Worst is, they were even led astray by false teachings concerning that. So that, they the Messiah they are hoping to come is a different Messiah altogether. And in addition to that, their leaders became greedy, that they used the law for selfish gain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men instead of that of God, and having the people of Israel to believe that justification in the sight of God is attained by the works of the law, by observing and keeping all that they tell them to do, in the disguise that all were commanded by God. The people believed them because these men seat at the seat of Moses, whom they look up to and believe as God’s great prophet to whom God talks to and mediates for them. And that in time, effectively blinded them of the truth that the righteousness that God seeks after men is the righteousness of faith.

If we're not careful we can make a huge mistake here, and many do. We should not argue that God gave the Law to Israel without wanting them to obey, without expecting that they could be blessed by their obedience. Obviously, God wanted them to enter into the Promised Land, and they did. God wanted them to prepare for the coming of Messiah, and they did.

The description of their many failures is obviously, therefore, a generalization, and not an outright claim that they always failed and never succeeded. The only thing they always failed at was in obtaining eternal life--something God kept them from having until Christ came to do his work of redemption.

By the time of Christ and Paul, Israel had once again arrived at a place of national apostasy. Thus, they had exchanged their worship of God for something idolatrous.

Saying this did not mean they had always failed, or that the Law could never ever bless them. That would be false. The Law and its obedience was meant to lead to Christ, where their temporary blessings could become eternal blessings.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes, I observed that not one version have your take on faith there, abbreviated or otherwise.

You're being obtuse. I clearly explained to you what I meant, and you're a smart guy. I said that *all versions* would contain the same abbreviation.

If I, for example, said "get a life," to abbreviate my sense that you're wasting your time, indulging in excess, and failing to live up to your abilities, then every version of what I said would contain "get a life." Not a single version would explain that "you're wasting your time, indulging in excess, and failing to live up to your abilities."

If Paul uses a term like "Grace," "Faith," "Works," or "Salvation," we have to assign to those words technical meanings in accordance with Paul's overall context. He is not going to say "Grace that leads to Eternal life," or "Faith that brings about Salvation," or "Works that rely on Christ's Work of Redemption, " or "Salvation that comes through Christ." It is enough to reduce the excessive chatter down to "Grace, Faith, Works, and Salvation," and understand by the context that Paul refers to *Christianity," or to *NT applications of these terms.*

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

Actually, in my view, I don’t consider the provisions of the law for the forgiveness of sins as provisions for justification. So no “temporary” justification either. For my understanding of what it means to be justified is to be declared righteous. That is, as though one has not committed any sin or wrong doing, or is excused or that what he did is in fact righteous and not sin. There is a difference between being forgiven and being justified. The law have provisions for forgiveness by the offering of a sacrifice for atonement, but does not have provisions for one to be declared righteous or to be justified.

Paul in Romans 3:20 says that the law is the knowledge of sin. His purpose in saying that is to make the Jews realize that they are guilty of sin as the Gentiles are. And that the law serves not to justify them, nor any flesh for that matter, but to make all flesh guilty before God, excusing no one.

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

I think, Paul said “In the sight of God”, simply to qualify the justification he is talking about in Rom.3:20. That he is not talking of being declared righteous in the sight of man.

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

That the sin nature had to be dealt with by Jesus Christ is not the issue. The issue is the contention that because man had a sin nature, he is disqualified for eternal salvation.

In your view, when Christ hd not yet dealt with it, all men are disqualified for eternal salvation, and could only have temporary salvation. Now, when Christ had already dealt with it, that would mean that all men now are qualified for eternal salvation, is that right?

Further, in your view, Abraham only had temporary salvation, because his sin nature has not yet been dealt with by Christ at the time. But then Abraham died. When he died, was he still temporarily saved? What happened to his sin nature when he died? Dis he still have it with him even while his flesh or body of death is no more?

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

<<<Christians are not disqualified from Salvation because we put our faith in the work of Christ's atonement for sin.>>>

Of course they are not. In fact they are already saved, aren’t they?

<<<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.>>>

You said sin nature has to do with our flesh, our present bodies. When Abraham and the OT saints died, what happened with their sin nature?

And may I ask, do you take Sin Nature as sin, something to be forgiven as well and covered? Because it seems to me that you take it as sin.

Tong
R1779

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

“ By The Works Of The Law, no man will be Justified”.....that’s pretty much all I needed to hear...I want to get Saved....Trying and failing to obey those Laws ain’t the Way to Heaven.....The Law is “ weak” , due to its lack of POWER.....

Measured by the Works Of The Law, you boast against a man your equal, but against an infinitely more impossible to keep, Law. 'I want to get saved... obeying The Greatest Law of all, that only commands Love, it's easy, guaranteed'.
Is that so?
No! Why do you think God had to give his people more and more and more Law? To show them all Laws together aren't as difficult and impossible as one moment of the Law of Love.

And the difficulty and impossibility are not due to lack of power of the Law, but OUR lack of both power and love.

You want to get damned, rely on your power and brag with your keeping the Law -- NO MATTER WHICH LAW.
You want to get to heaven, claim your keeping The Greatest Law, present your certificate of compliance to Peter at heaven's gate. You won't past the posts, will not tread no stride on its threshold.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Is God unrighteous?
Is God a sinner?
The neither am I, as i possess "the righteousness of GOD, in Christ".

That's me.
Thats ALL the Born again.

You should join us, GerhardEbersoehn.

I by the grace of God won't. NO thanks!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Obviously, the difference is that Christ rose from the dead for NT saints, but not for OT saints.

That is it! O God!