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

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
As far as my view is concerned, no works of man could attain to the righteousness that is required of man to obtain salvation. Be it the works of the law or not.

In this entire discussion, I have not said anything different! No works of Man has ever attained to righteousness that earned Salvation. The only works of a man that earned Salvation for us were the works of Christ.

Yes you did not. We have the same mind on this.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Speaking of work, salvation is the work of God, not man. So, if there is any work that could be considered to effect salvation, it is the work of God, not man. That is why, God’s way is through faith, which is devoid of anything of man’s work.

We agree on this.

So, we have the same mind on this.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Even before the giving of the law, faith is through which God saves.

That is just mindless repetition of "doctrine." We must ask *how* Faith enabled us to be Saved? We know, from Bible reading, that Faith saves us, and Works doesn't.

But what does this mean? I'm trying to answer this from my own knowledge and experience--not just repeating, by rote, what we read. Dig deeper, brother.

Paul didn't lie, but he had a context to what he said. Otherwise, we are just repeating things we don't really understand. My goal is to actually understand what he meant--not just repeat doctrines that others thought he was teaching.

You argue that Faith did not require Human Works or Israel's Righteousness. I showed you it did, in both testaments. God asked Israel to be righteous by obeying the Law. This is ubiquitous, and yet you keep asking me for proof.

And in the NT James said Faith that is without Deeds is dead. Jesus taught that those who depreciate the entire system of Law, and keeping every commandments, is least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

You would think that nobody in Israel made it into the Kingdom of Heaven by your argument that Israel was never righteous, and nobody could ever do good works and be considered righteous?

It may be a repetition, but not mindless Randy.

<<<We must ask *how* Faith enabled us to be Saved?>>>

Then let’s ask that. Though on my end, the question would be, how God saves us through faith. I am not arguing here. Bit I just find the need to point that out.

<<<We know, from Bible reading, that Faith saves us, and Works doesn't.>>>

On my part, it is God who saves us, not faith. Again, I am not arguing, but just wanting to point that out.

<<<Paul didn't lie, but he had a context to what he said. >>>

Of course. And that is what we are trying to take into consideration.

<<<You argue that Faith did not require Human Works or Israel's Righteousness.>>>

Not exactly like that. Faith is devoid of works. It has nothing to do with works. Now don’t get me wrong. So let me clear on that. The matter of faith producing works or faith being shown by works is a different matter, when I say faith is devoid of works. I am talking about what faith is and not about whether what is dead faith or living faith.

<<<I showed you it did, in both testaments.>>>

What I get from what you showed me is that faith never was out of the picture. I get that. But faith has to do with people, particularly the spirit of man, not with anything else.

<<<God asked Israel to be righteous by obeying the Law. >>>

That there is a covenant between God and Israel means faith is a given. That God wanted for Israel to be righteous in all that they do, is also a given. Even before God gave law, He was in covenant with Abraham. And He too wanted for Abraham and his descendants to be righteous in all that they do. (And I must point out as a side, that what deeds they do God take it to be righteous only because and when it is done in faith). So, in my view, the law was given not really for that reason. He added it as their covenant obligation. And He added it for reasons written out in the OT scriptures and clearly revealed in the NT scriptures.

<<<You would think that nobody in Israel made it into the Kingdom of Heaven by your argument that Israel was never righteous, and nobody could ever do good works and be considered righteous?>>>

I was not arguing at all with that end. For there clearly were men and women who were said to be righteous, though not because they have not transgressed any of the commandments in the law, or because of their works, but because of faith in God. It was so with Abraham, and it is so with anybody who are of faith.

Tong2020 said: ↑
The law was just an addition to the covenant of God to Abraham. It was given because of transgressions, for Israel was a stiff-necked people. For one, the law was to govern them for God is making out them a nation. It was not to replace by which God saves, that is through faith.

Yes, Paul said that the Law was added to Faith as Works of Faith, condemning those who depended solely on the Works of the Law without Faith. Paul produced a dichotomy between Faith and Works to emphasize that Works without Faith fail to lead men to Salvation, whereas this is predicated on his assumption that true Works of the Law were Works of Faith.

The Law was never designed, according to Paul, to earn anything more than temporal blessings. It was not designed to bring Salvation, even though it was based on Faith and thus designed to lead Israel in that direction.

But I've already said this. It may be difficult to understand, and that's why I persist in trying to explain it. You can believe what you will, but at some point I think you've wished not to recognize my points.

<<<Yes, Paul said that the Law was added to Faith as Works of Faith,>>>

I have not come across that in my reading. Please cite scriptures where Paul said that, directly or even indirectly.

<<<...whereas this is predicated on his assumption that true Works of the Law were Works of Faith.>>>

While I agree that the works of the law should be done in faith, I don’t think the works of the law could properly be said as works of faith. I know you will object to that. But let me try to explain or show the sense by which I say that. When I look at the works of faith in Hebrews 11, nothing was mentioned any work that pertains to the works of the law. Besides that, one difference I see that makes me think that the works of the law could not properly be said as works of faith, is that, the works of the law, like to not steal, to not murder, to not lie, to not commit adultery, to not covet others goods, to not eat blood or certain animals, to not do this, etc., are not works done as a prompting of faith but done as covenant obligation.This sense of obligation is clearly shown with the fact that even those who do not have faith in God, if they are within the gates of Israel, they are to do the works of the law. I hope you get what I mean.

And I don’t think Paul had that assumption.

<<<The Law was never designed, according to Paul, to earn anything more than temporal blessings. It was not designed to bring Salvation, even though it was based on Faith and thus designed to lead Israel in that direction.>>>

What is clear is that salvation is by and through faith. Men and women from time past were saved by faith in God, apart from anything else. That remains the same today. Paul clearly affirmed that in his writings. And why the law is not the way by which God saves, is simply because the law is not of faith. And that is where we don’t apparently have the same mind, concerning the law. If ever there were men and women saved during the time of Moses and Christ, it is not by the law, but still is by faith.

Tong2020 said: ↑
You are right, 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. We should not argue that the law was given by God to put an obstacle to their salvation.

Thank you! This tells me you're still hearing my arguments.

So, it seems that now we agree that the law was not given by God to put an obstacle to Israel’s salvation.

Tong
R1807

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
We must remember, not long after God brought them out of slavery in Egypt, having seen all that what God has done for them, it only took a few days, after they made a covenant with God, Israel made a very grave sin. They made an idol of a golden calf and worship it as the god that brought them our of Egypt. Such sin that God told Moses He will destroy them all, and will make Moses a great nation instead. But Moses pleaded with God not to destroy them. And God heard the prayer of Moses and did not let His wrath come upon them that very time. They were indeed and truly a stiff-necked people as God had judged and condemned them that day. But God truly is a merciful God. Instead of destroying them He promised them salvation by sending them a Savior, the Messiah. Moses told them about Him.

Context is everything, Tong. Remember that God used an *entire nation* to establish a model for all nations. And the example indicates that the majority are weak towards sin, and likely to collapse in an instant.

This doesn't mean the nation is damned to hell--just that people are generally weak, and give up quickly. And so, neither Moses nor God gave up on Israel. God displayed incredible patience, and Moses did, for the most part, too.

Failure does not mean there was no righteousness--no obedience. Rather, it just meant that God displays a lot of Grace in order to achieve a measure of righteousness among the willing.

Not only a model nation, but God will make of Israel a kingdom of priests. And not only that majority are weak, but all are, in my view.

Tong
R1808

 

[Tong2020]

Fair enough. I thought your questions exposed what you perceived to be weaknesses in my arguments. That indicated you understood the arguments. I thought you were just disinterested at some point, because you began to ask the same questions over and over again, no longer showing any recognition of my previous answers on those matters.

But I'll keep faith in you as long as you keep showing insight, and asking legitimate questions, even if you disagree. Again, I'm not at all bothered by disagreement. I've changed my thinking on things many, many times.

My only concern is if you are disinterested in the arguments, or grow weary of the subject. I'm just checking that out.

Rest assured I am not here to fool around and waste time.

If you noticed, I make the effort of trying to address every part of your post. And though O would not want to mention this, I take due diligence in examining every argument you make. I even gave time to compare not only scriptures but even Bible versions. That all shows my interests in what you have to say.

Likewise, while agreement is hoped for, I am not bothered by disagreement. Before I even joined in this forum, I know there will be disagreements along the way, big or small.

For me, even when I am slandered for no reason, even when some are rude and unkind to me, even when they say unpleasant words towards my person, I thank God for the experience, as they serve to grow me in the Spirit, such increasing my patience.

Tong
R1809

 

[Tong2020]

Actually, you ask a pretty good question. I think having a Sin Nature means we have sin inside us, ie in our "flesh." And by "flesh" I refer to a carnal nature.

It is pretty easy to explain a "carnal nature." It is resorting to the "beast." Man was a beast with a spirit designed to exist in fellowship with God's Spirit. We were meant to be one with God in spirit, so that what we do in our bodies always reflects who God is and what He is like.

When Man chose to decide for himself when to obey God and when to do something on his own, he became the "beast." He became an independent-thinking creature who decides when to comply with God's word and when not to. He placed himself on the throne of his life, in place of God, and became a person following his own personal interests, his own emotional desires, his own physical lusts. He was drawn away by his own physical appetites, without any fear of misrepresenting God. Man became very weakly linked to God's Spirit, and incurred a death sentence to his now corrupted physical existence.

It wasn't that the body was corrupt, but that the body now leads the will of man as to what he wants to do, even when it displeases God and is apart from His word. The body leads him, along with his own will and desires. The condition is that sin is now in his spirit, poisoning him. And the result is a damaged mind and body, as well as a spiritual existence that is semi-detached from God. We are only connected with God by faith in His mercy. Our corrupted minds let our bodies continually tempt our will away from God's will to selfish pleasures.

<<<I think having a Sin Nature means we have sin inside us, ie in our "flesh." And by "flesh" I refer to a carnal nature.>>>

That is what I was trying to confirm from you. For that is my take of sin nature, which I call sinful flesh or sinful nature or the body of death. That is coming from my reading of Romans 7. So, we have the same mind now regarding the sin nature or sinful nature or the sinful flesh. I am confident that things would be a lot easier this time.

I pretty much agree with all that you said there about the fallen man.

<<<It wasn't that the body was corrupt>>>

Yes it is not. But the body was corrupted by sin. Paul tells us something about man which concerns the flesh. He said “ For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells” (Rom.7:18). In fact Paul said that sin dwells in our flesh. Paul even said “Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.”(Rom.7:20). Now, that is sin dwelling in the flesh. But is that all there is about flesh our flesh? I think there’s more about it that we cannot seem to control, if only by our own will. We saw that, even in the innocent Adam and Eve.

Tong
R1810

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Obviously I wanted to make sure what it is you are meaning to say by that.

And true enough, It’s good that I did. For your statement sounded that Christ did not rise from the dead for OT saints but for NT only, which is the difference you seem to point out. So I asked to clarify. Now it’s clear to me that you did not mean to say that Christ did not only rise from the dead for NT but also for OT saints. And now I can agree with that. Else, I would have unnecessarily argued against the statement.

So, if you take me to be honest, if you think my response is a non argument to your argument, that’s a sign that I could have misunderstood you. And a clarification is in order.

You sound honest to me. As for me, I'm wrong a lot. The Lord has corrected me many times. I don't claim to always have it right. Just like you, I have to check.

I fail to understand that my pov does not always come across in one instance. There are layers of issues that have to be sorted through to look at any subject with a degree of complexity. For example, words mean different things to different people, and it takes a while to get on the same page. Thank you for your persistence. I apologize if I sold you short.

What we presently know as the truth, could only be what we could believe and so that is with our faith. So we live by faith, by that faith, at least. But as we keep on feeding on the Lord, and as we share the food with the brethren, we find out that the same food taste differently, or some hard to swallow, to different brethren. Sometimes we find out that new food and sometimes others find the food we share as new to them. And so we share our thoughts, so we can grow in the knowledge of the Lord and the truth, which eventually will have us grow in the Spirit.

I believe that being clear to one and the other being clear in turn, makes of an effective communication. And effective communication makes of a good conversation and prevents a lot of unnecessary trouble brought about by misunderstanding. I have learned this the hard and painful way. So, I always make it a point that I understand what one is saying before I even start to say anything. I find it the duty of the speaker to make sure he is understood by the other. And so, I ask for clarifications and open for questions for clarification. But at times, I get carried away or forget to do so. And I think it just happened to me in our conversation.

Apology accepted. No problem. It happens.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Yes I know about the atoning death of Christ, what it accomplished. But my issue with your view is coming from your statement that Abraham died because he had no eternal life then. So, that I argued that, if the death of Abraham proves that he had no eternal life yet then because Christ had not died yet on the cross, then why do Christians still die? So your point there does not take away my argument.

Yes, this has gotten very "opaque" for me. Please let me try to simplify it. The fact people die, including Abraham, is an indication they are sinners. Even in the NT we die, showing we're sinners. Only sinless people don't die. Christ didn't sin, but chose to give himself up to death. The rest of us die because we have a Sin Nature.

So the Sin Nature was a death sentence in the OT, quite literally. In the NT it is not, because our faith now has an object that deals with the problem of death. We still have a Sin Nature, we still die, but we won't stay dead. That was not yet assured under the OT, because Christ had not yet provided an eternal atonement for sin.

<<<The fact people die, including Abraham, is an indication they are sinners.>>>
And that goes for Adam and Eve and all mankind. Then and now, all die.

<<<So the Sin Nature was a death sentence in the OT, quite literally. In the NT it is not, because our faith now has an object that deals with the problem of death.>>>

Even in the NT era, it remains that all people die for the same reason people died before the NT era. For as long as man’s flesh still is in its corrupt state, it will die. That is true for all man, Christian or not. And that will not change until the time of resurrection where those bodies will be changed to a new body, one that is not corrupted by sin, and one that is not only incorruptible but immortal. But still not for all man, but only for those saved by God. Of course, those who are alive when resurrection time comes, will not go through the death of their bodies as those dead went through. So, obviously, the death and blood of Christ did not take away the sin nature in man. The resurrection of Jesus Christ also did not, though it is proof that the Christian will be rid of sin nature at the resurrection. As I said in my other post, there is another work of God that took care of that.

The point then is, man, Christian or not, still have the sin nature. So then Abraham and the Christians both have the sin nature. As such my argument remains, if only for the reason that Abraham could not had been given eternal life for having the sin nature. And the argument that his death proves that he was not given eternal life also does not hold.

<<<We still have a Sin Nature, we still die, but we won't stay dead. That was not yet assured under the OT, because Christ had not yet provided an eternal atonement for sin.>>>

That seems to run contrary to your position that the sin nature had already been taken away since Christ had already made atonement for sin. That man dies and the Christian dies only shows that the sin nature is still there.

So, overall, what you say there does not take away my arguments.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Yes you have explained what you mean concerning that. But I still cannot reconcile your statement that Abraham died because he had no eternal life then with the fact that even Christians who had eternal life, die as well.

We all die, whether we had eternal life at the time or not. When Abraham died, he did not yet have eternal life. That's all I'm saying. It showed, by his death, that he needed eternal life. And it showed, by his death, that none of us deserved eternal life.

Something different happens in the NT. We still don't deserve eternal life, but Christ has shown that we now qualify for it. So when we die, it is no longer evidence that we, by our death, incur an eternal death sentence.

Death just shows that our Sin Nature condemns us. In the OT it showed Abraham that he was condemned without any hope until Christ provided an eternal atonement for sin.

In the NT death does not show that any longer, since the curse is broken by Christ's resurrection. Our faith has an object by which our curse no longer disqualifies us from eternal life. We look over death and see the hope of eternal life. That hope was not yet realized in Abraham's day, and his death did not provide him assurance of eternal life yet.

It's not that OT figures had no hope of obtaining eternal life. It's just that they didn't yet have the assurance of something that had not yet happened. They hoped for it, but until it actually happened, it didn't exist.

<<<We all die, whether we had eternal life at the time or not. >>>

I agree. And that really is one of the strength of my argument.

<<<When Abraham died, he did not yet have eternal life. That's all I'm saying.>>>

I know. And that is exactly what I was arguing against.

<<<It showed, by his death, that he needed eternal life.>>>

The death of any person would show that need. The death even of a Christian shows that need. If at all the Christian already have eternal, and he does, yet he dies, only tells us that eternal life does not mean not having to die in the body or does not involve the body of flesh of the man. That’s why, in my past post, I told you that it seems we have a different take of what eternal life is. That I believe that Abraham was given eternal life then, is because I don’t take eternal life as having something to do with the body or flesh of man.

So, what is your take of eternal life?

<<<Something different happens in the NT. We still don't deserve eternal life,...>>>

I have been repeatedly reminding us, eternal life is not something that we deserve nor ever will deserve it. It is a gift. Even though we were justified, that does not mean we deserve eternal life or that eternal life had ceased to be a gift.

<<<...but Christ has shown that we now qualify for it.>>>

Scriptures said that Christians already have eternal life.

<<<. In the OT it showed Abraham that he was condemned without any hope ,..>>>

I disagree. God justified Abraham. God had forgiven his sins. Abraham died in faith. Please see Hebrews 11:13-16.

<<<They hoped for it, but until it actually happened, it didn't exist.>>>

Perhaps, in the perspective of man. But not in the perspective of God. In the eyes of God, Abraham is already saved. It is no different with Christians. While we are already saved, we still have our hopes, which speaks of things we already have yet are not yet in our perspective. For hope that is seen is not hope. Now of things not seen that we hope for, this is what the writer of Hebrews say in relation to that. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Now, Abraham have faith as we have faith.

Tong
R1811

 

[amadeus]

... he is here to make people pull their own hair out.

Perhaps it is good then that mine is to the point that I would have trouble getting a handful all at once... hair that is!

 

[amadeus]

I don't believe in giving up on anybody, as long as there is a chance. I rarely cut anybody off, and wouldn't fault you if you do that, because it may free you up to do more profitable work.

My system has been in operation for decades, and I speak to the hard-hearted and obstinate, because I tend to be like that too. I don't want God to give up on me, so I don't want to give up on others also. But yes, there is a time to shake the dirt off our feet, and move on to more profitable territories. I get that.

Presently, I hear some solid arguments from the most obstinate people, who actually try to pick holes in my arguments, understanding them. They reject my points, but as long as they bring up good points, we can all learn. I may need to change--who knows if I'm missing something? I do lots of times, I'm sure!

Give God the glory my friend! We all stand where we stand and only God gives real increases, although of course He often uses people to do that.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The point then is, man, Christian or not, still have the sin nature. So then Abraham and the Christians both have the sin nature. As such my argument remains, if only for the reason that Abraham could not had been given eternal life for having the sin nature. And the argument that his death proves that he was not given eternal life also does not hold.

That seems to run contrary to your position that the sin nature had already been taken away since Christ had already made atonement for sin. That man dies and the Christian dies only shows that the sin nature is still there.

So, overall, what you say there does not take away my arguments.

The death of any person would show that need. The death even of a Christian shows that need. If at all the Christian already have eternal, and he does, yet he dies, only tells us that eternal life does not mean not having to die in the body or does not involve the body of flesh of the man. That’s why, in my past post, I told you that it seems we have a different take of what eternal life is. That I believe that Abraham was given eternal life then, is because I don’t take eternal life as having something to do with the body or flesh of man.

I understand everything you're saying, and it makes sense. I just think you've read way more into what I was saying that was warranted, or that I intended to say. I fully agree with you that there is no appreciable difference between death in the OT and death in the NT. They are the same.

What I meant to say is that death is an indicator of hopelessness *as long as there is not yet a remedy for it.* But in the NT, death does have a remedy, and thus, it is not hopeless. Death does not indicate the same thing in the NT as it did in the OT, because in the NT we have Christ's resurrection. We still die, but we have a real hope, a realized hope.

When I talk about a change in the status of the Sin Nature, from OT to NT, I'm talking about a *legal change,* and not an actual change. In the OT, therefore, both the Sin Nature and Death are indicators of a hopeless condition, lacking a remedy for the same. In the NT the remedy is legal and only partly substantial. We have received a Spirit without limitations, due to the fact our covenant with God is now eternal, and not limited. That is the substantial difference between OT and NT. We in the NT have Sin Nature, Death, but also the Spirit without measure, without limitation. And by that I don't mean we become God! I only mean that we have it forever as an eternal gift from God.

So, what is your take of eternal life?

You seem to have had an issue with saying we were hopeless and had no chance of eternal life in the OT. That is kind of a semantics tangle, because yes, OT saints did have hope in a future immortality, but at the same time, legally they were without hope until Christ actually provided eternal atonement for them.

Eternal Life can be viewed in 2 ways, which is also why we suffer some confusion here. In a sense, the OT saints already had the hope of eternal life. NT Christians also have, in a way, the hope of eternal life--they just haven't yet been transformed into immortal bodies. So our present spiritual life and our future spiritual life can be differentiated, and must be differentiated because we have yet to be transformed into immortality. But legally, we already have eternal life--we're already Saved. But the OT saints, though they had this hope, certainly did not yet have it legally.

If this sounds confusing, it's probably because it is!

 

[Tong2020]

I understand everything you're saying, and it makes sense. I just think you've read way more into what I was saying that was warranted, or that I intended to say. I fully agree with you that there is no appreciable difference between death in the OT and death in the NT. They are the same.

What I meant to say is that death is an indicator of hopelessness *as long as there is not yet a remedy for it.* But in the NT, death does have a remedy, and thus, it is not hopeless. Death does not indicate the same thing in the NT as it did in the OT, because in the NT we have Christ's resurrection. We still die, but we have a real hope, a realized hope.

When I talk about a change in the status of the Sin Nature, from OT to NT, I'm talking about a *legal change,* and not an actual change. In the OT, therefore, both the Sin Nature and Death are indicators of a hopeless condition, lacking a remedy for the same. In the NT the remedy is legal and only partly substantial. We have received a Spirit without limitations, due to the fact our covenant with God is now eternal, and not limited. That is the substantial difference between OT and NT. We in the NT have Sin Nature, Death, but also the Spirit without measure, without limitation. And by that I don't mean we become God! I only mean that we have it forever as an eternal gift from God.

<<<What I meant to say is that death is an indicator of hopelessness *as long as there is not yet a remedy for it.* But in the NT, death does have a remedy, and thus, it is not hopeless. Death does not indicate the same thing in the NT as it did in the OT, because in the NT we have Christ's resurrection. We still die, but we have a real hope, a realized hope.>>>

Perhaps. But whether that is indicative to people or not depends on what they believe. What you say there would only be appreciated by the Christian, but not to the atheist, the pagan unbeliever or even the Jews who don’t believe in the resurrection.

As I see it, I find no counter argument in what I said in my posts.

You mentioned there that in the NT, the Christian is given the Holy Spirit. And yes, that is the substantial difference between the NT and OT. If there is a word that I would state the difference between NT and OT, that would be “SPIRIT”.

Tong2020 said: ↑
So, what is your take of eternal life?

You seem to have had an issue with saying we were hopeless and had no chance of eternal life in the OT. That is kind of a semantics tangle, because yes, OT saints did have hope in a future immortality, but at the same time, legally they were without hope until Christ actually provided eternal atonement for them.

Eternal Life can be viewed in 2 ways, which is also why we suffer some confusion here. In a sense, the OT saints already had the hope of eternal life. NT Christians also have, in a way, the hope of eternal life--they just haven't yet been transformed into immortal bodies. So our present spiritual life and our future spiritual life can be differentiated, and must be differentiated because we have yet to be transformed into immortality. But legally, we already have eternal life--we're already Saved. But the OT saints, though they had this hope, certainly did not yet have it legally.

If this sounds confusing, it's probably because it is!

You’re right, it is confusing.

What is eternal life?

We Christians always speak and talk about it. But do we know what it really is? Does it simply means immortality or a life with no end?

Tong
R1812

 

[Randy Kluth]

<<<What I meant to say is that death is an indicator of hopelessness *as long as there is not yet a remedy for it.* But in the NT, death does have a remedy, and thus, it is not hopeless. Death does not indicate the same thing in the NT as it did in the OT, because in the NT we have Christ's resurrection. We still die, but we have a real hope, a realized hope.>>>

Perhaps. But whether that is indicative to people or not depends on what they believe. What you say there would only be appreciated by the Christian, but not to the atheist, the pagan unbeliever or even the Jews who don’t believe in the resurrection.

As I see it, I find no counter argument in what I said in my posts.

You mentioned there that in the NT, the Christian is given the Holy Spirit. And yes, that is the substantial difference between the NT and OT. If there is a word that I would state the difference between NT and OT, that would be “SPIRIT”.


You’re right, it is confusing.

What is eternal life?

We Christians always speak and talk about it. But do we know what it really is? Does it simply means immortality or a life with no end?

Tong
R1812

Tong, the whole problem you seem to be having is that you don't recognize the nuances of words. The same word means different things in different contexts. You have to recognize the context, and not try to make the word mean the same thing in all contexts.

That is precisely what I mean when I say Paul uses "shortcuts." He uses a word that is the same word in different contexts, expecting the reader to recognize that the word can obtain a technical meaning in one context and another meaning in another context. To just use the word and to expect the reader to differentiate the context makes that word into a "shortcut."

It would be the same with a homonym. The technical meaning of "bore" in one context would be to render listless and disinterested. Using the word "bore" in this context would give it a technical meaning that refers to this kind of definition.

But it is also understood that the same word used in a different context, such as in drilling, would give the word "bore" an entirely different technical application, when the subject is all about a drilling operation. What makes it even more difficult in our discussion is that a word like "hope" can technically refer to legal possession of eternal life, and acquire that technical meaning with respect to Christ's already having paid for our atonement.

But the same word "hope" can mean something very similar, and yet different, such as one in the OT "hoping for" eventual redemption. He does not have the "hope" legally, but in this context, "hope" is sort of like wishful thinking. Even more, it is a confidence that something will eventually happen, and then waiting for it to happen.

Death meant one thing in the OT era, and another thing in the NT era. But it meant the same thing in both eras in another respect. Again, you have to find the shortcut technical term for "death" in order to apply it properly.

In the OT death was a legal prohibition against the current possession of eternal life. And yet, the certainty that atonement would come gave rise to the sense that death never was completely a prohibition against having the certainty of having eternal life. It was just certainty that they have the promise, which is nearly as good as having it.

If you can't understand these things, perhaps there is some other reason for this? Sometimes we can't get things when our minds are on the protests against a particular position.

 

[Randy Kluth]

<<<It wasn't that the body was corrupt>>>

Yes it is not. But the body was corrupted by sin. Paul tells us something about man which concerns the flesh. He said “ For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells” (Rom.7:18). In fact Paul said that sin dwells in our flesh. Paul even said “Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.”(Rom.7:20). Now, that is sin dwelling in the flesh. But is that all there is about flesh our flesh? I think there’s more about it that we cannot seem to control, if only by our own will. We saw that, even in the innocent Adam and Eve.

Tong
R1810

Yea, I don't think Paul was speaking the creation of the human body as an evil thing, either before or after the Fall. He is just stating that our physical beings have now become the home of poisoned spirits. As such, our physical lives no longer accurately represent the image of God. We are drawn by our senses to do what seems pleasing to our bodies, our minds geared to accomplishing that very purpose, completely disregarding God's will that we live in His image.

In this sense, our "Flesh" has been corrupted. It is not that our physical "skin" is diseased, but that the "fleshly house" we now live in is home to "bad news," and we do corrupt things with what we were once given to do only good.

So when Paul speaks of the "corrupt flesh," it is another one of those "shortcut" words that we should understand refers to where man currently lives and how he operates if he had not performed repentance.

And repentance is turning away from the ways of the flesh, ie independence from God, to conform to God's word all the time. We all live in the "flesh," but that is not what Paul means by living by the "corrupt flesh." He is talking about our conforming to the ways of the sinful flesh, instead of overcoming those tendencies by choosing to conform to God's word.

The "flesh," therefore, is not just the physical body, but technically, the body in which a sinful human spirit dwells. To live by the "flesh" is to live by our sinful nature, and not with a repentant attitude.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes you did not. We have the same mind on this.
It may be a repetition, but not mindless Randy.

Not intended as an insult. You either use your brain to argue for the doctrine, or you use your brain to *understand* the doctrine. You can do both, but you shouldn't just argue the doctrine. That's an illicit form of "scholasticism."

On my part, it is God who saves us, not faith. Again, I am not arguing, but just wanting to point that out.

This is an example of the semantics problem that results from failing to understand words in context, which is another way of describing a "shortcut word." You can say the word without the context if the context is already understood.

It is a semantics problem to say that "faith does not save us." The context you are using depicts faith as a kind of human work, trying to get to heaven without Christ. But in another context, "faith does save us," if you speak in the context of faith focused on the works of Christ that do save us. You are having trouble over "words!" Welcome to the World of Internet Forums!

Not exactly like that. Faith is devoid of works. It has nothing to do with works. Now don’t get me wrong. So let me clear on that. The matter of faith producing works or faith being shown by works is a different matter, when I say faith is devoid of works. I am talking about what faith is and not about whether what is dead faith or living faith.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, and the very thing causing the confusion. You can't use a word like "faith" without understanding the context in which it is being used. Otherwise, it will be misunderstood.

Yes, faith as an OT work did not achieve Salvation. But yes, faith is a kind of human work when it is a work of faith, and though it did not achieve Salvation in the OT era, it certainly achieved righteousness at that time, and of a kind that ultimately qualified for eternal life.

When saints are asked to have faith, they are not being asked to do a work apart from faith, or apart from God. Rather, they are being asked to comply with the word of God, both by believing in it and also by obeying it, or complying with it. Faith is both an attitude and a response. As such, it is a kind of "work." The word "work" itself requires context for it to be properly understood in this discussion.

That there is a covenant between God and Israel means faith is a given. That God wanted for Israel to be righteous in all that they do, is also a given. Even before God gave law, He was in covenant with Abraham. And He too wanted for Abraham and his descendants to be righteous in all that they do. (And I must point out as a side, that what deeds they do God take it to be righteous only because and when it is done in faith). So, in my view, the law was given not really for that reason. He added it as their covenant obligation. And He added it for reasons written out in the OT scriptures and clearly revealed in the NT scriptures.

You seem to be saying 2 contradictory things! 1st, you rightly state that God's word to Abraham and His word to Israel through the Law made them righteous. And then it seems you state these things were not done for the purpose of making them righteous?

In my view, I agree with the 1st part of what you said. These things, ie the word of God to Abraham and to Israel, made them righteous. But I disagree that these things were not intended to make them righteous.

Again, you're using the doctrine of "eternal righteousness" in confused opposition to a sense of "temporary righteousness." No, Abraham and Israel did not obtain *eternal righteousness* by obeying the word of God. But inasmuch as it did make them righteous they were able to latch onto the promise and the assurance of ultimate redemption at the atonement of Christ.

<<<You would think that nobody in Israel made it into the Kingdom of Heaven by your argument that Israel was never righteous, and nobody could ever do good works and be considered righteous?>>>

I was not arguing at all with that end. For there clearly were men and women who were said to be righteous, though not because they have not transgressed any of the commandments in the law, or because of their works, but because of faith in God. It was so with Abraham, and it is so with anybody who are of faith.

That is a contradiction. They were righteous because of their works of faith. That is, their faith translated into works of obedience to the word of God spoken to them. Their faith was the operating attitude that results in obedience. And the works were evidence of their obedience, rendering them "righteous."

While I agree that the works of the law should be done in faith, I don’t think the works of the law could properly be said as works of faith. I know you will object to that.

Yes, I do object to that. I think you're arguing doctrine, like so many others do. Understood in the long version (unabbreviated), Paul was saying not that the Law could not be done in faith, but only that as long as this kind of faith was in operation, faith for Salvation had not yet come. And that's because the works of the Law, though pleasing to God and though producing righteousness, only proved that Man still needed a Redeemer.

But let me try to explain or show the sense by which I say that. When I look at the works of faith in Hebrews 11, nothing was mentioned any work that pertains to the works of the law. Besides that, one difference I see that makes me think that the works of the law could not properly be said as works of faith, is that, the works of the law, like to not steal, to not murder, to not lie, to not commit adultery, to not covet others goods, to not eat blood or certain animals, to not do this, etc., are not works done as a prompting of faith but done as covenant obligation.This sense of obligation is clearly shown with the fact that even those who do not have faith in God, if they are within the gates of Israel, they are to do the works of the law. I hope you get what I mean.

Yes, the Law was a covenant obligation that prohibited Man from obtaining Salvation apart from the redemption of Christ. The walls of partition around and in the temple, and the laws of sacrifice, all showed that Man could not directly approach God without a proper atonement.

Animal sacrifices were temporary and unsatisfactory as far as eternal salvation. But they did provide a temporary relationship with God and temporal blessings in this life. This covenant was meant to lead into the final covenant of Christ, in which all these things could obtain eternal status.

If ever there were men and women saved during the time of Moses and Christ, it is not by the law, but still is by faith.

Yes, but what does that mean? Does that just mean people believe God exists? Does it mean that people accept some of what God says, and accept the word of other gods as well? No, it means we have an attitude of *receiving* the word of God in our heart when we hear it. That causes us to do works of faith, which in turn make us righteous.

In the OT this righteousness was real, but could not yet achieve eternal status. In the NT the righteousness of faith qualifies all who have ever had faith to achieve the atonement of Christ. And that's because the word of God in the OT is the same God in the NT who now brings salvation to those who trusted in Him.

So, it seems that now we agree that the law was not given by God to put an obstacle to Israel’s salvation.

Tong
R1807

You don't seem to understand what I mean by that? The Law was in fact said to be central to prohibiting Israel from acquiring eternal salvation. It's provisions gave Israel temporary status with God that was designed to lead to eternal status with God. But until Christ atoned for their sin, the Law was in effect and prevented Man from obtaining Salvation until Christ rose from the dead.

The Law set up barricades between God and Israel, and went to great lengths to show that Israel was too unholy to achieve permanent status with God. Their covenant with God came through many regulations. Nothing gave Israel unbridled access to God--not even the High Priest had free access to God.

The purpose was not to stop fellowship between God and Man, nor between God and Israel. It was only to show the necessity of modeling the proper way to do this, separating out all who do not properly embrace Christ as the only way.

 

[marks]

You either use your brain to argue for the doctrine, or you use your brain to *understand* the doctrine. You can do both, but you shouldn't just argue the doctrine. That's an illicit form of "scholasticism."

Hi Randy,

This is a good point! And I'd like to add one more thought . . . We can argue for a doctrine, but is it building up?

I want to remember your wording here, "an illicit form of scholasticism", well put!

Much love!

 

[marks]

But it is also understood that the same word used in a different context, such as in drilling, would give the word "bore" an entirely different technical application, when the subject is all about a drilling operation. What makes it even more difficult in our discussion is that a word like "hope" can technically refer to legal possession of eternal life, and acquire that technical meaning with respect to Christ's already having paid for our atonement.

But the same word "hope" can mean something very similar, and yet different, such as one in the OT "hoping for" eventual redemption. He does not have the "hope" legally, but in this context, "hope" is sort of like wishful thinking. Even more, it is a confidence that something will eventually happen, and then waiting for it to happen.

Something to understand about this, we need to keep clear on between the English nuance and what the Greek means. Hope, elpis, is anything but wistful.

In the NT, elpis, hope, is the the end of our faith, that is to say, I believe Jesus will raise the dead, so I have the hope (certain expectation) of the resurrection.

Much love!

 

[Tong2020]

Tong, the whole problem you seem to be having is that you don't recognize the nuances of words. The same word means different things in different contexts. You have to recognize the context, and not try to make the word mean the same thing in all contexts.

That is precisely what I mean when I say Paul uses "shortcuts." He uses a word that is the same word in different contexts, expecting the reader to recognize that the word can obtain a technical meaning in one context and another meaning in another context. To just use the word and to expect the reader to differentiate the context makes that word into a "shortcut."

It would be the same with a homonym. The technical meaning of "bore" in one context would be to render listless and disinterested. Using the word "bore" in this context would give it a technical meaning that refers to this kind of definition.

But it is also understood that the same word used in a different context, such as in drilling, would give the word "bore" an entirely different technical application, when the subject is all about a drilling operation.

Perhaps you find it a problem for me. Perhaps because we see differently the context. Or we may be taking a word in a broader context not obvious to the other.

What makes it even more difficult in our discussion is that a word like "hope" can technically refer to legal possession of eternal life, and acquire that technical meaning with respect to Christ's already having paid for our atonement.

But the same word "hope" can mean something very similar, and yet different, such as one in the OT "hoping for" eventual redemption. He does not have the "hope" legally, but in this context, "hope" is sort of like wishful thinking. Even more, it is a confidence that something will eventually happen, and then waiting for it to happen.

Not that I don’t mention that matter, means I don’t take a word you use in context to what you are saying.

Yes, I get what you are saying concerning hope when you recently informed me that you are actually speaking about sin nature in the “legal” sense. But in my view, that did not made any much of an effect on my argument. To be clear on context, all that I said from the start of our discussion, is in the context of faith, per my take on what faith is, and in the context of faith in God.

So, with regards hope, in that context, I told you what hope is. That hope that is seen is not hope (I borrowed the words of Paul here). So hope is about things not seen, so that hope concerns things not seen, whether the things hoped for actually exist already or will yet have to exist. So, I pointed out this “ Now of things not seen that we hope for, this is what the writer of Hebrews say in relation to that. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Now, Abraham have faith as we have faith.” I know you know what the Hebrews writer says there what faith is with regards the object of our hope.

Christians already have eternal life and do experience it even now. Yet christians hope for eternal life too. That really is, in the stand point of man, is confusing. But not in God’s stand point. This hope of the Christian is one that is coming from his stand point. On the other hand, the truth and reality that he already have eternal life is coming from the stand point of God. The Christian hopes, not that he does not truly have eternal life, but only because, in his reality, such is unseen to him. But this hope is one that is not wishful thinking, but one that is sure and certain. That is because of faith. That’s how I view it.

When scriptures says that the Christian already have eternal life, is that in the legal sense only and not in the real and actual sense? In my view, it is both.

So if there is any difference between those saved at the time before Christ and the Christians, regarding eternal life, is in the legal sense only, the former as not having it in the legal sense, but do have it in the real sense. Not that perhaps they may not be aware of it makes that unreal in them. Any truth, whether man is aware of it or not, whether it is past or future to him or not, is truth. And truth always exist and exist with and in God. At least that how I see it.

And I think you can only really get and understand what I am saying there, if and when you take what eternal life is, as I do. Not in any way forcing you to though. For one, eternal life for me, is life that has nothing to do with the flesh or body (the body we now have, that is, of the dust of the earth), but have everything to do with the spirit of man.

Death meant one thing in the OT era, and another thing in the NT era. But it meant the same thing in both eras in another respect. Again, you have to find the shortcut technical term for "death" in order to apply it properly.

In the OT death was a legal prohibition against the current possession of eternal life. And yet, the certainty that atonement would come gave rise to the sense that death never was completely a prohibition against having the certainty of having eternal life. It was just certainty that they have the promise, which is nearly as good as having it.

If you can't understand these things, perhaps there is some other reason for this? Sometimes we can't get things when our minds are on the protests against a particular position.

As I have explained above, it is a matter where one stands and view it and his take of things such as what eternal life is. And this is not at all coming from a mind that protest against a particular position but of that just don’t have that particular position.

Tong
R1813

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hi Randy,

This is a good point! And I'd like to add one more thought . . . We can argue for a doctrine, but is it building up?

I want to remember your wording here, "an illicit form of scholasticism", well put!

Much love!

Good preaching--preaching I need to always hear! God made it clear to me a long time ago that without "love" everything is an exercise in futility. I'm still learning it, memorizing it, but most importantly having to acquire it by regularly practicing it! Good word!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Something to understand about this, we need to keep clear on between the English nuance and what the Greek means. Hope, elpis, is anything but wistful.

In the NT, elpis, hope, is the the end of our faith, that is to say, I believe Jesus will raise the dead, so I have the hope (certain expectation) of the resurrection.

Much love!

Completely agree. Our confusion comes when we mix our language with the language of the Bible. Neither language is more important than the other--it all depends on context. What is important is that we grasp the biblical concepts in whatever language we are using.

English can express the biblical sense of our "Hope" in eternal life, but it may require more context. The Bible has its own built in context. I agree that most often "Hope" is being depicted as a *certainty,* and not merely as "wishful thinking." But wishful thinking was in the Bible as well, such as when women that couldn't have children "wished" to have children, evil men "wished" to destroy their enemies, or God "wished" men to repent and be righteous.

This "wishful thinking" is encapsulated in the word "hope" in the English language, and is therefore not non-biblical. It is a matter of translation. And because "hope" as a certain future, and "hope" as wishful thinking are both expressed using the same word in the English language, we can get confused about what the Bible is talking about when using the word "hope."

When we talk about the certainty of our "hope" it is not "wishful thinking"--you are quite right about this. It's just a matter of reading the context for these translated words properly.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Perhaps you find it a problem for me. Perhaps because we see differently the context. Or we may be taking a word in a broader context not obvious to the other.


Not that I don’t mention that matter, means I don’t take a word you use in context to what you are saying.

Yes, I get what you are saying concerning hope when you recently informed me that you are actually speaking about sin nature in the “legal” sense. But in my view, that did not made any much of an effect on my argument. To be clear on context, all that I said from the start of our discussion, is in the context of faith, per my take on what faith is, and in the context of faith in God.

So, with regards hope, in that context, I told you what hope is. That hope that is seen is not hope (I borrowed the words of Paul here). So hope is about things not seen, so that hope concerns things not seen, whether the things hoped for actually exist already or will yet have to exist. So, I pointed out this “ Now of things not seen that we hope for, this is what the writer of Hebrews say in relation to that. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Now, Abraham have faith as we have faith.” I know you know what the Hebrews writer says there what faith is with regards the object of our hope.

Christians already have eternal life and do experience it even now. Yet christians hope for eternal life too.

Well, I think we already have eternal life. We hope for immortality. But when it comes it ceases to be a hope, right? But we are told hope is eternal. Therefore, even after we obtain one thing we hope for--immortality--we continue to hope for more things on into eternity. Each time we realize things we hope for, but hope continues.

In the matter of Salvation we have all of these nuances to deal with. We have eternal life, and yet we don't yet have immortality. And in the OT men had faith, but did not yet have eternal life *legally.* They certainly had the assurance that it would come, but they did not have the Spirit yet given, adopting them as children of God with full rights as heirs. We do have the Spirit as a permanent gift now, but even now we still don't have the full inheritance of the Kingdom.

When scriptures says that the Christian already have eternal life, is that in the legal sense only and not in the real and actual sense? In my view, it is both.

We do not have it in terms of immortality. We do have the Spirit as a down payment on our inheritance. We own the property even though we haven't completely moved in.

So if there is any difference between those saved at the time before Christ and the Christians, regarding eternal life, is in the legal sense only, the former as not having it in the legal sense, but do have it in the real sense.

You have to define what "the real sense" is?

And I think you can only really get and understand what I am saying there, if and when you take what eternal life is, as I do. Not in any way forcing you to though. For one, eternal life for me, is life that has nothing to do with the flesh or body (the body we now have, that is, of the dust of the earth), but have everything to do with the spirit of man.

That is called "blurring the distinctions." Sorry!

 

[Tong2020]

Yea, I don't think Paul was speaking the creation of the human body as an evil thing, either before or after the Fall. He is just stating that our physical beings have now become the home of poisoned spirits. As such, our physical lives no longer accurately represent the image of God. We are drawn by our senses to do what seems pleasing to our bodies, our minds geared to accomplishing that very purpose, completely disregarding God's will that we live in His image.

In this sense, our "Flesh" has been corrupted. It is not that our physical "skin" is diseased, but that the "fleshly house" we now live in is home to "bad news," and we do corrupt things with what we were once given to do only good.

So when Paul speaks of the "corrupt flesh," it is another one of those "shortcut" words that we should understand refers to where man currently lives and how he operates if he had not performed repentance.

And repentance is turning away from the ways of the flesh, ie independence from God, to conform to God's word all the time. We all live in the "flesh," but that is not what Paul means by living by the "corrupt flesh." He is talking about our conforming to the ways of the sinful flesh, instead of overcoming those tendencies by choosing to conform to God's word.

The "flesh," therefore, is not just the physical body, but technically, the body in which a sinful human spirit dwells. To live by the "flesh" is to live by our sinful nature, and not with a repentant attitude.

I can see we have a different take on what flesh is in the sense that for you is it more than refers to the physical. For me it is refers to the body of man that God formed from the ground, the physical or material part of man opposite the spiritual part. But for you, it seems there is more to it than that. And I am not sure what it being the body in which the human spirit dwells makes a difference.

Tong
R1814

 

[Randy Kluth]

I can see we have a different take on what flesh is in the sense that for you is it more than refers to the physical. For me it is refers to the body of man that God formed from the ground, the physical or material part of man opposite the spiritual part. But for you, it seems there is more to it than that. And I am not sure what it being the body in which the human spirit dwells makes a difference.

Tong
R1814

The difference is that the A view is that the flesh is just the material body, and the B view is that the material body is being used by a rebellious spirit, opposed to divine control over it. Otherwise, you're left with a material/spiritual duality, which is often used by false religions and cults to signify that self-denial is righteousness, and self-indulgence is evil.

This creates a false "works" mentality in which a person exercises restraint and yet maintains independent control over his will, still remaining unwilling to yield to God as Lord. True righteousness is not denial of physical things, nor even denial of bodily desires or needs.

This false religion considers the body evil and the spirit good. To do good one must shun the material nature, and thus focus on spiritual virtue. This is a false dichotomy and a false spirituality. The body is not evil. It is the tainted spirit of man that has become sinful, and chooses to be driven by bodily interests other than how God leads him to operate his bodily interests.

True righteousness is using our material bodies and our material wants and needs for the glory of God. We do that by consulting with God in everything we do, forming a partnership with Him, so that everything we do is done through the virtue of God's Spirit.

Sometimes we do need to deny ourselves. But true works is a matter of maintaining our partnership with God, and not purely denying ourselves things, as some Hindus do. Self-denial does not produce righteousness--working together with God does. In this we deny any self-interest opposed to God's word, and do not deny ourselves things purely because they belong to physical things that we consider "evil."

John 15.5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples."

Col 2.16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.