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

[Randy Kluth]

If you believe that I do not debate in good faith, then just do not debate with me. What chance are you talking about? As if you are implying by that that I was dishonest once and I had my chance to be honest? If this dialogue just causes you to have such bad thoughts on me, that is not good. Better that you just not respond.

Faith = works? Do you mean they are the same? Or do you mean faith produce works?

Faith and works are not the same thing. So, faith isn’t work and work isn’t faith. Love produces works. But that does not make love is of work or make love to be work.

A brother warned me that you wouldn't be reasonable in the end. You seemed honest to me, for the most part, and so I was giving it a try. But there are certain points in any debate where someone's honesty is tested. Unless there is a complete misunderstanding, we've reached that threshold.

1) You've admitted that keeping the Law was done by faith and was intended to produce righteousness. And then you say the works of the Law produced no righteousness.

2) You've admitted that James said faith must be evidenced in deeds. I just told you that deeds are works, and so faith must be evidenced in works. And you said in response, faith and works are not related.

3) I told you that justification under the Law could not produce Salvation apart from Christ. And yet you say that eternal life was already obtained under the Old Covenant era by men simply by having faith.

You have got to start making sense of your statements because you are just blurting out things that you think Scriptures are stating without any kind of effort to systematize them, or to make them fit together. Just stating things is not debating, nor even discussing. You mix contexts and thus confuse the semantics of words. I've explained this to you, and you just continue as always. Are you really being serious?

How could you even ask me that question? Do you think I would call God a liar? Wow. Is that how you see me? If I am a cause for such bad thoughts, just let me know, and I’ll stop responding to your post.

If you're serious you will start responding to the actual problems your contradictions are making. Stating things opposite to what God has said is a serious charge, but you make no effort to resolve it. God gave the Law to make Israel righteous. And you just say what: "No, He didn't?"

If you don’t see the difference in “God wanted for them to be righteous” and “God make them righteous”, then that’s just it. There is no good argument that can be made on that.

That's the problem, brother. You seem not to care that your contradictions are stated blatantly without apology. You say God wanted people to be righteous and yet none of them were? Who would dignify such an argument with a response?

Real righteousness? And what do you refer to by that?

I explained it quite clearly. The kind of righteousness you referred to was a false righteousness. "In man's eyes" indicates someone who doesn't care what God thinks.

May I ask, are there righteous works that a pagan or or an atheist or an unbeliever does? If there are, are they righteous (real) because they do such works? Would you say they are righteous in the sight of God?

These are semantical games. A "righteous person" does righteous things regularly. To say one is "righteous" is to basically say he or she does right on a regular basis. If an atheist or a pagan does righteous things, and they are simply ignorant, religiously, then I suppose they can be viewed as "good people," or as "righteous people," if they normally do kind things, despite their ignorance.

In the case of Abraham, that is a matter of course. But with Israel, being a group of people, I could not say that all those who got themselves circumcised were with faith. So, I could not say that they were righteous inbthe sight of God.

This is not what I said, was it? And that's why I've struck a somewhat unfriendly note. You don't seem serious. I thought you were.

 

[Randy Kluth]

If you believe I am arguing for nothing and is just playing around, you have to settle that with yourself. I have already told you that I am not here to fool around and waste time, mine and yours.

You have your understanding according to your point of view, as do I. Not that I argue my view against yours means I don’t argue in good faith.

Yes, I don't respond to posts because I think the poster is worthy, but only because the people they post to may need to hear another point of view. I don't consider your arguments worthy. They claim to be done in good faith, but look at what you've argued. You say you just honestly have a different point of view that the "Scriptures" in Gal 3 don't refer to the Law. And yet that's exactly what is explicitly said!

Gal 3.21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

I was arguing that the *Law* locked people up so as to not be saved by any other system than the redemption of Christ. And you argue that "the Scriptures" here do not refer to "the Law," as if that somehow means that Law does not lock people up and keep them under the guilt of sin until Christ's redemption. You either refuse to understand, or are having trouble against a backdrop of some kind of brainwashing?

Like for example here. You take scriptures to mean the law while I take it to mean not just the law, but the word of God in general and collectively. I will argue for my view and you argue for your view. Is there bad faith in that? You argue you consider context. Well I do too. Is there bad faith in that? If you don’t find me honest and just want to argue for the sake of arguing, just don’t respond to my posts. I am not forcing you to respond.

Look at Gal.3:22, Paul refers to Scriptures. When he wants to refer to law, he says “law”, like in Gal.3:5,10,11,12,13,14,18, 19,21,24. I see no reason for Paul to use Scriptures in v.22 to actually refer to law, when he used “law” in those verses. He could have just conveniently, easily, and more clearly used law rather than scriptures if what he is referring to is the law. Perhaps you can give me a reason why.

Tong
R1834

So you seriously are claiming that *the Law* is not *Scripture?* This is what I mean about you saying irresponsible things without apology. You seem like a nice person. But you seem to disregard how important it is to acknowledge points being made and to answer them properly.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
The righteousness of faith is not a result of works. It is on account of faith that God imputed or accounted righteousness to Abraham, justifying him, which amounts to the forgiveness of his sins. If you will just make some observation as to the occasion when Abraham was justified by God, you will find out that it was just all about faith in God. Nothing at all about forgiveness nor obedience.

On the contrary, Abraham was said to be justified by faith precisely because he was a sinner, coming out of paganism. He had no other basis by which to approach God. He could not even respond to God's word unless God had first approached him in his unworthiness.

That’s right. Now I know that you agreed to that, for I was pointing that out regarding Abraham, in one of my post.

So it was not by his deeds that he was justified, but by faith that enabled him to enter into a covenant with God and then please God through works of faith. Offering his son Isaac in response to God's word was indeed a work of righteousness. It was a work of faith

Yes, work of faith or work produced by faith. It is clear there then, faith is that which produce work. Now, what produce the work is obviously not work.

I am just curious, what specifically is it there that is a work of righteousness with regards the offering of his son Isaac, of course beside the point that it is of faith?

Again, this is a semantics battle. In context, Abraham was justified *before* he had done anything for God because initially he was in an unworthy condition. After being made worthy by the mercy of God he could do works of faith that justified him in an entirely different sense.

Now that is plain and clear. I could agree to that.

But I have to say this (for the sake of the readers), that that different sense there isn’t another justification by God, for he had already been justified by God. So, what justification is that for?

Paul is talking about our inability to be justified by our own record, because by our own record we are found to be unworthy. And so, we are justified by faith, and not by works.

<<<Paul is talking about our inability to be justified by our own record, because by our own record we are found to be unworthy. >>>

Agree. Not only because man is unable, but also because justification by God of the man is not by the law or by the works of the law, but by faith.

<<<And so, we are justified by faith, and not by works.>>>

I don’t quite agree with the statement (conclusion) that because we are unable to be justified by our own record, that in conclusion we are justified by faith and not by works. My view is that we are justified by faith because it is how God saves. For me, God saves according to His character, will, purpose, and pleasure. And I believe in what scriptures says about God, that he is not please without faith.

But there is an entirely different sense of being justified by works of faith, in which we are seen as righteous after having been given a dispensation of mercy in our unworthiness. 1st we are justified despite the fact we are sinners. And then the righteousness by which we obtain forgiveness is followed up by works of faith through which we are now viewed as righteous saints.

So you are talking of a righteousness after having been justified by God through faith. That’s clear now. And I see that as well.

Again, I fall back on Paul's use of "shortcuts." By "faith" he refers to approaching God with a stained record, forbidden from approaching the Tree of Life. By his faith, Abraham obtained mercy and was viewed as righteous, for the purpose of obtaining atonement for his sins.

<<<By "faith" he refers to approaching God with a stained record, forbidden from approaching the Tree of Life.>>>

Please clarify. If you could please be clear on what you are saying there.

<<<By his faith, Abraham obtained mercy and was viewed as righteous, for the purpose of obtaining atonement for his sins.>>>

By faith, apart from works, Abraham was justified by God.

That was Paul's concern. He was not concerned about saying that Works of the Law do not justify a man as a righteous man. No, he knew that the Law itself proved that Man had an unworthy record, and was disqualified from the Tree of Life.

But Paul in no way was saying that obedience to the Law did not make Israel righteous! He was only saying that Works under the Law prevented Israel from obtaining eternal life until Christ's atonement took place.

<<<He was not concerned about saying that Works of the Law do not justify a man as a righteous man.>>>

Not in my reading.

Gal.3:5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

Gal. 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.

This is what Paul says of the law, that righteousness is not by the law.

Paul also said this:

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Thus, the Law shut men off from eternal life until Christ's atonement was made. It offered righteousness to Israel by faith, but their works did not justify them in the sense of obtaining eternal life--not until Christ's atonement had been made.

I have already made my argument on that, so I will not repeat it here.

May I ask, when you say “..until Christ’s atonement was made.”, what do you meant to say by “atonement”?

Tong
R1837

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Faith = works? Do you mean they are the same? Or do you mean faith produce works?

Faith and works are not the same thing. So, faith isn’t work and work isn’t faith. Love produces works. But that does not make love is of work or make love to be work.

1) You've admitted that keeping the Law was done by faith and was intended to produce righteousness. And then you say the works of the Law produced no righteousness.

It seems you have not read correctly my posts regarding that. Perhaps you can tell me what post# you got that or put the link of that post.

2) You've admitted that James said faith must be evidenced in deeds. I just told you that deeds are works, and so faith must be evidenced in works. And you said in response, faith and works are not related.

Perhaps things are mixed up here, if not a result of misunderstanding. Please cite the post# or put the links.

3) I told you that justification under the Law could not produce Salvation apart from Christ. And yet you say that eternal life was already obtained under the Old Covenant era by men simply by having faith.

I told you that justification is not by the law but by faith. And in support, I made reference to Abraham’s justification by God in Gen.15:6. And I said I have no reason to believe that Abraham was not saved and that he was given the gift of eternal life when he was justified by God.

To be clear, let me state here what I believe and is what I meant to say in my past posts regarding statements about work, faith, and salvation.

That salvation is of God and is the work of God, that it is by His grace and not by the compliance or fulfillment of some requirement that He gives man to do. That it is through or by faith, that which He gives to him whom He saves. That His salvation is not through or by works of man.

You have got to start making sense of your statements because you are just blurting out things that you think Scriptures are stating without any kind of effort to systematize them, or to make them fit together. Just stating things is not debating, nor even discussing. You mix contexts and thus confuse the semantics of words. I've explained this to you, and you just continue as always. Are you really being serious?

That’s only what you think, that I am just blurting out things that I think scriptures are stating without any kind of effort. Because I don’t do that. If you only knew what effort I put in every post I make, you might not say that. But I think I understand you. Perhaps because you believe you are doing it rightly and I am not. So that, anything I say which does not agree with your view, is wrong and will only be right if it agrees with your view. For if you don’t believe that, then you would not say such things. But I don’t have such mind. That’s why you don’t hear me say anything of that sort. I am open to other views, and will surely look at their merit and allow the Holy Spirit to be my guide.

Please stop bringing that up, if I am serious or honest or not. Just settle that with yourself for I have already told you my heart. Would my repeating telling you change your thinking on that? I don’t think so.

Tong2020 said: ↑
How could you even ask me that question? Do you think I would call God a liar? Wow. Is that how you see me? If I am a cause for such bad thoughts, just let me know, and I’ll stop responding to your post.

If you're serious you will start responding to the actual problems your contradictions are making. Stating things opposite to what God has said is a serious charge, but you make no effort to resolve it. God gave the Law to make Israel righteous. And you just say what: "No, He didn't?"

It seems you take any and all problem arising from this discussion, as necessarily only could be my doing, or my mistake, or my lack of whatever you think I lack, to the point that you always bring up and question my sincerity and honesty. And here, as though you want to make it appear that I say things oppose to what God said and you don’t, and me making God out to be a liar? Well,....what can I do, but suffer such and take comfort in the love of Christ.

Sincerely, take a deep breathe and rid your mind of such unpleasant and bad thoughts. If you think you can’t do that, then say so, so we can just stop as I think it is the only way that you won’t get to suffer having such bad thoughts.

<<<God gave the Law to make Israel righteous. And you just say what: "No, He didn't?>>>

Perhaps it’s because you don’t get to read really what is in my post. By the way, so that you know and might understand, your statement “God gave the law to make Israel righteous” comes to me as you saying that scriptures says that that is the purpose of God in giving the law. So, all my post regarding that are coming from that.

What I am saying in my posts is that while the law consist of good deeds, the law was not really given by God for that purpose, but for some other purpose/s, those which scriptures says, even explicitly. For the contention that God’s purpose with the law, is to make them righteous, that would render God as having failed. And God would not give the law for that purpose, for He knows Israel and all man for that matter, for He knows it would be a failure.

When one do a work of the law, like he do not commit murder, he had done a righteous deed and for that he is said to be righteous. But that is not the only work of the law, but many many more. When say out of 613 works, one was able to observe and keep 612, would you say he is righteous if he transgressed one, say he is a murderer or perhaps, an idolater, or a thief, or an adulterer?

Tong2020 said: ↑
If you don’t see the difference in “God wanted for them to be righteous” and “God make them righteous”, then that’s just it. There is no good argument that can be made on that.

That's the problem, brother. You seem not to care that your contradictions are stated blatantly without apology. You say God wanted people to be righteous and yet none of them were? Who would dignify such an argument with a response?

God “wanting or desiring” is one thing, but “making” is another. If you don’t see the difference between them, are you saying I am in the wrong or am the one lacking?

Tong2020 said: ↑
Real righteousness? And what do you refer to by that?

I explained it quite clearly. The kind of righteousness you referred to was a false righteousness. "In man's eyes" indicates someone who doesn't care what God thinks.

So, if I get that, by real righteousness, you mean faith + works, is that right?

Tong2020 said: ↑
May I ask, are there righteous works that a pagan or or an atheist or an unbeliever does? If there are, are they righteous (real) because they do such works? Would you say they are righteous in the sight of God?

These are semantical games. A "righteous person" does righteous things regularly. To say one is "righteous" is to basically say he or she does right on a regular basis. If an atheist or a pagan does righteous things, and they are simply ignorant, religiously, then I suppose they can be viewed as "good people," or as "righteous people," if they normally do kind things, despite their ignorance.

Not playing any game Randy.

What I gather from your response is that you believe that there are righteous works that an atheist or a pagan does. How about the unbeliever in God or unbeliever in Jesus Christ?

You say that if an atheist or a pagan does right on a regular basis, and are simply ignorant religiously, you believe that they are “righteous”. What do you mean by righteous there? Is that real righteousness or false righteousness?

Tong2020 said: ↑
In the case of Abraham, that is a matter of course. But with Israel, being a group of people, I could not say that all those who got themselves circumcised were with faith. So, I could not say that they were righteous inbthe sight of God.

This is not what I said, was it? And that's why I've struck a somewhat unfriendly note. You don't seem serious. I thought you were.

What? What are you talking about? Did I say anything wrong? Did I say any lie against you? Come on Randy. Why the negative attitude?

Here’s what you said;

Agree, Abraham and Israel obeyed God in the matter of circumcision and were considered really righteous, and not just righteous "in the sight of men." (Post#1119)

Tong
R1838

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
If you believe I am arguing for nothing and is just playing around, you have to settle that with yourself. I have already told you that I am not here to fool around and waste time, mine and yours.

You have your understanding according to your point of view, as do I. Not that I argue my view against yours means I don’t argue in good faith.

Yes, I don't respond to posts because I think the poster is worthy, but only because the people they post to may need to hear another point of view. I don't consider your arguments worthy. They claim to be done in good faith, but look at what you've argued. You say you just honestly have a different point of view that the "Scriptures" in Gal 3 don't refer to the Law. And yet that's exactly what is explicitly said!

Gal 3.21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

I was arguing that the *Law* locked people up so as to not be saved by any other system than the redemption of Christ. And you argue that "the Scriptures" here do not refer to "the Law," as if that somehow means that Law does not lock people up and keep them under the guilt of sin until Christ's redemption. You either refuse to understand, or are having trouble against a backdrop of some kind of brainwashing?

You asked me to explain what Paul said in Gal.3:22-25. And I did. Then from what I said, you argued about “scriptures” in v.22 that it refers to the law, on your take of context. I maintained my take of “scriptures” as referring not only to the law, but to the word of God in general and as a whole, and told you the reason why. And you say that my argument is not a worthy one. That is your opinion and may differ from others. So, what has that got to do with arguing in good faith or not? If you’d rather want to talk to somebody that you think lives up to your standard, and find me as not a one, go find another so you won’t have to complain every time and blurt out what bad thoughts you have of me.

I have told you why I take scriptures to refer not only to the law, but to the word of God in general and the whole of what He cause to be written, known as the scriptures. If you don’t take that as worthy of consideration, so be it with you. I’ll just have to take that to mean that you don’t find the scriptures as that which locked up everything under the control of sin.

For you see, in my take of “Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin” in v.22 is not saying the exact same thing in v.23 “we were held in custody under the law”.

The former is about under control of sin and the latter about under the law.

<<<I was arguing that the *Law* locked people up so as to not be saved by any other system than the redemption of Christ.>>>

I was arguing that Israel were held in custody under the law to lead and bring them to Christ, but not to lock them up for the reason you say, that is, to not be saved by any other system. Your argument sounds as though there is another system of salvation by which they can be saved, and even sounds as that which runs rival to Christ.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Like for example here. You take scriptures to mean the law while I take it to mean not just the law, but the word of God in general and collectively. I will argue for my view and you argue for your view. Is there bad faith in that? You argue you consider context. Well I do too. Is there bad faith in that? If you don’t find me honest and just want to argue for the sake of arguing, just don’t respond to my posts. I am not forcing you to respond.

Look at Gal.3:22, Paul refers to Scriptures. When he wants to refer to law, he says “law”, like in Gal.3:5,10,11,12,13,14,18, 19,21,24. I see no reason for Paul to use Scriptures in v.22 to actually refer to law, when he used “law” in those verses. He could have just conveniently, easily, and more clearly used law rather than scriptures if what he is referring to is the law. Perhaps you can give me a reason why.

So you seriously are claiming that *the Law* is not *Scripture?* This is what I mean about you saying irresponsible things without apology. You seem like a nice person. But you seem to disregard how important it is to acknowledge points being made and to answer them properly.

Oh no Randy. Please read my post carefully. It’s better if you ask for me to clarify if there is something you think off in what I say, than having to throw those bad thoughts you have of me. Did I not say of scriptures, “I take it to mean not just the law, but the word of God in general and collectively.”? Does that sound like me claiming the law is not part of scriptures?

Tong
R1839

 

[Randy Kluth]

You asked me to explain what Paul said in Gal.3:22-25. And I did. Then from what I said, you argued about “scriptures” in v.22 that it refers to the law, on your take of context. I maintained my take of “scriptures” as referring not only to the law, but to the word of God in general and as a whole, and told you the reason why. And you say that my argument is not a worthy one. That is your opinion and may differ from others. So, what has that got to do with arguing in good faith or not? If you’d rather want to talk to somebody that you think lives up to your standard, and find me as not a one, go find another so you won’t have to complain every time and blurt out what bad thoughts you have of me.

It's possible I shouldn't have bad thoughts about you. And I'm inclined to believe I am indeed selling you short. For that I apologize. There is no shortcut to understanding one another, and I get impatient at times. Again, I apologize. So let's try and start over at some point, and try to figure out where the disconnect is.

I will choose to believe, from now on, you're arguing in good faith, and accept that I'm wrong to falsely accuse you of acting dishonestly. I understand that you're distinguishing the Scriptures in Gal 3 from the Law, and they should be distinguished in the way they're used. But my point, again, is that they are being referred to as a common source, ie the Law is the Scriptures.

Beyond this, it isn't just the Scriptures saying Israel was "locked up" in their sins. It was also the Law that "locked up" Israel in their sins. Previously, you seemed to deny that the Law prevented Israel from having eternal life. But here that's what the Scriptures themselves seem to say. Any response?

I have told you why I take scriptures to refer not only to the law, but to the word of God in general and the whole of what He cause to be written, known as the scriptures. If you don’t take that as worthy of consideration, so be it with you. I’ll just have to take that to mean that you don’t find the scriptures as that which locked up everything under the control of sin.

Since the Law is the Scriptures, the Scriptures locked Israel up under sin, as long as the Law maintained Scriptural authority. The Law can still be identified as the Scriptures, but the Law is no longer active as a covenant by Scriptural authority.

I was arguing that Israel were held in custody under the law to lead and bring them to Christ, but not to lock them up for the reason you say, that is, to not be saved by any other system. Your argument sounds as though there is another system of salvation by which they can be saved, and even sounds as that which runs rival to Christ.

Yes, Tong, thanks for explaining where you were coming from. There are other systems by which people try to obtain eternal life, whether by good works apart from Christianity or by the Law without Christianity. Those systems were denied access to the Tree of Life until Christ came and became the exclusive means of eternal life.

Okay, hopefully I'm back on track with you. Will you accept my apologies?

 

[Randy Kluth]

It seems you have not read correctly my posts regarding that. Perhaps you can tell me what post# you got that or put the link of that post.

Post #1101 "You told me that already. And it does not make faith to be work. Yes, faith produces deeds, but that does not make faith to be work."

My argument is that faith, to be genuine faith, must produce works. If so, then faith must include work.

I told you that justification is not by the law but by faith. And in support, I made reference to Abraham’s justification by God in Gen.15:6. And I said I have no reason to believe that Abraham was not saved and that he was given the gift of eternal life when he was justified by God.

Yes, you do have reason to believe Abraham did not yet have eternal life when he had faith and was justified by God.

Acts 4.12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

To be clear, let me state here what I believe and is what I meant to say in my past posts regarding statements about work, faith, and salvation.

That salvation is of God and is the work of God, that it is by His grace and not by the compliance or fulfillment of some requirement that He gives man to do. That it is through or by faith, that which He gives to him whom He saves. That His salvation is not through or by works of man.

That's true. It is the work of Christ exclusively that provided for our redemption, that made an eternal atoning sacrifice. We accept it and put the life he gives us as a free gift into practice. These are 2 kinds of justification. One kind atoned for our sins. The other kind is a validation of what Christ did for us by putting his salvation into effect in our lives. We must have both faith and works if we are truly receiving salvation. The works that result from receiving Christ are works of faith. As such OT works of faith likewise validated them as righteous men.

Perhaps it’s because you don’t get to read really what is in my post. By the way, so that you know and might understand, your statement “God gave the law to make Israel righteous” comes to me as you saying that scriptures says that that is the purpose of God in giving the law. So, all my post regarding that are coming from that.

Right, that's what I'm saying, that God gave Israel His Law to make them righteous. That's exactly how David took it in Psalm 119.

Psalm 119.1 Blessed are those whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the Lord.

What I am saying in my posts is that while the law consist of good deeds, the law was not really given by God for that purpose...

This is the kind of statement that throws me off, and it's caused me to lose faith in you. But I apologize--I do think you're just stating your mind. I'll try to do better from here on out.

If the Law was given by God to bring about obedience in Israel, how can it not have been for the purpose of causing them to do good deeds?

, but for some other purpose/s, those which scriptures says, even explicitly. For the contention that God’s purpose with the law, is to make them righteous, that would render God as having failed.

God's purpose was to elicit good deeds, or righteousness, from Israel--not perfection. Included in His commands to do right and to treat neighbors and guests fairly God also included sacrifices of atonement, so that their imperfections would be healed. That is, God foreknew their imperfections, and did not require perfection in the performance of doing good deeds.

And God would not give the law for that purpose, for He knows Israel and all man for that matter, for He knows it would be a failure.

When one do a work of the law, like he do not commit murder, he had done a righteous deed and for that he is said to be righteous. But that is not the only work of the law, but many many more. When say out of 613 works, one was able to observe and keep 612, would you say he is righteous if he transgressed one, say he is a murderer or perhaps, an idolater, or a thief, or an adulterer?

Every law was important, but being perfect was not God's intention. We get confused over the English word "perfection" sometimes, because Hebrew and Greek words that mean something else sometimes get translated "perfect." But God actually called Israel to "maturity"--not sinless perfection. Since He included sin sacrifices in the regular performance of the Law, it's clear He didn't expect sinless perfection, because He provided a way through personal failures.

So, if I get that, by real righteousness, you mean faith + works, is that right?

We were talking about "righteousness in man's eyes." That is false righteousness, because it is the opposite of doing right in God's eyes. Real righteousness should be easily understood by the practicing Christian, who knows that it is a partnership between God and us that gives our deeds genuine virtue. We can't be loving apart from God. We can't be truly kind apart from God. Even those who don't know God, who display kindness, are doing it unwittingly by the ability God gives them.

What I gather from your response is that you believe that there are righteous works that an atheist or a pagan does. How about the unbeliever in God or unbeliever in Jesus Christ?

Yes, even people who reject Jesus can do good unwittingly through Jesus. But rejecting the Holy Spirit a person cannot do good. And I'm not talking about rejecting the Holy Spirit as a religious belief. Rather, I'm talking about rejecting the Holy Spirit from the heart, spiritually conscious of what is being rejected.

Sorry for thinking you were not acting in good faith. I now believe you are acting in good faith. You seem truly sincere to me. And believing that I can now appreciate your questions and responses once again. I've had to adjust my attitude today.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That’s right. Now I know that you agreed to that, for I was pointing that out regarding Abraham, in one of my post.

Yes, work of faith or work produced by faith. It is clear there then, faith is that which produce work. Now, what produce the work is obviously not work.

I am just curious, what specifically is it there that is a work of righteousness with regards the offering of his son Isaac, of course beside the point that it is of faith?

This is actually an element I've enjoyed in discussing things with you. I've walked with the Lord many years, and have asked the same questions--bare bones questions, peeling back the layers of dogma to get at the *reason.* This has been a major objective in my life's studies.

Whether it was Abel's offering being better than Cain's or Abraham's irrational giving of his son as a sacrifice, we have to ask, "How can we understand what is from God and what is truly "righteous?" It really boils down to God's verbalized word to our conscience. There are rules and then there are applications of those rules. The word of God is both a rule and a prophecy. We must know the sense in good and evil, but we also must be led when to apply divine virtue.

I don’t quite agree with the statement (conclusion) that because we are unable to be justified by our own record, that in conclusion we are justified by faith and not by works. My view is that we are justified by faith because it is how God saves. For me, God saves according to His character, will, purpose, and pleasure. And I believe in what scriptures says about God, that he is not please without faith.

Yes, I'm not always clear myself on these things, and need to express myself better. I'm trying to say that "faith" is being defined in Scripture as an access to forgiveness, as a confession of sin. I can't come to God apart from His mercy in letting me approach Him. This, to God, is righteousness, because it actually opens the door to His grace and righteousness.

We have to be justified before approaching God, because we are not allowed entrance to Him apart from confession of sin and application to His mercy. That's the whole point, I think. It has little to do with whether righteousness is part of faith or whether it validates a person as a righteous man.

So you are talking of a righteousness after having been justified by God through faith. That’s clear now. And I see that as well.

Yes, faith gives us access to God, and righteousness is the follow up. But God calls the initial faith for justification "righteousness." It is the 1st step on the path of obeying God's word, because God's word came to Abraham, convicting him of his unworthiness. But Abraham was willing to believe God that He was reaching out to him to make him righteous. God considered Abraham "righteous" for this act of good faith.

The "justification" part is not really saying that "faith" is an attitude that defines righteousness for eternal life. Rather, it is defining "faith" as the legal basis by which God forgives men, through their admission of guilt and of their need for God. "Justified" here is being used as a synonym for "pardon."

May I ask, when you say “..until Christ’s atonement was made.”, what do you meant to say by “atonement”?

Tong
R1837

Jesus was God's physical suffering the sins of men to exhibit what God determined provided actual forgiveness of their sins. That is, Jesus dying was God suffering sins He wished to forgive.

The act of suffering these sins and dying in the process was the "atonement" for sin that God displayed. Accepting that atonement is an act of repentance for living a life apart from God. It brings salvation through the life God showed He wanted to give us.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
You asked me to explain what Paul said in Gal.3:22-25. And I did. Then from what I said, you argued about “scriptures” in v.22 that it refers to the law, on your take of context. I maintained my take of “scriptures” as referring not only to the law, but to the word of God in general and as a whole, and told you the reason why. And you say that my argument is not a worthy one. That is your opinion and may differ from others. So, what has that got to do with arguing in good faith or not? If you’d rather want to talk to somebody that you think lives up to your standard, and find me as not a one, go find another so you won’t have to complain every time and blurt out what bad thoughts you have of me.

It's possible I shouldn't have bad thoughts about you. And I'm inclined to believe I am indeed selling you short. For that I apologize. There is no shortcut to understanding one another, and I get impatient at times. Again, I apologize. So let's try and start over at some point, and try to figure out where the disconnect is.

I will choose to believe, from now on, you're arguing in good faith, and accept that I'm wrong to falsely accuse you of acting dishonestly. I understand that you're distinguishing the Scriptures in Gal 3 from the Law, and they should be distinguished in the way they're used. But my point, again, is that they are being referred to as a common source, ie the Law is the Scriptures.

Beyond this, it isn't just the Scriptures saying Israel was "locked up" in their sins. It was also the Law that "locked up" Israel in their sins. Previously, you seemed to deny that the Law prevented Israel from having eternal life. But here that's what the Scriptures themselves seem to say. Any response?

<<<Beyond this, it isn't just the Scriptures saying Israel was "locked up" in their sins.>>>

In my reading, Gal.3:23 is not saying the same thing as Gal. 3:22. While the law is part of scriptures, Paul points to scriptures as the words of God, as that which locked up all under sin (v.22). In v.23, this time Paul specifically points to the law, not about it being part of scriptures that which locked up Israel and all for that matter, under sin, but that Israel, having been locked up under sin by the word of God, the law being as a guardian to them who keeps them under guard, keeping them until their Messiah comes and is revealed. The law kept them for the faith that was soon after is revealed in Christ. The law is their “paidagogos”, their trainer, their tutor, their schoolmaster, to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith, and be freed from sin (v.24).

<<<Previously, you seemed to deny that the Law prevented Israel from having eternal life. But here that's what the Scriptures themselves seem to say. >>>

Yes, I don’t take the law as preventing Israel of their salvation, but rather, is that which was given by God to them that would bring them to the Savior, for their salvation.

Tong2020 said: ↑
I have told you why I take scriptures to refer not only to the law, but to the word of God in general and the whole of what He cause to be written, known as the scriptures. If you don’t take that as worthy of consideration, so be it with you. I’ll just have to take that to mean that you don’t find the scriptures as that which locked up everything under the control of sin.

Since the Law is the Scriptures, the Scriptures locked Israel up under sin, as long as the Law maintained Scriptural authority. The Law can still be identified as the Scriptures, but the Law is no longer active as a covenant by Scriptural authority.

The law is ever part of Scriptures, the word of God that confines or locks up all under sin. Even while the old covenant law, the law of Moses, had been replaced by the new covenant law, the word of God remains.

Tong2020 said: ↑
I was arguing that Israel were held in custody under the law to lead and bring them to Christ, but not to lock them up for the reason you say, that is, to not be saved by any other system. Your argument sounds as though there is another system of salvation by which they can be saved, and even sounds as that which runs rival to Christ.

Yes, Tong, thanks for explaining where you were coming from. There are other systems by which people try to obtain eternal life, whether by good works apart from Christianity or by the Law without Christianity. Those systems were denied access to the Tree of Life until Christ came and became the exclusive means of eternal life.

Okay, hopefully I'm back on track with you. Will you accept my apologies?

Yes there are other systems. Even pagans who believe in life after death and everlasting life have. But I don’t gather in my reading of the scriptures that the law was given for that purpose. Also there is not one among the other systems that would give them eternal life. Besides, scriptures does not say as one of the purposes God gave the law to Israel, that which you contend it was for.

Tong
R1849

 

[Randy Kluth]

<<<Beyond this, it isn't just the Scriptures saying Israel was "locked up" in their sins.>>>

In my reading, Gal.3:23 is not saying the same thing as Gal. 3:22. While the law is part of scriptures, Paul points to scriptures as the words of God, as that which locked up all under sin (v.22). In v.23, this time Paul specifically points to the law, not about it being part of scriptures that which locked up Israel and all for that matter, under sin, but that Israel, having been locked up under sin by the word of God, the law being as a guardian to them who keeps them under guard, keeping them until their Messiah comes and is revealed. The law kept them for the faith that was soon after is revealed in Christ. The law is their “paidagogos”, their trainer, their tutor, their schoolmaster, to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith, and be freed from sin (v.24).

<<<Previously, you seemed to deny that the Law prevented Israel from having eternal life. But here that's what the Scriptures themselves seem to say. >>>

Yes, I don’t take the law as preventing Israel of their salvation, but rather, is that which was given by God to them that would bring them to the Savior, for their salvation.

Yes, and this is why I didn't think you were arguing your position in good faith, although I'm apologizing for that now. Your position is self-contradictory. I know it makes sense in your own mind, but to any objective listener, it sounds like nonsense.

The Law is the Scriptures, but it does not do what all the Scriptures do. Both the Scriptures and the Law are plainly presenting an obstacle before Israel, not to keep them from Salvation, but to prevent them from trying to obtain Salvation apart from the works of Jesus.

Not only so, but your position flies in the face of NT doctrine, which says that only through Jesus can one be saved. That is, one cannot be saved through the Law.

The Law was, as you say, meant to lead Israel to Salvation, and not *be* the source of Salvation. The Law disqualified itself from being the source of Salvation. That was part of the process God used in leading Israel to Salvation!

The law is ever part of Scriptures, the word of God that confines or locks up all under sin. Even while the old covenant law, the law of Moses, had been replaced by the new covenant law, the word of God remains.

The word of God is more versatile than you're making it out to be. The word of God can be the Law, locking people up under the condemnation of sin until Christ comes. And the word of God can also be a liberation from the Law, no longer locking people up due to their Sin Nature. We are now free from condemnation through Christ.

The word of God therefore produced 2 doorways, and not just 1. We are no longer locked up if we take doorway #2.

Yes there are other systems. Even pagans who believe in life after death and everlasting life have. But I don’t gather in my reading of the scriptures that the law was given for that purpose. Also there is not one among the other systems that would give them eternal life. Besides, scriptures does not say as one of the purposes God gave the law to Israel, that which you contend it was for.

Tong
R1849

Actually, the very passage that you're turning on its head says this, that the Law was the word of God locking men up under any system apart from Christ himself. The same word instructs us that if we turn to Christ we will not be locked up any longer. Being "locked up" did not remove Israel from being God's People. It just kept them in waiting. That way they did not turn to a false system that did not lead them to Salvation. They only relied on the Law as a "tutor," leading them to Christ.

 

[Tong2020]

Post #1101 "You told me that already. And it does not make faith to be work. Yes, faith produces deeds, but that does not make faith to be work."

My argument is that faith, to be genuine faith, must produce works. If so, then faith must include work.

What you say your argument is there is a different argument. I agree that faith produces good works. But it does not necessarily follow that for it to be genuine, that it must produce work. Let me show you by asking, do you believe that God created the earth and heavens? That is faith. Is it genuine? If you believe in your heart, without question, without a doubt, with full confidence and trust, then it should be genuine.

Going back to your other argument, you said that faith is work. I said faith is not work. For faith is given by God, a gift.

You said here that faith must produce work. You have just by that have shown that faith is not work. You said faith must include work. You again by that have proven that faith is not work.

Tong2020 said: ↑
I told you that justification is not by the law but by faith. And in support, I made reference to Abraham’s justification by God in Gen.15:6. And I said I have no reason to believe that Abraham was not saved and that he was given the gift of eternal life when he was justified by God.

Yes, you do have reason to believe Abraham did not yet have eternal life when he had faith and was justified by God.

Acts 4.12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

While that is true, it does not refute what I said. For God is the Savior. And it is God who justified Abraham.

Tong2020 said: ↑
To be clear, let me state here what I believe and is what I meant to say in my past posts regarding statements about work, faith, and salvation.

That salvation is of God and is the work of God, that it is by His grace and not by the compliance or fulfillment of some requirement that He gives man to do. That it is through or by faith, that which He gives to him whom He saves. That His salvation is not through or by works of man.

That's true. It is the work of Christ exclusively that provided for our redemption, that made an eternal atoning sacrifice. We accept it and put the life he gives us as a free gift into practice. These are 2 kinds of justification. One kind atoned for our sins. The other kind is a validation of what Christ did for us by putting his salvation into effect in our lives. We must have both faith and works if we are truly receiving salvation. The works that result from receiving Christ are works of faith. As such OT works of faith likewise validated them as righteous men.

There is no issue concerning the work of Christ.

<<<These are 2 kinds of justification. One kind atoned for our sins. The other kind is a validation of what Christ did for us by putting his salvation into effect in our lives. >>>

Atonement is not justification, more so a kind of justification. And so with that other kind you say.

<<<The works that result from receiving Christ are works of faith.>>>

Not necessarily. There are works of Christians that are not works of faith.

<<<We must have both faith and works if we are truly receiving salvation.>>>

We are justified and saved by grace, through faith, not through works, nor through faith and works. If one have faith, he could do works of faith. However, he is not saved by his work, but by his faith.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Perhaps it’s because you don’t get to read really what is in my post. By the way, so that you know and might understand, your statement “God gave the law to make Israel righteous” comes to me as you saying that scriptures says that that is the purpose of God in giving the law. So, all my post regarding that are coming from that.

Right, that's what I'm saying, that God gave Israel His Law to make them righteous. That's exactly how David took it in Psalm 119.

Psalm 119.1 Blessed are those whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the Lord.

As I argued that, that was not really the purpose of God as to why He added the law and gave it to Israel. The contention that God’s purpose with the law is to make them righteous by the law, would render God as having failed in such, and runs contrary to sending the Savior. God would not give the law for that purpose, for He knows Israel and all man for that matter, for He knows it would be a failure.

What I am saying is that while doing the works of the law is righteous, it was simply just not why the law was given by God, for God knows man, that every intents of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually, even from childhood (Gen.6:5; 8:21).

Tong2020 said: ↑
What I am saying in my posts is that while the law consist of good deeds, the law was not really given by God for that purpose...

This is the kind of statement that throws me off, and it's caused me to lose faith in you. But I apologize--I do think you're just stating your mind. I'll try to do better from here on out.

If the Law was given by God to bring about obedience in Israel, how can it not have been for the purpose of causing them to do good deeds?

As I explained above, that is really not the purpose as to why God gave the law to Israel for the reasons I gave there.

Tong2020 said: ↑
, but for some other purpose/s, those which scriptures says, even explicitly. For the contention that God’s purpose with the law, is to make them righteous, that would render God as having failed.

God's purpose was to elicit good deeds, or righteousness, from Israel--not perfection. Included in His commands to do right and to treat neighbors and guests fairly God also included sacrifices of atonement, so that their imperfections would be healed. That is, God foreknew their imperfections, and did not require perfection in the performance of doing good deeds.

But God wants perfection. And that was His intention. He wanted His people to be perfect and holy. That’s the reason why He sent Christ.

Tong
R1851

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
And God would not give the law for that purpose, for He knows Israel and all man for that matter, for He knows it would be a failure.

When one do a work of the law, like he do not commit murder, he had done a righteous deed and for that he is said to be righteous. But that is not the only work of the law, but many many more. When say out of 613 works, one was able to observe and keep 612, would you say he is righteous if he transgressed one, say he is a murderer or perhaps, an idolater, or a thief, or an adulterer?

Every law was important, but being perfect was not God's intention. We get confused over the English word "perfection" sometimes, because Hebrew and Greek words that mean something else sometimes get translated "perfect." But God actually called Israel to "maturity"--not sinless perfection. Since He included sin sacrifices in the regular performance of the Law, it's clear He didn't expect sinless perfection, because He provided a way through personal failures.

It is the very intention of God, that His people be perfect and holy. That’s the reason why He sent Christ.

<<<Since He included sin sacrifices in the regular performance of the Law, it's clear He didn't expect sinless perfection, because He provided a way through personal failures.>>>

Of course He did not expect that the people could make themselves perfect. He knows them. And that only make my point that He did not give the law for that purpose. It was to keep them under guard and bring them to the Savior, that they may not be hardened by their wickedness, as the rest were, even evident in the generation of Noah. Paul tells us what happens to those who were left by themselves, having no law that keep them under guard, in Romans 1.

Tong2020 said: ↑
So, if I get that, by real righteousness, you mean faith + works, is that right?

We were talking about "righteousness in man's eyes." That is false righteousness, because it is the opposite of doing right in God's eyes. Real righteousness should be easily understood by the practicing Christian, who knows that it is a partnership between God and us that gives our deeds genuine virtue. We can't be loving apart from God. We can't be truly kind apart from God. Even those who don't know God, who display kindness, are doing it unwittingly by the ability God gives them.

So, in other words and simple words, by real righteousness you mean faith + works?

Tong2020 said: ↑
What I gather from your response is that you believe that there are righteous works that an atheist or a pagan does. How about the unbeliever in God or unbeliever in Jesus Christ?

Yes, even people who reject Jesus can do good unwittingly through Jesus. But rejecting the Holy Spirit a person cannot do good. And I'm not talking about rejecting the Holy Spirit as a religious belief. Rather, I'm talking about rejecting the Holy Spirit from the heart, spiritually conscious of what is being rejected.

Sorry for thinking you were not acting in good faith. I now believe you are acting in good faith. You seem truly sincere to me. And believing that I can now appreciate your questions and responses once again. I've had to adjust my attitude today.

<<<Yes, even people who reject Jesus can do good unwittingly through Jesus. But rejecting the Holy Spirit a person cannot do good.>>>

Isn’t rejecting Jesus tantamount to rejecting the Holy Spirit?

Tong
R1852

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
That’s right. Now I know that you agreed to that, for I was pointing that out regarding Abraham, in one of my post.

Yes, work of faith or work produced by faith. It is clear there then, faith is that which produce work. Now, what produce the work is obviously not work.

I am just curious, what specifically is it there that is a work of righteousness with regards the offering of his son Isaac, of course beside the point that it is of faith?

This is actually an element I've enjoyed in discussing things with you. I've walked with the Lord many years, and have asked the same questions--bare bones questions, peeling back the layers of dogma to get at the *reason.* This has been a major objective in my life's studies.

Whether it was Abel's offering being better than Cain's or Abraham's irrational giving of his son as a sacrifice, we have to ask, "How can we understand what is from God and what is truly "righteous?" It really boils down to God's verbalized word to our conscience. There are rules and then there are applications of those rules. The word of God is both a rule and a prophecy. We must know the sense in good and evil, but we also must be led when to apply divine virtue.

So, what are your thoughts on the matter of offering Isaac?

Tong2020 said: ↑
So you are talking of a righteousness after having been justified by God through faith. That’s clear now. And I see that as well.

Yes, faith gives us access to God, and righteousness is the follow up. But God calls the initial faith for justification "righteousness." It is the 1st step on the path of obeying God's word, because God's word came to Abraham, convicting him of his unworthiness. But Abraham was willing to believe God that He was reaching out to him to make him righteous. God considered Abraham "righteous" for this act of good faith.

The "justification" part is not really saying that "faith" is an attitude that defines righteousness for eternal life. Rather, it is defining "faith" as the legal basis by which God forgives men, through their admission of guilt and of their need for God. "Justified" here is being used as a synonym for "pardon."

<<<Rather, it is defining "faith" as the legal basis by which God forgives men, through their admission of guilt and of their need for God. >>>

Legal or not, faith is what God gives to them whom He saves. It is through faith that God saves them. It is by faith that God imputes or accounts righteousness to them, the righteousness of faith, apart from works. For if not, no one will be justified by works. For every intents of the heart of man is only evil even from childhood.

Tong2020 said: ↑
May I ask, when you say “..until Christ’s atonement was made.”, what do you meant to say by “atonement”?

Jesus was God's physical suffering the sins of men to exhibit what God determined provided actual forgiveness of their sins. That is, Jesus dying was God suffering sins He wished to forgive.

The act of suffering these sins and dying in the process was the "atonement" for sin that God displayed. Accepting that atonement is an act of repentance for living a life apart from God. It brings salvation through the life God showed He wanted to give us.

So, are you saying that you take atonement as forgiveness of sin? Do you not take atonement as different from forgiveness of sin?

Tong
R1853

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<Beyond this, it isn't just the Scriptures saying Israel was "locked up" in their sins.>>>

In my reading, Gal.3:23 is not saying the same thing as Gal. 3:22. While the law is part of scriptures, Paul points to scriptures as the words of God, as that which locked up all under sin (v.22). In v.23, this time Paul specifically points to the law, not about it being part of scriptures that which locked up Israel and all for that matter, under sin, but that Israel, having been locked up under sin by the word of God, the law being as a guardian to them who keeps them under guard, keeping them until their Messiah comes and is revealed. The law kept them for the faith that was soon after is revealed in Christ. The law is their “paidagogos”, their trainer, their tutor, their schoolmaster, to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith, and be freed from sin (v.24).

<<<Previously, you seemed to deny that the Law prevented Israel from having eternal life. But here that's what the Scriptures themselves seem to say. >>>

Yes, I don’t take the law as preventing Israel of their salvation, but rather, is that which was given by God to them that would bring them to the Savior, for their salvation.

Yes, and this is why I didn't think you were arguing your position in good faith, although I'm apologizing for that now. Your position is self-contradictory. I know it makes sense in your own mind, but to any objective listener, it sounds like nonsense.

The Law is the Scriptures, but it does not do what all the Scriptures do. Both the Scriptures and the Law are plainly presenting an obstacle before Israel, not to keep them from Salvation, but to prevent them from trying to obtain Salvation apart from the works of Jesus.

Not only so, but your position flies in the face of NT doctrine, which says that only through Jesus can one be saved. That is, one cannot be saved through the Law.

The Law was, as you say, meant to lead Israel to Salvation, and not *be* the source of Salvation. The Law disqualified itself from being the source of Salvation. That was part of the process God used in leading Israel to Salvation!

<<<The Law is the Scriptures, but it does not do what all the Scriptures do.>>>

What do you mean by that?

<<<Both the Scriptures and the Law are plainly presenting an obstacle before Israel, not to keep them from Salvation, but to prevent them from trying to obtain Salvation apart from the works of Jesus.>>>

I think I get your point there. But I think what you are trying to say there is just not best articulated by the word “obstacle”. If I were to express that, it goes something like this. That the covenant and covenant law “serves” to keep them in relationship with the true God, the true Savior who can save them, until He comes, that they might be justified by faith, just as Abraham was justified by faith in Him.

Tong2020 said: ↑
The law is ever part of Scriptures, the word of God that confines or locks up all under sin. Even while the old covenant law, the law of Moses, had been replaced by the new covenant law, the word of God remains.

The word of God is more versatile than you're making it out to be. The word of God can be the Law, locking people up under the condemnation of sin until Christ comes. And the word of God can also be a liberation from the Law, no longer locking people up due to their Sin Nature. We are now free from condemnation through Christ.

The word of God therefore produced 2 doorways, and not just 1. We are no longer locked up if we take doorway #2.

As I said, the scriptures is not only the law, but a lot more. The law is just part of scriptures, the word of God. Our difference in our reading of Gal.3:22-23 is that you take the law as that which lock up people under sin. On the other hand, I take it to be the scriptures, the entire word of God. I don’t read v.23 as saying the law locks up Israel under sin, but that the law serves to keep them under guard. Have you asked from what do the law keep them under guard?

Don’t you see, even without the law, the scriptures has locked up all under sin?

Tong2020 said: ↑
Yes there are other systems. Even pagans who believe in life after death and everlasting life have. But I don’t gather in my reading of the scriptures that the law was given for that purpose. Also there is not one among the other systems that would give them eternal life. Besides, scriptures does not say as one of the purposes God gave the law to Israel, that which you contend it was for.

Actually, the very passage that you're turning on its head says this, that the Law was the word of God locking men up under any system apart from Christ himself. The same word instructs us that if we turn to Christ we will not be locked up any longer. Being "locked up" did not remove Israel from being God's People. It just kept them in waiting. That way they did not turn to a false system that did not lead them to Salvation. They only relied on the Law as a "tutor," leading them to Christ.

But no matter how many times I read Gal.3:22-23, it does not say that about the law. It does say that about the scriptures.

If the law is that which locked up all under sin, were not the people who lived before the law was given by God through Moses, not locked up under sin? Of course they were.

Tong
R1854

 

[Randy Kluth]

<<<The Law is the Scriptures, but it does not do what all the Scriptures do.>>>

What do you mean by that?

What I mean is that the Law is one form of the Scriptures that has a time stamp on it. That is, the Law was a form of the Scriptures designed to be in effect only for a limited time. Other Scriptures present forms of God's word intended to last forever. The New Covenant is intended to last forever. The Law was not intended to last forever. But both can be said to be the Word of God.

<<<Both the Scriptures and the Law are plainly presenting an obstacle before Israel, not to keep them from Salvation, but to prevent them from trying to obtain Salvation apart from the works of Jesus.>>>

I think I get your point there. But I think what you are trying to say there is just not best articulated by the word “obstacle”. If I were to express that, it goes something like this. That the covenant and covenant law “serves” to keep them in relationship with the true God, the true Savior who can save them, until He comes, that they might be justified by faith, just as Abraham was justified by faith in Him.

Yes, I mention "obstacle" because that is how Paul was describing the purpose of the Law, which was both to lead Israel to Christ's Salvation and to prevent Israel from seeking Eternal Life from any other source, including the Law.

It is a semantical problem to say that the Law was not intended to be the means of Eternal Life. It was not meant to be the atonement that provided Eternal Life. But it was indeed intended to be a step in the direction of that atonement, which was provided only by Christ, and not by animal sacrifices under the Law.

As I said, the scriptures is not only the law, but a lot more. The law is just part of scriptures, the word of God. Our difference in our reading of Gal.3:22-23 is that you take the law as that which lock up people under sin. On the other hand, I take it to be the scriptures, the entire word of God. I don’t read v.23 as saying the law locks up Israel under sin, but that the law serves to keep them under guard. Have you asked from what do the law keep them under guard?

Yes, we differ on this, because I don't see Paul saying that all the Scriptures "locked Israel up," but only the "Law" part of the Scriptures locked Israel up. I can't at all say that "all" the Scriptures lock people up under sin because plainly Christ has released Christians from the condemnation of the Law. We are no longer "locked up!"

Don’t you see, even without the law, the scriptures has locked up all under sin?

Yes, the Scriptures, apart from the Law, also locked men up in the OT era, because Christ had not come yet. Most people on earth did not have the Law--only Israel. All of them were locked up under the condemnation of sin, because the Scriptures said so. From Eden God had said that Man no longer has access to the Tree of Life, or Eternal Life.

Even in the NT era men are still locked up under the condemnation of sin if they don't accept Christ as the atonement for their sin. He has provided atonement for all, but unless men accept that atonement Scriptures continued to lock them up under sin.

But not all Scriptures consign men to the condemnation of sin. Those who have accepted Christ as their atonement have been freed from condemnation, and no longer are locked up in sin by the Scriptures. The Scriptures do say we are still "sinners" in the sense we still have a Sin Nature. But we are no longer "locked up" in condemnation, which is what I believe Paul was referring to. The sentence of death remains upon sinners until they accept Christ's atonement for their sins. Then the Scriptures free them.

But no matter how many times I read Gal.3:22-23, it does not say that about the law. It does say that about the scriptures.

If the law is that which locked up all under sin, were not the people who lived before the law was given by God through Moses, not locked up under sin? Of course they were.

Tong
R1854

Hopefully I've answered your questions. I do believe Paul was talking about the Law locking Israel up under the sentence of death for their sins until Christ came and made atonement for them. Unless they accept this atonement they remain under sentence of death, or "locked up" by the Scriptures in sin.

 

[Randy Kluth]

So, what are your thoughts on the matter of offering Isaac?

I read a little of Kierkegaard's take on it, and I do find it interesting and somewhat true. But I still think it can be better said using traditional evangelical language, and not the language of philosophy. God speaks to the conscience of every man. That is what renders our actions valid or not.

Most often God does not speak directly to men, perhaps because it endangers us when God speaks to men in their Sin Nature. God spoke in unlimited way to Christ. But to the saints of old, God only spoke on rare occasion, when it was absolutely necessary.

When God spoke to Abraham about giving up his son Isaac, this was one of those rare occasions. He knew what God's will was. In our position today, when we hear God largely through our conscience and through circumstances, we wonder how we would've known we should offer up our son? But we don't have to worry about it, since God has *not* said this to us. If He had, there would be no doubt. It would simply be a matter for the *will.* Do we love God enough to give up what we love? God was showing Abraham what He is like, being willing to give up His own happiness to endure human sin.

<<<Rather, it is defining "faith" as the legal basis by which God forgives men, through their admission of guilt and of their need for God. >>>

Legal or not, faith is what God gives to them whom He saves. It is through faith that God saves them. It is by faith that God imputes or accounts righteousness to them, the righteousness of faith, apart from works. For if not, no one will be justified by works. For every intents of the heart of man is only evil even from childhood.

This sounds too much like simple "belief," which the Scriptures say did not justify the devils. They believe God exists, but refuse to obey Him.

No, faith is not just "belief in" something, but more, acceptance of the terms of a relationship between God and Man. It is accepting our innate sinfulness and the need for God's pardon in order to be restored and maintained in a relationship with God.

That's why Abraham was justified by faith, because Abraham had to accept God's terms and his own need for a pardon before he could expect to be accepted as a righteous man before God. Faith precedes Works precisely because our Works reveals us as imperfect and in need of a pardon. And so, Faith precedes Works in order to grant us a pardon so that our Works are accepted before God.

So, are you saying that you take atonement as forgiveness of sin? Do you not take atonement as different from forgiveness of sin?

Tong
R1853

Putting our faith in Christ's atonement is acceptance of a pardon for the express purpose of re-entering into a spiritual relationship with God. A relationship with God is essential for right living. But to be accepted for an *eternal* relationship with God we must first be pardoned for our sins. Then we may partner with God on into eternity, and have our sins eternally pardoned.

Atonement is what Christ did to provide a pardon for our sin. We are not pardoned until we accept the provisions of the associated covenant. The covenant calls for us to not only accept the pardon, but to also live in him, allowing him to live in us. Forgiveness of sin comes when we legally enter into the provisions of the New Covenant, through which Christ's atonement benefits us.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is the very intention of God, that His people be perfect and holy. That’s the reason why He sent Christ.

Yes, but Christ didn't provide an atonement for our sins to make us *immediately* perfect, did he? You shouldn't confuse this. Perfection will come in the resurrection, and not before. As Paul said, "not that I'm already made perfect." The Apostle John said,
"If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us."

So, in other words and simple words, by real righteousness you mean faith + works?

Real Faith requires that Faith display Works, yes. True Faith displays Good Deeds. That's what James said, "faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

<<<Yes, even people who reject Jesus can do good unwittingly through Jesus. But rejecting the Holy Spirit a person cannot do good.>>>

Isn’t rejecting Jesus tantamount to rejecting the Holy Spirit?

Tong
R1852

No.
Matt 12.32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Jesus recognized that some in Israel would not immediately accept his claims because there is a process to putting our faith in him. There are distractions, deceptions, and setbacks. Jesus is patient, and accepts rejection without immediate condemnation. That's what the cross was all about, experiencing rejection ands still be willing to forgive.

 

[Randy Kluth]

What you say your argument is there is a different argument. I agree that faith produces good works. But it does not necessarily follow that for it to be genuine, that it must produce work. Let me show you by asking, do you believe that God created the earth and heavens? That is faith. Is it genuine? If you believe in your heart, without question, without a doubt, with full confidence and trust, then it should be genuine.

That sounds silly! Believing that someone did something doesn't make the thing happen! Believing is accepting that something did happen if indeed it did happen.

Believing for justification is much different from this. It is believing in a way that brings pardon. We don't just believe that Christ provided the pardon. More, we believe that in meeting the conditions of the pardon we will be pardoned.

For example, if after breaking off from God He approaches me later and says I can begin to serve Him again, I can either accept or reject the deal. By accepting the deal I believe in the offer in such a way that I choose to abide by the deal.

It is not just in believing God offered me something that justifies me. Rather, it is in meeting the conditions of the deal that indicates I not only believed the deal existed, but that if I respond to it the deal will prove to be true.

Going back to your other argument, you said that faith is work. I said faith is not work. For faith is given by God, a gift.

My statement indicates that faith is an act, and as such, is a kind of work. And my statement also indicates that the attitude of faith also includes physical acts of obedience, which are works of faith.

When God speaks to us, in our inner conscience, we have a choice to make. We either respond positively to that word, or we reject it. By choosing to accept it we make a decision and do a good deed. That is the basis of our justification, that we respond in obedience to Christ's offer of atonement--not just believe that it happened!

We are justified not because our Works are perfect--they are not. They are not perfect even after we become a Christian. Rather, we are justified because we accept that our Works before God rely upon God and upon His mercy. He becomes the source of both our righteousness and our pardon. This is the basis of our justification, that we rely upon him, which only became grounds for receiving Eternal Life *after* Christ made an atonement for us.

You said here that faith must produce work. You have just by that have shown that faith is not work. You said faith must include work. You again by that have proven that faith is not work.

There is no contradiction in how I'm describing "faith" as a work. You are using your own biblical definition of "faith" to try to contradict my sense of Faith as a "work." Paul means "Works of the Law" when he refers to Works that cannot justify.

"Works," therefore, is an abbreviated term for a "flawed human record that includes sin." But to exclude Deeds from Faith is impossible. To just have faith in God's Word is in itself a Deed.

<<<These are 2 kinds of justification. One kind atoned for our sins. The other kind is a validation of what Christ did for us by putting his salvation into effect in our lives. >>>

Atonement is not justification, more so a kind of justification. And so with that other kind you say.

Wrong. Atonement is for the purpose of justifying, or rendering one's works innocent of wrong doing. Validating one's righteousness is a matter of checking to see if one's works were done in Christ or not, by faith or not. Temporary righteousness took place before Christ. Eternal righteousness takes place after Christ has come and made his atonement.

<<<The works that result from receiving Christ are works of faith.>>>

Not necessarily. There are works of Christians that are not works of faith.

Goes without saying, Tong!

<<<We must have both faith and works if we are truly receiving salvation.>>>

We are justified and saved by grace, through faith, not through works, nor through faith and works. If one have faith, he could do works of faith. However, he is not saved by his work, but by his faith.

We're now back at the beginning of a circle. You are arguing that Faith must not include Works because Works don't justify--faith does. But I just said that true Faith is in itself a kind of Work, and as such, Faith must produce Works to be real Works.

Even if the record of our Works cannot justify because they reveal that we have sinned, Faith still must include Works to be real. We just need an atoning sacrifice to rely on as our model for our Works--otherwise they do not eternally justify.

Faith is a different kind of "Work" than the "Works of the Law" you speak of, which cannot obtain *eternal justification.* This does not, in the least, mean that faith that produces works did not justify Abraham before the Law came into existence. Abraham was justified before the Law came into existence precisely because his works were based upon dependence upon God for mercy, for a pardon for his sins.

As I argued that, that was not really the purpose of God as to why He added the law and gave it to Israel. The contention that God’s purpose with the law is to make them righteous by the law, would render God as having failed in such, and runs contrary to sending the Savior. God would not give the law for that purpose, for He knows Israel and all man for that matter, for He knows it would be a failure.

You are in a semantics quagmire, as so much theology is! The Law was given to make Israel righteous, but still dependent on a future atonement through Christ. So it allowed them to do right, but not yet to have eternal life.

What I am saying is that while doing the works of the law is righteous, it was simply just not why the law was given by God, for God knows man, that every intents of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually, even from childhood (Gen.6:5; 8:21).

You are just taking snippets from the Bible and trying to put them together to come up with a collage. This is not systematic theology. Your pieces do not fit together. The Law was either to make Israel righteous or not. It either justified them or not. It was either eternal justification or not.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<The Law is the Scriptures, but it does not do what all the Scriptures do.>>>

What do you mean by that?

What I mean is that the Law is one form of the Scriptures that has a time stamp on it. That is, the Law was a form of the Scriptures designed to be in effect only for a limited time. Other Scriptures present forms of God's word intended to last forever. The New Covenant is intended to last forever. The Law was not intended to last forever. But both can be said to be the Word of God.

<<<What I mean is that the Law is one form of the Scriptures that has a time stamp on it.>>>

While the Law was done away with or was replaced or is no longer in effect, the law did not cease to be part of scriptures, the word of God.

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<Both the Scriptures and the Law are plainly presenting an obstacle before Israel, not to keep them from Salvation, but to prevent them from trying to obtain Salvation apart from the works of Jesus.>>>

I think I get your point there. But I think what you are trying to say there is just not best articulated by the word “obstacle”. If I were to express that, it goes something like this. That the covenant and covenant law “serves” to keep them in relationship with the true God, the true Savior who can save them, until He comes, that they might be justified by faith, just as Abraham was justified by faith in Him.

Yes, I mention "obstacle" because that is how Paul was describing the purpose of the Law, which was both to lead Israel to Christ's Salvation and to prevent Israel from seeking Eternal Life from any other source, including the Law.

It is a semantical problem to say that the Law was not intended to be the means of Eternal Life. It was not meant to be the atonement that provided Eternal Life. But it was indeed intended to be a step in the direction of that atonement, which was provided only by Christ, and not by animal sacrifices under the Law.

We just have to agree to disagree concerning the purpose of the law then. You believe it was given for the purpose of preventing Israel from seeking eternal life from any other source, including itself, and lead them to Christ, while I believe that the law was given to keep Israel under guard and bring them to Christ that they might be justified by faith.

<<<It was not meant to be the atonement that provided Eternal Life. But it was indeed intended to be a step in the direction of that atonement, which was provided only by Christ>>>

I don’t regard the law like so. I regard the Law as a shadow of the realities that will later be revealed, and were already revealed, in Jesus Christ’s person, life, works, death, resurrection and ascension.

Tong2020 said: ↑
As I said, the scriptures is not only the law, but a lot more. The law is just part of scriptures, the word of God. Our difference in our reading of Gal.3:22-23 is that you take the law as that which lock up people under sin. On the other hand, I take it to be the scriptures, the entire word of God. I don’t read v.23 as saying the law locks up Israel under sin, but that the law serves to keep them under guard. Have you asked from what do the law keep them under guard?

Yes, we differ on this, because I don't see Paul saying that all the Scriptures "locked Israel up," but only the "Law" part of the Scriptures locked Israel up. I can't at all say that "all" the Scriptures lock people up under sin because plainly Christ has released Christians from the condemnation of the Law. We are no longer "locked up!"

Paul said v.22 and v.23, the time context being before Christ ~ that all were locked up or imprisoned or confined by Scriptures under sin. And that the law that was given to Israel, was not to keep them locked up under sin, as they already were even before the law was given, but to keep them under guard and bring them to Christ (who can save them, free them from sin, condemnation , and death) that they might be justified. So now, those who have faith in Christ, not only were they justified, but also were freed from being locked up under sin.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Don’t you see, even without the law, the scriptures has locked up all under sin?

Yes, the Scriptures, apart from the Law, also locked men up in the OT era, because Christ had not come yet. Most people on earth did not have the Law--only Israel. All of them were locked up under the condemnation of sin, because the Scriptures said so. From Eden God had said that Man no longer has access to the Tree of Life, or Eternal Life.

Even in the NT era men are still locked up under the condemnation of sin if they don't accept Christ as the atonement for their sin. He has provided atonement for all, but unless men accept that atonement Scriptures continued to lock them up under sin.

But not all Scriptures consign men to the condemnation of sin. Those who have accepted Christ as their atonement have been freed from condemnation, and no longer are locked up in sin by the Scriptures. The Scriptures do say we are still "sinners" in the sense we still have a Sin Nature. But we are no longer "locked up" in condemnation, which is what I believe Paul was referring to. The sentence of death remains upon sinners until they accept Christ's atonement for their sins. Then the Scriptures free them.

<<<Yes, the Scriptures, apart from the Law, also locked men up in the OT era,...>>>

And that’s my point. It is the scriptures that Paul said locked up all under sin. For even without the law people were already locked up under sin. That the law was given to lock Israel up under sin would be senseless as they were already locked up.

Of course, the Christians were freed by the Savior Jesus Christ from that and so are no longer locked up under sin. The rest of mankind, unless they be in Christ remain to be locked up under sin by Scriptures.

Tong2020 said: ↑
But no matter how many times I read Gal.3:22-23, it does not say that about the law. It does say that about the scriptures.

If the law is that which locked up all under sin, were not the people who lived before the law was given by God through Moses, not locked up under sin? Of course they were.

Hopefully I've answered your questions. I do believe Paul was talking about the Law locking Israel up under the sentence of death for their sins until Christ came and made atonement for them. Unless they accept this atonement they remain under sentence of death, or "locked up" by the Scriptures in sin.

Well, the law of Moses now is no more, but scriptures remain. And the law remains to be part of scriptures, the word of God. And yet, even then, the rest of mankind, unless they be in Christ, remains to be locked up under sin by the Scriptures.

Tong
R1868

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
So, what are your thoughts on the matter of offering Isaac?

I read a little of Kierkegaard's take on it, and I do find it interesting and somewhat true. But I still think it can be better said using traditional evangelical language, and not the language of philosophy. God speaks to the conscience of every man. That is what renders our actions valid or not.

Most often God does not speak directly to men, perhaps because it endangers us when God speaks to men in their Sin Nature. God spoke in unlimited way to Christ. But to the saints of old, God only spoke on rare occasion, when it was absolutely necessary.

When God spoke to Abraham about giving up his son Isaac, this was one of those rare occasions. He knew what God's will was. In our position today, when we hear God largely through our conscience and through circumstances, we wonder how we would've known we should offer up our son? But we don't have to worry about it, since God has *not* said this to us. If He had, there would be no doubt. It would simply be a matter for the *will.* Do we love God enough to give up what we love? God was showing Abraham what He is like, being willing to give up His own happiness to endure human sin.

Of course you have read scriptures pertaining to that. God tested Abraham and told him to offer Isaac to Him by a burnt offering. It was clear to Abraham that it was God who told him to do that. But what I want you to look at is the commandment of God. It involves the sacrificing of one’s son to pass through the fire as a burnt offering to Him, something the pagans do in worshiping their gods and which God abhors. What can you say about that?

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<Rather, it is defining "faith" as the legal basis by which God forgives men, through their admission of guilt and of their need for God. >>>

Legal or not, faith is what God gives to them whom He saves. It is through faith that God saves them. It is by faith that God imputes or accounts righteousness to them, the righteousness of faith, apart from works. For if not, no one will be justified by works. For every intents of the heart of man is only evil even from childhood.

This sounds too much like simple "belief," which the Scriptures say did not justify the devils. They believe God exists, but refuse to obey Him.

No, faith is not just "belief in" something, but more, acceptance of the terms of a relationship between God and Man. It is accepting our innate sinfulness and the need for God's pardon in order to be restored and maintained in a relationship with God.

That's why Abraham was justified by faith, because Abraham had to accept God's terms and his own need for a pardon before he could expect to be accepted as a righteous man before God. Faith precedes Works precisely because our Works reveals us as imperfect and in need of a pardon. And so, Faith precedes Works in order to grant us a pardon so that our Works are accepted before God.

<<<This sounds too much like simple "belief," which the Scriptures say did not justify the devils. They believe God exists, but refuse to obey Him.>>>
And why would the devil be justified? Is there justification for devils? And not that they refuse to obey God, but that they rebelled against God. Actually, when Jesus commands demons, like when He cast them out, they obey. Satan also obeys God like in the case of Job. So let’s not talk about them for apparently they have a different situation with God. Besides, it is not believing or faith that justifies, it is God.

<<<No, faith is not just "belief in" something, but more, acceptance of the terms of a relationship between God and Man.>>>

That’s then adding to faith, if not, redefining faith. Faith is given by God, a gift. When God justified Abraham, it is not because of anything else, but on account of faith, his sincere, complete and full trust and total dependence in God. We can see that in Gen. 15, when God justified him. There were no terms. The relationship came about through faith and after faith.

Tong2020 said: ↑
So, are you saying that you take atonement as forgiveness of sin? Do you not take atonement as different from forgiveness of sin?

Putting our faith in Christ's atonement is acceptance of a pardon for the express purpose of re-entering into a spiritual relationship with God. A relationship with God is essential for right living. But to be accepted for an *eternal* relationship with God we must first be pardoned for our sins. Then we may partner with God on into eternity, and have our sins eternally pardoned.

Atonement is what Christ did to provide a pardon for our sin. We are not pardoned until we accept the provisions of the associated covenant. The covenant calls for us to not only accept the pardon, but to also live in him, allowing him to live in us. Forgiveness of sin comes when we legally enter into the provisions of the New Covenant, through which Christ's atonement benefits us.

So, I can see that you do take atonement as not different or the same as forgiveness of sin.

For me, atonement is different from forgiveness of sin. By atonement, it means to provide a covering of our uncleanness and wickedness, that appease God, which if such is acceptable to God, will hold his wrath from coming upon us. And Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for atonement, the offering of his most holy and precious blood for mankind, was pleasing and acceptable to God.

Now the sacrifice of Christ proves to be more than can atone for the sins of the world, but even was more than sufficient as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin, for the people whom God had given to Him to obtain for them mercy unto forgiveness of their sins make them perfect and holy, conformed to His image, even as children of God.

Tong
R1869