Mosaic Law For Christians

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Xanderoc

New Member
Sep 10, 2010
125
1
0
I have read through this thread and there are a lot of talk about the mosaic law and the confusion concerning Paul's letters. The problem is that people don't seem to understand who was the Law giver. If people would understand that Jesus.. The tree of life was the one that gave the Law even before man was upon this earth... Ok, I could see some faces look puzzled by this statement ...so let me explain.

First lets start with the definition of sin..... 1 John 3: [sup]4[/sup]Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
So since sin is the transgression or breaking of God's law. Lets see who broke God's law first than man.... Ezekiel 28: 12-18
[sup]12[/sup]Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

[sup]13[/sup]Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

[sup]14[/sup]Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

[sup]15[/sup]Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

[sup]16[/sup]By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

[sup]17[/sup]Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

[sup]18[/sup]Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

We know here, he is not talking about any man.. Hence the words anointed cherub... The fact that this being was in the garden of Eden.... God said this being sinned he had iniquity found in him. What iniquity? Lets find out... Isaiah 14: 12-15

[sup]12[/sup]How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

[sup]13[/sup]For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

[sup]14[/sup]I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

[sup]15[/sup]Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Satan broke the first commandment. Exodus 20:3

[sup]3[/sup]Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

The word said he was a murder from the beginning....John 8
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The Law of God has always existed!!!! Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:[sup]18[/sup]For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

vs 19 is a warning to those teaching otherwise.. [sup]19[/sup]Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Well heaven and earth is still here so the Law of God still stands.
Look what James said; James 2:8-12
[sup]8[/sup]If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: [sup]9[/sup]But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

[sup]10[/sup]For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

[sup]11[/sup]For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

[sup]12[/sup]So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill; And also said remember the sabbath day!!!


John said in 1 John 2:3-4
[sup]3[/sup]And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [sup]4[/sup]He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

That's pretty cut and dry!!! Look at Revelations, this is the last book in the bible and the last chapter of this books reads.


Rev 22:[sup]14[/sup]Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.



So my thing is this, if the law of God existed before man was created, hence Satan breaking the law, or sinning. Jesus establishing the Sabbath during creation. And Jesus giving the law to Adam, who broke the commandment of having no other God before me. Which brought sin upon man kind. Jesus gave the thou shall not murder, which Cain broke. Jesus gave the dietary or clean and unclean law to Noah read Gen 7:2, This was all done verbally. Then he wrote the laws down, and gave them to Moses. Which also includes the sabbath day. I can't understand how these laws can be called the mosaic laws. These are all the laws of God.
The only law that was crucified to the cross, was the sacrificial law.
 

logabe

Active Member
Aug 28, 2008
880
47
28
66
Talk to me about the grace of God, of the mercy He has shown us, about the wisdom and intimacy towards us, and I get worked up. This is what you have done for me Logabe. Your strong conviction, command of the the ideal, and ability to convey truth is astounding to me. I have said before and I'll say again, you do me well in spirit. You are a powerhouse.

That you cannot separate yourself from the Jew in the Book, and the new creation you are in Christ is disturbing to my soul. I cannot help you to differentiate between the two, and I earnestly desire to do so. But what I have offered in the past still is true. We are gentiles, wild branches, strangers, aliens, afar off, without God in the world, subserviant to Israel, apart from the promises of God--HAD NOT THE LORD CHOSE PAUL FOR OUR APOSTLE.

It is very simple. It is not at all that complex. It is easily believed if understood, and for most, that is not possible. I was unable to properly divide the word of truth, and never wanted to seek His approval, until this was revealed to me. We are not "Israel, Jewish, the Chosen People, or the Lord's disciples. We are the Body of Christ, a totally separate and different operation of God, found only in Paul's prophetic writings. Simple division, but hard to overcome with orthodox poison oozing out of our pores.

As I read Galations 3, I see Paul addressing two classes, and speaking alternately between them. It is not difficult for me to see this, as my eyes have been opened to the truth of the two evangels. If there is only one Gospel, the circumcision evangel, then I would be unable to apprehend what is said in Galations. But, contrary to orthodoxy, there are two distinct evangels, as the Scriptures testifiy to, the basis of which is outlined in the Galatian letter.

I am not a Circumcisionist. I am of the uncircumcision, inheriting the allotment of Christ according to a promise of God, just as Abraham inherited his place out of a promise of God. It is God's promise (verse 29), not my participation, that matters and forms the basis of what I have entered into.

Death has involved me in the condemnation of sin, and all have sinned.
But, as a Gentile, I have never been under the Law,
the ordinances, never received the oracles, the legislations, am not a part of a priesthood, race, or nation. I have no right to lay claim to anything they have experienced as God's demonstration to all. I am part of the elect and justified body of Christ, and am a new creation that far exceeds all that the Jew is being promised.

I hope this advances our communion.

fivesense


Fivesence...I'm gonna try to explain what you just said about never
being under the Law without making you mad. Most christians don't
understand what qualifies them to be under the Law.

Romans 6:1-2 says,

1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin
that grace might increase?
2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still
live in it?


Fivesence...Understand that the biblical definition of sin is the violation
of the Law (1 John 3:4). As believers, we have been pronounced "Not
Guilty" in God's court of Law--not because we were sinless, but because
the penalty for our sin was paid at the cross. When He identified with us,
coming in human form as the great Intercessor, we died in Him. This
caused the Law to rule in our favor ("grace") and justified us as if we
were perfect.

But this is no excuse for us "to continue in sin that grace might increase."
If we continue to violate the Law as a way of life, then we prove our
unbelief and manifest our lack of faith. Faith comes by hearing
(Rom. 10:17), and hearing is established by our response of obedience.
If there is no obedience to what we have heard, how then can we say we
have faith?

Romans 3:19 says,

19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who
are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world
may become accountable to God."


Since sin is the violation of the Law, and since all have sinned, the Law
convicts every man of sin. Every mouth is closed, because no one can
defend himself in the divine court, where all sin is reviewed with perfect
clarity. Hence, the entire world is accountable to God. This is another
way of saying the whole world is "under the Law." Anyone who violates
the Law is "under the Law," that is, convicted by and subject to the
penalty of Law.

In Romans 6:14, Paul says of believers, whose penalty has been paid
by Christ's death on the cross,

14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under
law, but under grace.


This is part of Paul's discussion later, where he shows that Christians
are not to continue violating the Law just because the cross of Christ
has paid their penalty. Having been given a favorable court ruling (grace),
shall they now think they can sin with immunity? God forbid.

Romans 3:20, Paul writes,

20 Because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified
in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.


Keep in mind that this is primarily part of Paul's discussion with a
hypothetical rabbi. His point is that all mankind, including Jews, have
violated the Law and cannot, therefore, be justified by the Law. That is,
the Law cannot give grace (favor) to a sinner, regardless of his
genealogy or calling.

The purpose of the Law is merely to define sin and to set the
standard of righteousness, for it is the expression of the character
of God by which we are supposed to live. We were created in the
image of God, after all, and the entire divine plan is that we become
the full expression of His image.

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God
has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and
the prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus
Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.


When Paul speaks of "the righteousness of God," he is not so
much referring to God's moral perfection but rather His
righteousness as a Judge. Men used to talk about righteous
and unrighteous judges, depending on their incorruptibility,
their knowledge of the Law, and their ability to making rulings
according to the mind of God and the intent of the Law.

Thus, the righteousness of God is manifested in His righteous
sentence upon all mankind. Paul is telling us that God is not
unrighteous when He holds the entire world "without distinction"
accountable to the Law. The rabbi might possibly object,
thinking that Jews were not sinners like everyone else. But Paul
shows that the Scriptures prove otherwise.

24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the
redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation
[hilasterion, "atonement"] in His blood through faith....


Our justification, or acquittal, is given as a gift through faith in the
work of the cross, by which He has paid our penalty to redeem
us from the debt incurred by sin.


Logabe
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Lets make this simple. The law was given to the Jews, not us, The disciples where Jews, they started under the law, hence the comments, but after Christ resuresection , they came under grace, the new covenant. us gentiles never knowing the law, never subject to it, came to Christ under grace, after His ressurection, hence the vision of Paul with the sheets and the animals, as we where considred, unclean, but where made clean through the blood of Christ. If you go to the law, and try to live by it, you will be judged by it and in doing so will fail, for you have made Christs work to non effect, and have chosen to make your works the path to salvation, and you will be found wanting.

In His Love
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Romans 13:10
Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Peace
 

Xanderoc

New Member
Sep 10, 2010
125
1
0
.

That you cannot separate yourself from the Jew in the Book, and the new creation you are in Christ is disturbing to my soul. I cannot help you to differentiate between the two, and I earnestly desire to do so. But what I have offered in the past still is true. We are gentiles, wild branches, strangers, aliens, afar off, without God in the world, subserviant to Israel, apart from the promises of God--HAD NOT THE LORD CHOSE PAUL FOR OUR APOSTLE.

It is very simple. It is not at all that complex. It is easily believed if understood, and for most, that is not possible. I was unable to properly divide the word of truth, and never wanted to seek His approval, until this was revealed to me. We are not "Israel, Jewish, the Chosen People, or the Lord's disciples. We are the Body of Christ, a totally separate and different operation of God, found only in Paul's prophetic writings. Simple division, but hard to overcome with orthodox poison oozing out of our pores.
This statement makes no sense to me. If we are the body of Christ. That means Christ (who was a Jew) is our head. There is no total separate and different operation of God. God never had two agendas, even when the children of Israel left Egypt with a mix multitude (aliens to their faith). There was one law for Israel, and the stranger!
Exod. 12:
[sup]37[/sup] The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. [sup]38[/sup] Many other people went up with them, as well as large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds.
Exod. 12
[49] One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
Num.15:
[sup]16[/sup] The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you.' "

[sup]29[/sup] One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether he is a native-born Israelite or an alien
.

As I read Galations 3, I see Paul addressing two classes, and speaking alternately between them. It is not difficult for me to see this, as my eyes have been opened to the truth of the two evangels. If there is only one Gospel, the circumcision evangel, then I would be unable to apprehend what is said in Galations. But, contrary to orthodoxy, there are two distinct evangels, as the Scriptures testifiy to, the basis of which is outlined in the Galatian letter.
I don't know what you see in Galatians. There aren't two distinct teaching outlined in Galatians, unless you are talking about the distinction of the Sacrificial law, and the Commandments(Law)! Those are two distinctions outlined in the book of Galatians.
Death has involved me in the condemnation of sin, and all have sinned. But, as a Gentile, I have never been under the Law, the ordinances, never received the oracles, the legislations, am not a part of a priesthood, race, or nation. I have no right to lay claim to anything they have experienced as God's demonstration to all. I am part of the elect and justified body of Christ, and am a new creation that far exceeds all that the Jew is being promised.
What do you mean your not part of a priesthood, race, or nation? Jesus is our new High Priest, He is our new intercessor before God. We are under the priesthood of Melchizedek(Jesus) now. So you shouldn't boast("I am part of the elect and justified body of Christ, and am a new creation that far exceeds all that the Jew is being promised.")like Paul told the Roman gentiles in Rom. 11:
[sup]11[/sup]I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

[sup]12[/sup]Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

[sup]13[/sup]For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

[sup]14[/sup]If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

[sup]15[/sup]For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

[sup]16[/sup]For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

[sup]17[/sup]And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

[sup]18[/sup]Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

[sup]19[/sup]Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

[sup]20[/sup]Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

[sup]21[/sup]For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

[sup]22[/sup]Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

[sup]23[/sup] And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

[sup]24[/sup]For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?





 

logabe

Active Member
Aug 28, 2008
880
47
28
66
Talk to me about the grace of God, of the mercy He has shown us, about the wisdom and intimacy towards us, and I get worked up. This is what you have done for me Logabe. Your strong conviction, command of the the ideal, and ability to convey truth is astounding to me. I have said before and I'll say again, you do me well in spirit. You are a powerhouse.

That you cannot separate yourself from the Jew in the Book, and the new creation you are in Christ is disturbing to my soul. I cannot help you to differentiate between the two, and I earnestly desire to do so. But what I have offered in the past still is true. We are gentiles, wild branches, strangers, aliens, afar off, without God in the world, subserviant to Israel, apart from the promises of God--HAD NOT THE LORD CHOSE PAUL FOR OUR APOSTLE.

It is very simple. It is not at all that complex. It is easily believed if understood, and for most, that is not possible. I was unable to properly divide the word of truth, and never wanted to seek His approval, until this was revealed to me. We are not "Israel, Jewish, the Chosen People, or the Lord's disciples. We are the Body of Christ, a totally separate and different operation of God, found only in Paul's prophetic writings. Simple division, but hard to overcome with orthodox poison oozing out of our pores.

As I read Galations 3, I see Paul addressing two classes, and speaking alternately between them. It is not difficult for me to see this, as my eyes have been opened to the truth of the two evangels. If there is only one Gospel, the circumcision evangel, then I would be unable to apprehend what is said in Galations. But, contrary to orthodoxy, there are two distinct evangels, as the Scriptures testifiy to, the basis of which is outlined in the Galatian letter.

I am not a Circumcisionist.
I am of the uncircumcision, inheriting the allotment of Christ according to a promise of God, just as Abraham inherited his place out of a promise of God. It is God's promise (verse 29), not my participation, that matters and forms the basis of what I have entered into.

Death has involved me in the condemnation of sin, and all have sinned. But, as a Gentile, I have never been under the Law, the ordinances, never received the oracles, the legislations, am not a part of a priesthood, race, or nation. I have no right to lay claim to anything they have experienced as God's demonstration to all. I am part of the elect and justified body of Christ, and am a new creation that far exceeds all that the Jew is being promised.

I hope this advances our communion.

fivesense


Fivesence...Let's go to Romans 4:11 and 12 where it makes the
point that circumcision is only valid if it truly testifies of an inner
righteousness. Such righteousness cannot be obtained through
the Old Covenant, but only through the New Covenant. Faith is
what imputed righteousness to Abraham; hence, his circumcision
was a valid and true testimony, an outward sign of an inward
righteousness.

Abraham preceded Moses and the Old Covenant, even though he
was the first to receive the sign of the circumcision. Yet that
circumcision did not justify Abraham, nor did it make him righteous.
It was a matter of obedience AFTER he had already been justified
by faith.

So also with Moses and all others. How were they justified? They
were all justified only on account of their faith. No one was ever
justified by their works. There was nothing wrong with committing
one's self to follow the Law, as long as it was understood that it
was their prior faith that had justified them. It was only when men
came to depend upon their own decision, their own will, their own
self-discipline, their own fleshly ability to perform their good
intentions, that their justification came to depend upon the works
of the Law.

They should have understood that the Law was given many weeks
after they left Egypt. In other words, Passover (faith in the blood of
the Lamb) came first, and only later were they given the Law at
Sinai on the day that was later celebrated as Pentecost. Passover
justifies us; Pentecost teaches us obedience by the leading of the
Spirit.

Judaism does not understand this, and that is their downfall to
this day. Judaism is of the opinion that if they can just be zealous
enough in keeping the Law, that God will view them with favor,
give them grace, and justify them in the Divine Court--that is, rule
in their favor. Paul refutes this, saying in Romans 4:14,

14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made
void and the promise is nullified.


Judaism is of the opinion that those "who are of the Law are heirs."
Paul insists that to be an heir (of the promise), one must be of faith.
To put it another way, being an heir is not about being of Moses,
but being of Abraham. Moses has his place, as does the Law, but
to make him the justifier is to misplace him in the divine plan.

15 For the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no
law, neither is there violation.


Some interpret Paul's statement to mean that God gets angry any
time someone tries to be obedient to the Law. But that is not what
Paul meant. The Law brings "wrath," not because we are obedient,
but because we are all disobedient ( sinners). The Law cannot be
happy with any man in his sin.

But our justification is based on Passover, apart from the Law
given at Pentecost. It is purely by faith--even before we have
begun to learn obedience. We get righteous standing up front,
even before our character has been changed by the Holy Spirit's
leading and guidance. So Paul takes the basic axiom of truth,
"where there is no law, neither is there violation," and applies it
to the feast of Passover. Since Passover took place prior to the
giving of the Law, our righteousness is faith-based, apart from
the Law, and hence, we are not charged with the violation of the
Law (sin).

16 For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance
with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all the
descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also
to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of
us all.


His point here is to show the universal application of grace. This
contrasts with the Judaistic view that they alone were the heirs
of the promise, on the grounds that they were given the Law.
Their view was that other people were inferior in their ability to
understand the Law. Hence, they said, the ethnos only had to
follow the so-called "Noahide Laws" of Gen. 9:1-7, for that was
the extent of their spiritual capacity.

Paul contradicts that, showing that any man can be an heir of
God through Christ. One does not have to be a genealogical
descendant of Abraham. Faith makes one a "son of Abraham."

In other words, the idea of a "chosen people" is applicable to any
man who follows Abraham's example of faith, regardless of
genealogy. The terms "father" and "son" have greater meaning
than just in a genealogical sense. There were children of wisdom,
children of light, children of the devil, and the sons of thunder. So
also are there children of Abraham, if they follow the example of
Abraham's faith.

Romans 4:17 is Paul's definition of logizomai, "to impute, reckon,
account." When God gave this promise to Abraham, he had only
one son, Ishmael (Gen. 16:16), born to him at the age of 86.
Abraham was 99 years old when God gave him this promise
(Gen. 17:1). And because we read later (Gen. 21:12) that "through
Isaac shall your descendants be named," we know that the
promise was to be fulfilled through Isaac, not through Ishmael.

Romans 4:18,

18 in hope against hope he believed, in order that he
might become a father of many nations, according to
that which had been spoken, "So shall your
descendants be."


The promise came before Isaac was even born, and long before
Abraham had become the father of many nations. In other words,
God was calling what was not as though it were. This is the
nature of imputed righteousness. We obtain the promise of
righteousness by faith up front long before we are actually made
righteous. He imputes righteousness to us in the same manner
as He did with Abraham. And this is illustrated by the fact that He
imputed many nations to Abraham long before the fact.

19 And without becoming weak in faith, he contemplated
his own body, now as good as dead since he was about
a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb;
20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not
waver in unbelief, but grew strong in faith, giving glory to
God,
21 and being fully assured that what He had promised, He
was able also to perform.


Abraham's faith in the promise of God was strong enough to
overlook the deadness of his own body--and that of Sarah--so
that he was confident that God was able to fulfill His promise in
spite of its seeming impossibility.

For this reason (faith), God imputed righteousness to him. Now,
in Romans 4:23,

23 Now not for his sake only was it written, that it was
reckoned to him,
24 but for our sake also, to whom it [righteousness]
will be reckoned, as those who believe [have faith] in
Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
25 He who was delivered up because of our
transgressions, and was raised up because of our
justification.


So here Paul makes the application to us and our own positional
righteousness with God. Even as with Abraham, we who have faith
"in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead," are also called
righteous. Our righteousness is imputed, even as Abraham's was
imputed.

It is important also to note that Paul defines our faith in God quite
specifically. It is not enough to have a general faith in the existence
of God, or even that He is a God who answers prayer or takes care
of us. We must have faith in Christ's first mission and purpose in
coming to earth. Paul mentions the resurrection of Christ itself as
the ultimate object of our faith.


Logabe
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You cannot separate works from faith. It is a false dichotomy - James proves it. Paul makes a distinction between works of men and faith, not works of God (work preformed in obedience to God) and faith. The fact is, praying, feasting, reading the scriptures, going to church, baptism, preforming all forms of liturgical exercises, blah, blah, blah are all works. God is looking for a quality of the heart as you preform the works - are you doing them for Him or yourself??

It is ironic how Luther and Calvin tried to attack the liturgical practices of the Catholic Church, without understanding that they were simply opening the door to their own forms of human works. The practices themselves were not the problem - it was the condition of the heart, while the people preform them. Sometimes I think the Reformers would have been better off simply teaching the people to submit their hearts as they preformed their rituals, rather than treating the problem as a doctrinal issue.

Peace
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Well, the Protestant Reformation was about a lot more than disagreeing with ritual practice by the Catholic Church. Those in Rome were feeding theirselves very well while many of the people were starving. And still, the people were prey by the authorities in Rome who wanted to erect more great buildings as a show. Anytime the people are overburdened, they will rise up.

Men's doctrines were being used to replace God's Truth in His Word, which was not getting to the people. The Protestant rebellion changed that. And with the advent of the printing press, that argument eventually ended (even though many Catholics are still told to let the parish priest interpret The Bible for them, which is not unlike what many in Protestant Churches do today that can read their Bible, but won't).
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well, the Protestant Reformation was about a lot more than disagreeing with ritual practice by the Catholic Church. Those in Rome were feeding theirselves very well while many of the people were starving. And still, the people were prey by the authorities in Rome who wanted to erect more great buildings as a show. Anytime the people are overburdened, they will rise up.

They merely replaced their Vatican overlords with their own monarchies - nothing changed for the peasants.

Men's doctrines were being used to replace God's Truth in His Word, which was not getting to the people. The Protestant rebellion changed that. And with the advent of the printing press, that argument eventually ended (even though many Catholics are still told to let the parish priest interpret The Bible for them, which is not unlike what many in Protestant Churches do today that can read their Bible, but won't).

On the contrary, Reformers replaced Catholic traditions with their own, while taking the safeguards away from private interpretation. We cannot escape tradition, nor are we supposed to. I have never heard a preist tell me not to read the Bible for myself - also Lectio Divina was practiced by monks since the 5th century. Finally, as you know, translating the Bible into the vernacular did not help any one new - the educated knew Latin and the uneducated were illiterate.

I am not claiming the Reformation did not need to happen - the Catholic Church was tyrannical at the time and filled with corruption, but it had nothing to do with their dogma - it was the way in which they presented it.

Peace
 

veteran

New Member
Aug 6, 2010
6,509
212
0
Southeast USA
Well, the Protestant Reformation was about a lot more than disagreeing with ritual practice by the Catholic Church. Those in Rome were feeding theirselves very well while many of the people were starving. And still, the people were prey by the authorities in Rome who wanted to erect more great buildings as a show. Anytime the people are overburdened, they will rise up.

They merely replaced their Vatican overlords with their own monarchies - nothing changed for the peasants.

In reality, the monarchs already existed. And some of them were bad leaders and some of them good. Afterall, God warned His people long ago of what would happen for their wanting a flesh king when He is their King. They would be oppressed, and so it has been. But not all monarchies have been oppressive, unless one decides to listen to the false witnesses of groups that specifically had and still have the goal to destroy all monarchies, especially Christian monarchs.


Men's doctrines were being used to replace God's Truth in His Word, which was not getting to the people. The Protestant rebellion changed that. And with the advent of the printing press, that argument eventually ended (even though many Catholics are still told to let the parish priest interpret The Bible for them, which is not unlike what many in Protestant Churches do today that can read their Bible, but won't).
On the contrary, Reformers replaced Catholic traditions with their own, while taking the safeguards away from private interpretation. We cannot escape tradition, nor are we supposed to. I have never heard a preist tell me not to read the Bible for myself - also Lectio Divina was practiced by monks since the 5th century. Finally, as you know, translating the Bible into the vernacular did not help any one new - the educated knew Latin and the uneducated were illiterate.

I am not claiming the Reformation did not need to happen - the Catholic Church was tyrannical at the time and filled with corruption, but it had nothing to do with their dogma - it was the way in which they presented it.


What I said is not contrary to history about the Protestant Reformation. One of the main benefits of the reformation was that we now have access to God's Word for ourselves, whereas under Rome we still would not. Martin Luther's Bible translation helped a lot in that, along with others.

And it's not up to you or me to say the illiterate can't receive blessing of understanding in God's Word by reading It for theirselves. Afterall, what people did our Lord Jesus call to be His Apostles and disciples? Common working class people. Nor is it the fault of those who study to check out their teachers that many brethren would rather listen to soothsaying contrary to what's written in God's Word, especially when they have access to It for themselves.
 

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In reality, the monarchs already existed. And some of them were bad leaders and some of them good. Afterall, God warned His people long ago of what would happen for their wanting a flesh king when He is their King. They would be oppressed, and so it has been. But not all monarchies have been oppressive, unless one decides to listen to the false witnesses of groups that specifically had and still have the goal to destroy all monarchies, especially Christian monarchs.

Indeed, all the monarchies were in place and in Christian Europe, and they all answered to the Pope. The Reformation was a declaration of independence of the monarchs from the Pope. So how does this help the people? They exchanged the Pope for the religious authority of their own monarchs, whether they liked it our not. We can talk all we want about this new found freedom from the Pope, but if you deviated in your belief from Henry VIII or Calvin and were foolish enough to get caught....you were one dead Anabaptist or Puritan or member of some other variation of Protestantism.

What I said is not contrary to history about the Protestant Reformation.

Nope....just incomplete

One of the main benefits of the reformation was that we now have access to God's Word for ourselves, whereas under Rome we still would not. Martin Luther's Bible translation helped a lot in that, along with others.

Let's use a contemporary example of this sort of benefit. How about school prayer? Our country is embroiled in two foreign wars, unemployment is high, terrorism is a threat and politicians are still talking about issues like prayer in school. Now, even if prayer in school was a serious issue, worthy of the nation's attention, the fact is, any kid at any time can already pray silently - so the entire issue is a red herring. Ironically, even if we did get a law passed to allow faculty led prayers it would only open the door to multicultural prayer in school, which is contrary to the wishes of the people who are pushing the issue in the first place.

Literate people already had access to the Bible, illiterate people still did not have access to the Bible when it was translated into the vernacular. The issue was a rallying cry ..... a moot injustice.

And it's not up to you or me to say the illiterate can't receive blessing of understanding in God's Word by reading It for themselves.

You can claim the same thing about preserving the Bible in the Latin - and it had the added benefit of keeping it out of the hands of the Cathars and other heretics.

After all, what people did our Lord Jesus call to be His Apostles and disciples? Common working class people.


The Catholic Church was geared towards the peasants - stain glass windows told the stories of the gospels - homilies were in the vernacular, along with the verses they were based on. The Mass itself, which is easy to follow was in Latin.

Nor is it the fault of those who study to check out their teachers that many brethren would rather listen to soothsaying contrary to what's written in God's Word, especially when they have access to It for themselves.


You are assuming that Catholicism was akin to soothsaying and the Reformation fixed that problem. Being a Protestant is no protection against soothsaying - sorry. So, it is good because then the illiterate people can have their literate clergymen read to them from the vernacular instead of reading to them from the Latin and translating it? A dishonest / heretical clergyman could just as easily twist the vernacular as he was reading it. Ugh

Look....I cannot believe I am arguing the Catholic position! But your arguments are so bias, I about to go check out daily Mass!

Peace
 

marksman

My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
Feb 27, 2008
5,578
2,446
113
82
Melbourne Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
In a recent discussion at Bible study we considered which of the 600+ laws from the Books of Law are applicable to Christians. Many felt that only the 10 commandments applied. The more I study the lessons in the Gospel of Matthew, the more I think perhaps we are subject to most of the laws - excluding blood sacrifice laws which were fulfilled by the great sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Just a slight correction. There 10 are commandments and 600+ ordinances.The cross did away with the 600 but not the 10 as Jesus said "If you love me, keep my commandments."

As a participant in the new covenant I am subject to HolySpirit and the old covenant (which includes the ten commandments) has been fulfilled and put away.

Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments so the 10 commandments are not included.

Romans 6.14: "Ye are not under the law, but under grace".

Galatians 3.24 & 25: "The law was out schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."

You forgot the first part of the verse in Romans "For sin shall not have dominion over you for you are not under the law, but under grace.What this is saying is that as your salvation is obtained by grace, sin will not have dominion over you...like it does when you rely on the law for your salvation. It was not doing away with the law, it was saying that salvation is not obtained by it. If the 10 commandments have been done away with then it is OK to murder.

I'm not saying go sin.

In fact, Paul says, 'Shall we sin, that grace may abound? God forbid!'

My point is that the New Testament believer is under grace, not the law, as Paul clearly also says, as quoted above.

We are not under the law for our salvation, but under grace we are able to keep the 10 commandments and Jesus did say "If you love me, keep my commandments."

Ms Tavita:

As Romans 8 says, we are made free from the law of sin and death.

Yes we are so that means we do not need to obtain our salvation through keeping the law. But the 10 commandments are still operable in the life of the believer. if they are not, it is OK to murder.

Actually we are to be led by HolySpirit, following the letter only leads to death but the Spirit leads to life.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume by this comment that you are saying that obeying the 10 commandments leads to death. I have to say that is not my experience. I have found that now I have obtained salvation by grace, keeping the 10 commandments is no longer a problem because they are written on my heart and my salvation no longer depends on keeping them so I find that very liberating.

I can obey God but do not come under condemnation if I fail at any time.
 

marksman

My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
Feb 27, 2008
5,578
2,446
113
82
Melbourne Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I am not sure if you are applying this to the food laws or not? They aren't, unclean food is still unclean. Christ's death and resurrection did not give swine sweat glands or change the feeding habits of certain types of animals, birds and fish. These animals are still unclean and will make people sick.

I have been eating pork my whole life and it has not made me sick once.
 

logabe

Active Member
Aug 28, 2008
880
47
28
66
Just a slight correction. There 10 are commandments and 600+ ordinances.The cross did away with the 600 but not the 10 as Jesus said "If you love me, keep my commandments."



Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments so the 10 commandments are not included.



You forgot the first part of the verse in Romans "For sin shall not have dominion over you for you are not under the law, but under grace.What this is saying is that as your salvation is obtained by grace, sin will not have dominion over you...like it does when you rely on the law for your salvation. It was not doing away with the law, it was saying that salvation is not obtained by it. If the 10 commandments have been done away with then it is OK to murder.



We are not under the law for our salvation, but under grace we are able to keep the 10 commandments and Jesus did say "If you love me, keep my commandments."



Yes we are so that means we do not need to obtain our salvation through keeping the law.
But the 10 commandments are still operable in the life of the believer. if they are not, it is OK to murder.




Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume by this comment that you are saying that obeying the 10 commandments leads to death. I have to say that is not my experience. I have found that now I have obtained salvation by grace, keeping the 10 commandments is no longer a problem because they are written on my heart and my salvation no longer depends on keeping them so I find that very liberating.

I can obey God but do not come under condemnation if I fail at any time.


I like that marksman...very good answer but most Christians
don't understand what you just revealed to them.

To know the difference between sin and righteousness is
necessary to those who are called as saints to judge the
world (1 Cor. 6:2). The ability to judge is the ability to discern,
and it is tied directly to the spirit of discernment, or the ability to
distinguish between right and wrong (Heb. 5:14).

Yet with this spirit of discernment comes responsibility,
because the more we know God, the more we are held
accountable. When we know and understand that something
is a violation of the character of God, we are more accountable
than one who is ignorant. Paul bases his argument on this
principle in Romans 7:8-10, quoting from The Emphatic Diaglott,

8 But sin having taken opportunity through the
commandment, worked in me all strong desire.
Apart from Law, however, sin is dead;
9 and I was formerly living apart from Law, but the
commandment having come, sin lived again, and I
died;
10 and that commandment intended for Life, the
same was found by me for Death.


Paul had written earlier in Rom. 4:15, that "where there is no law,
neither is there violation." It is self-evident that it takes a Law to
break it. Sin is a violation of Law. If all laws were repealed, the
crime rate would be zero. But no one would want to live in such
a country.

The Law will remain as long as there are people in the world
who are not conformed to the image of Christ. Once all have
been reconciled (two-way conciliation) to God, then and only
then will the Law be unnecessary as legislation, because there
will be no one to prosecute or hold accountable any longer. Yet
even then, the character of God as expressed in the Law will
continue as long as God remains the same yesterday, today,
and forever (Heb. 13:8).

Paul tells us in Rom. 7:8-10 (above) that the Law was "intended
for Life," but instead brought Death. Why? Because the Law could
only justify the righteous, and because all have sinned, it was
unable to do its intended job. Sin activates the Law ( gives it
life), because that is its purpose. Where there is no sin, the Law
remains satisfied.


Paul makes the point that knowledge of the Law made him
accountable to God, and thus the Law killed him. Paul seems to
be speaking as if he were Adam himself. Adam could not have
sinned apart from the command in Gen. 2:17, "but from the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat."


If the Law were evil, then this original Law ought to be included in
the list of evil laws. But the fact is that God established a GOOD
Law, and Adam violated it. That violation gave life to the Law,
activating its judgment, and Adam died. So also with Paul. We
cannot blame the Law, for the Law is not sin. God has not held the
Law accountable for any sin. He has only held men accountable
for sin.
Romans 7:11 says,

11 for sin, having taken opportunity through the
commandment, deceived me, and through it killed
me.


It was not the Law that "deceived me," but sin. Sin, however, had no
opportunity to kill me except through the commandment. That is, it
was the violation of the commandment that gave sin the opportunity
to kill me.


Some have taught that the solution, then, is to get rid of the Law. If
they could just abolish or repeal all laws, then they could be perfect
and inherit Life. But this is not the biblical manner of salvation. Even
if it were possible to abolish the Law, how can we be joined to God,
whose very character is expressed in His Law, unless we are like
Him? It is one thing to be imputed righteous, but in the end, we must
actually BE like Him in order to be united to Him as one body.

12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is
holy and righteous and good.


Not once does Paul disrespect the Law or abolish it. He affirms its
righteous character as being an expression of the mind of Christ.

13 Therefore did that which is good become a cause
of death for me? May it never be! Rather, it was sin, in
order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my
death through that which is good, that through the
commandment sin might become utterly sinful.


Paul says that it was not the Law that caused my (Adam's) death.
Sin caused my death. One cannot blame the Law for sin, even if
sin does not exist apart from the Law. If we take out our theological
wrath upon the Law, we are blaming the righteousness of God for
our mortality. Without the Law, murder and theft would not be sin,
and theoretically, we would live in perpetual disharmony with the
character of God.

14 Besides, we know that the Law is spiritual; but I
am fleshly, having been sold under sin.

[The Emphatic Diaglott]

Here again, speaking on behalf of Adam and all humanity, Paul
confesses that he is the problem, not the Law. Adam's sin incurred
a debt that could not be paid, and so he and his wife, his children,
and his entire estate was sold to make payment (Matt. 18:25).
Adam and his estate was originally sold to the ground, and the
ground then became Adam's first lawful redeemer. According to the
laws of redemption, the redeemer assumes the debt and liability of
the one being redeemed. Hence, God says in Gen. 3:17, "Cursed
be the ground for your sake."


God in His mercy shifted the responsibility for Adam's debt so that
the ground itself would take the penalty. The downside of this, of
course, was that Adam was then enslaved to the ground. Gen. 3:19
says,

19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you
return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for
you are dust, and to dust you shall return.


The sentence was thus decreed, and then mankind entered into
its first known grace period. From the divine decree to the time that
the sentence is executed is a grace period to give men opportunity
to be redeemed by Christ. The sentence was carried out 1656 years
later at the time of Noah's flood, when the ground was judged along
with all those under its authority.

Only those with faith escaped the judgment, because they had
found grace (Gen. 6:8) by covenanting with God (Gen. 6:18). Noah
and his family were redeemed from slavery to the ground (earth) by
Jesus Christ, who had been slain from the foundation of the world.
Hence, they were no longer slaves to the ground, but bondslaves
of Jesus Christ. The earth, with its thorns and thistles, no longer
had authority over them. The law of authority worked in their favor,
because Christ had become their new Authority. For this reason,
they lived through the flood, whereas the others all died.

But in Romans 7, Paul was speaking hypothetically as if he were
Adam and, by extension, all who remain under the authority of the
earth. "I am fleshly, having been sold under sin."

At this point it became necessary for Paul to distinguish between
the two "I's." Having first expressed his earthly identity with Adam,
he now begins to explain his heavenly identity with the Last Adam.
The interrelation between these two "I's" form the main topic of the
rest of Romans 7.


Logabe
 

JarBreaker

New Member
Apr 6, 2010
204
15
0
Galatians 5:18 (NASB)
[sup]18 [/sup]But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.


Being led by the spirit, one has succeeded in putting that old man of sin to death. Denying yourself (read: SELF) daily, you no longer seek your own will, but the will of your Father in heaven. Thus, your will lines up with His will - accomplishing His will in your life is not doing your own works, which only leads to self righteousness which leads to pride which causes that old man of sin to rise up all over again.

The dream Daniel interpreted says that band of iron and brass remains around the stump of the tree that was hewn down - sin can always rise back up, that is why if we say we are without sin we are a liar.
 

JarBreaker

New Member
Apr 6, 2010
204
15
0
Those who are under the Law of Moses are not led by the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 5:18 (NASB)
[sup]18 [/sup]But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.


Under the law means being condemned by it.

Seeking to fulfill or do the law in our own flesh by our own human understanding would be our own works.

Denying ourselves and following the will of the spirit, does not lead to our own works. Our will lines up with His will, we would only even pray to Him for the things He wishes to give us!

Only doing things we are led of the holy spirit to do would be doing the law and not hearing only --- He would never speak to you that anything you are doing OF HIS WILL would be a thing that breaks His eternal law.
 

logabe

Active Member
Aug 28, 2008
880
47
28
66
Actually it means being under the Mosaic Covenant,
and bound to do ALL of it. Christians are not. We have the New Covenant.

Your view of the law will determine your view of sin.

As a general rule, the moral laws remained intact. Only the
means of Justification or purification from sin were altered.
The things done in the Tabernacle or Temple were changed,
but all the laws dealing with our fellow men outside the
Tabernacle or Temple have remained to define sin and make
sin sinful. There is no crime unless there is a law to make it
a crime.


This does not mean that anyone is obligated to obey the
Jewish laws. Jewish law is talmudic, rather than biblical.
Talmudic law is what Jesus called "the tradition of men"
(Mark 7:8) or "the tradition of the elders" (Matt. 15:2). These
were Jewish interpretations of the law which were not only
incorrect, but they actually rendered God's law void. Jesus
had harsh words for the Pharisees for putting away God's
law through their traditions.

Jesus put away many Jewish legal interpretations because
they made void the law of God. But Jesus never once put away
God's law. He knew the intent of the Lawmaker, and He gave its
interpretation according to what His Father intended from the
beginning.

Paul says in Romans 6:14-15,

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are
not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under
the law, but under grace? God forbid.


Many Christians do not understand Paul's terminology. Some
say that "under the law" refers to an obligation to keep the law.
But if we are no longer obligated to keep the law, then why does
Paul forbid us to sin? Sin is always defined as violation of the
law in Paul's writings, and indeed throughout the Bible. 1 John
3:4 says,

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law;
for sin is the transgression of the law.


John's statement is in full agreement with Paul's view, where he
says that "by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20) and "I
had not known sin, but by the law" (Rom. 7:7). The law defines
sin. So how is it that Paul seems to contradict himself in Romans
6:14? Is he really telling us that we now have no responsibility to
keep the law, to refrain from sinning?

The phrase "under the law" refers to the Law's attitude toward you,
not your attitude toward the law. A sinner who is convicted of sin
(crime) is "under the law," and the law will stand over him to force
him to pay restitution to his victims. A sinner who has been
released from his sentence-either by paying the debt in full, or
working it off, or having a near kinsman redeem him from debt-is
"under grace."

The law convicts all men of sin. But as Christians, we are not
"under the law." Why? Because Jesus paid the debt for us, and
the law was satisfied. What then? Shall we continue in sin just
because Jesus was good enough to pay off our debt? Of course
not! Shall we continue in sin because we are no longer under the
law but under grace? God forbid! Christians need to know that
grace is not a license to sin. Grace is only the condition of
someone whose sin-debt has been paid, so that the law no
longer has occasion against him. The definition of sin has not
changed, nor has God ever given man the right to redefine sin.
God has given us His law to give us the knowledge of sin, if we
will take the time to study it. Once we know and understand the
law, the conscience can discern how to apply the law of God
properly to one's personal life.


Logabe