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

[marks]

Read Psalm 119. Are those the words of someone being condemned by the law?

Have you ever read that Psalm as the thoughts and mind of Jesus, as He grew upon this earth, became a man?

It seems much like Psalm 22, and many of them, the heart and mind of Jesus as He lived in this world. Things that David couldn't possibly say of himself, but he was a very special prophet, showing the heart and mind of our Savior.

Much love!

 

[charity]

Thanks Chris.

I have heard that theory before “that it is the words that He spoke that they were to hear, and receive, inwardly digest and make part of themselves.”

I have challenged others on this theory before and none have been able Answer it. Maybe you can?

The Greek word, trogo (eat), is translated as “gnaw” or “chew”; this word is never used figuratively in the Greek. When Jesus says “drink My blood” He is saying something that the Jews would find unacceptable with their worldly understanding, for consuming blood was forbidden (Lev 17:14; Deut 12:23). He didn’t mean “figurative” blood and the Jews didn’t take it that way. Two thousand years later how does the man who taught you conflate those facts into “inwardly digesting” His words?? They walked away because they knew that he literally meant EAT him and DRINK his blood. They were disgusted by that. Were they confused or are the men who taught you Confused?

Second century Christians were accused of being cannibals for eating the Eucharist. Why were they accused of cannabilism if they were only, according to your teaching, ingesting His words?

I look forward to your response....Mary

'I am the living bread which came down from heaven:
if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:
and the bread that I will give is My flesh,
which I will give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves,
saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,
and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life;
and I will raise Him up at the last day.'
For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.'
(John 6:51-55)

Hello @Marymog,

There is only one authority that I accept where the words used by the Holy Spirit in His Word are concerned, and that is that same Word, for only by carefully comparing Scripture with Scripture will we be sure that we have the truth.

* Just as the body lives temporarily by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.

* 'Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' That this verse does not refer to the Lord's Supper is clear from the fact that it was not then instituted; and that the words could not have been understood (as they were): also , it would shut out all who, from age and infirmity or other cause, had not partaken of that supper. It also cannot refer to the Mass, as there is no drinking at all in the Mass. By comparing verses 47 & 40, with verses 53-54 it will be seen that, 'believing on Christ,' is exactly the same thing as 'eating' and 'drinking' of His flesh and blood.

* Except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you.

* The Hebrews used the figure of eating and drinking in regard to the assimilation of knowledge. In Exodus 24:11. it is used of being alive, for the subjects of the verse saw God yet lived! (or 'did eat and drink') So 'eating and drinking' denoted the operation of the mind in receiving and inwardly digesting truth or the words of God. See Deu. 8:3; Jer. 15:16 and Ezekiel 2:8:-

'And He humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not,
neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only,
but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.'

'Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and Thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart:
for I am called by Thy name, O LORD God of hosts.'

'And thou shalt speak My words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear:
for they are most rebellious. But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee;
Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee.
And when I looked, behold, an hand was sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book was therein;
And he spread it before me; and it was written within and without:
and there was written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe.'
(Eze 2:7-10)

* No idiom was more common in the days of our Lord.
* The idiom, 'flesh and blood' referred to the whole person.

Thank you
In Jesus Name
Chris

 

[Brakelite]

Have you ever read that Psalm as the thoughts and mind of Jesus, as He grew upon this earth, became a man?

It seems much like Psalm 22, and many of them, the heart and mind of Jesus as He lived in this world. Things that David couldn't possibly say of himself, but he was a very special prophet, showing the heart and mind of our Savior.

Much love!

That's a very good point...which makes our own attitude to the law even more inexplicable considering we are supposed to be created in His image.

 

[Brakelite]

@Marymog Catholics are desirous for spiritual food and Godly approval, thus need to know from whence such things come. Jesus also was hungry for the same, which is why He went into the wilderness fasting. The devil comes to Catholics with the same temptation he offered his Creator...make this bread and your troubles are over. What was Jesus reply? "Man cannot live by bread only, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God doth man live". The bread of life is not His literal flesh, but His identity...His character...and it is these things which we must take upon ourselves by faith if we are to live.
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 ¶ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
12:1 ¶ I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Nt about the flesh. It's about the Spirit. My words, they are Spirit and they are life.

 

[Tong2020]

I don't understand how Grace can be separated from Faith? What I do, rather than separate Grace and Faith, is separate OT Grace from NT Grace, and OT Faith from NT Faith.

I agree that they both involve the same God. But what distinguishes and partitions them is the necessity of the historical act of Christ's atoning death. Until that happened, Grace and Faith in the OT had to be separated from Grace and Faith in the NT.

There is distinction between the OT covenant and the NT covenant. That is obvious I have to say. But the distinction does not make any difference regarding the grace of salvation and of faith. The grace of salvation and of faith is the same for both times. Salvation is still by grace through faith. The way I see it the difference is in the form, manner, time, and person (mediator) by which grace and faith comes and is given.

God did not change His covenant with man, in His chosen, Abraham and to his “seed”. What covenant was changed is that which He made with Israel whose mediator was Moses.

What do you say is/are the difference/s between the Old covenant and the New? What is for you the main difference between the two?

I know. We both agree that the Law was not of NT Faith, and so could not provide the gift of Eternal Life. But you think that because Faith existed apart from the Law in the OT that it could provide Eternal Life. I don't believe that's true.

1st of all, Faith in the OT cannot be distinguished from the Law. Faith can only be distinguished from that aspect of the Law that concerned what we earn. Hence, Paul depicted Faith in the OT and in the NT as something we cannot earn.

He specifically associated Faith with seeking forgiveness, which by definition is something we cannot earn. We must rely on the forgiver to receive forgiveness.

We cannot demand it. We cannot therefore earn it. We need the cooperation of the forgiver.

So yes, Faith can in some respects be distinguished from the Law, describing what we cannot earn from what we can earn. But the same was true under the Law, inasmuch as some things under the Law could be earned, and other things could not be earned. Forgiveness under the Law still required the consent of the forgiver, even if performing the rituals earned blessings for doing so.

But the Law represented the operating system in that entire era, governing even all those who had Faith, as well. It governed those who lived before the Law, as well, including Abraham. So the Law determined the condition of Abraham, as well, even though he preexisted the Law.

So as much as Israel operated by Faith under the Law, they still had to rely on their Faith for forgiveness, through the rituals of atonement under the Law. They could only receive forgiveness from the forgiver, no matter how much they complied with the Law and "earned" blessings. They could not "earn" forgiveness. They could only do the work that leads to that, and they would still have to rely on the forgiver to forgive them. They had to have Faith!

In this sense, you cannot distinguish Faith from the Law. Even Abraham comes under its jurisdiction, because the Law declared the condition of all men in that era. They did not earn the right to Salvation. Indeed, by Faith they could obtain forgiveness from God, but it could not be earned under the Law, nor under any OT system.

Faith was fully dependent on God for forgiveness. And in the OT, the Law proved that all men did not qualify for Eternal Life even if by their Faith they obtained forgiveness from God. Until Christ came and accomplished his atoning work, Eternal Life could not yet be had--not even by Faith.

It seems that there is need for us to find out what is our view of law and of faith, so we fully get and appreciate what each of us is saying. Else we just end up going in circles and repeating ourselves which leaves us learning nothing from one another except for our differences and disagreement.

Law is not faith and faith is not law. Just to put that in context, faith and law there is with regards the relationship between God and man. However, this is not as simple as it is stated. I don’t know if I can explain my understanding of it clearly.

I see faith this way. Faith comes from God and is given to man. It comes to man when God sends His word to him and through various ways. He gives it to him by enabling the man to hear and understand the word He sends to him and persuades him to accept it as coming from God. It is by which God saves man. And faith is what assures (as he is enabled ~ power) the man from making the same mistake of the first Adam. Also, I’d like to add this, though it speaks of faith quite out of the context of this writing, that faith is, to the man, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I see Law this way. Law comes from God and is given to man as well. It comes to man through revelation by God to man and through various ways. It is one of many by which God reveals His character and His will ~ His person so to speak. It is also one of many by which God teaches the man for who he (man) is. It is also one of many by which God keep man under guard from sin, at least until He accomplishes His salvation of mankind, and makes all things new.

Tong
R1704

 

[Tong2020]

And if ETERNAL, it's eternally NEW, then there never could have been an old.
What is so difficult, Israel, man, Adam, New Testament era believers, there is NO ONE who did not covenant with God just to break his oath at the first trial. The old covenant of the OT AND the NT is the covenant of man, not God's. God's Covenant is eternally New; man's is ever old, flopped and rot.

Yes, God did not change His covenant with man, in His chosen, Abraham and to his “seed”. What covenant was changed and was rendered old is that which He made with Israel whose mediator was Moses, and was made new, whose mediator is Jesus Christ.

Tong
R1705

 

[Tong2020]

Sorry. The 'old covenant' idea is common to divers generic groupings.

Accepted.

Tong
R1706

 

[Randy Kluth]

There is distinction between the OT covenant and the NT covenant. That is obvious I have to say. But the distinction does not make any difference regarding the grace of salvation and of faith. The grace of salvation and of faith is the same for both times. Salvation is still by grace through faith. The way I see it the difference is in the form, manner, time, and person (mediator) by which grace and faith comes and is given.

God did not change His covenant with man, in His chosen, Abraham and to his “seed”. What covenant was changed is that which He made with Israel whose mediator was Moses.

What do you say is/are the difference/s between the Old covenant and the New? What is for you the main difference between the two?

Well, we agree that God does not change. So He was the same God in the OT as He is now in the NT. But systems changed because before Christ it could not be shown that Man had redemption yet. And after Christ provided redemption, the system had to change.

I don't say that faith changed from OT to NT. I'm just saying that the object OT people were hoping for was not there yet. Messiah had not yet come. So their faith was premised on things that were temporary, and only looking forward to Christ. Today all that's changed. The OT props are now gone and unnecessary. Christ has come.

It seems that there is need for us to find out what is our view of law and of faith, so we fully get and appreciate what each of us is saying. Else we just end up going in circles and repeating ourselves which leaves us learning nothing from one another except for our differences and disagreement.

Law is not faith and faith is not law. Just to put that in context, faith and law there is with regards the relationship between God and man. However, this is not as simple as it is stated. I don’t know if I can explain my understanding of it clearly.

But we can't discuss what we each understand if your view of the Scriptures is premised on a point that I can't accept. I don't believe "Law is not faith" holds from Paul's point of view. Again, he was abbreviating the idea that the Law is not "faith in Christ." Law is not "faith for eternal life." It was, if anything, faith that falls short until Christ comes. It is valid only because its object will come, though it is not yet.

I see faith this way. Faith comes from God and is given to man. It comes to man when God sends His word to him and through various ways. He gives it to him by enabling the man to hear and understand the word He sends to him and persuades him to accept it as coming from God. It is by which God saves man. And faith is what assures (as he is enabled ~ power) the man from making the same mistake of the first Adam. Also, I’d like to add this, though it speaks of faith quite out of the context of this writing, that faith is, to the man, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Not really getting what you're driving at, but I think faith was faith in either OT or NT. Faith hopes for what it does not yet see. Faith by necessity believes in an invisible God. Even after Christ has come, we still must have faith in an invisible God.

But yes, your view of "faith" is exactly what my definition is. Faith is a response--a positive response--to a living word from God to our heart. It my simply be a word from God in our conscience. But it is how God directs us to Himself, giving us a knowledge of who He is and the fact He is with us. When God guides us, we exercise faith in His word, and respond in love to it.

I must say that for me, "faith" is also man's reaching out to God for forgiveness--something he cannot get for himself or by himself. He depends on God to forgive him, expressing sorrow and offering repentance. He would give up going it alone for continuing on into eternity in partnership with God.

This also is "faith." It stood in contrast to trying to earn things under the Law that brought earthly blessings, but could not bring eternal life. No flawed human being could earn eternal life. He was cursed to death because of his compromised Sin Nature.

I see Law this way. Law comes from God and is given to man as well. It comes to man through revelation by God to man and through various ways. It is one of many by which God reveals His character and His will ~ His person so to speak. It is also one of many by which God teaches the man for who he (man) is. It is also one of many by which God keep man under guard from sin, at least until He accomplishes His salvation of mankind, and makes all things new.

Tong
R1704

Yes, the Law was also the word of God to Israel in a certain dispensation of time. That word was time-limited to that dispensation of time. We are not under that Law, nor is anybody else, because Christ has come. He also is the word of God. But he is the eternal word, whereas the Law was limited in scope, and did not provide eternal life. It merely directed Israel towards the hope of eternal life, when Messiah would come.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Before I comment on the points you make there, let me just ask you a few questions with regards Romans 9:31-32.

What do you say was Paul saying that Israel was pursuing?
What is the reason why Israel has not attained what they were pursuing?
Why was it that the Gentiles, while even not pursuing what Israel was pursuing, had attained it?
What was Israel doing in the pursuit of it?

A deeper question, though this is not found in the passage, would be, how is it (to your knowledge of scriptures) that Israel was pursuing it as Paul say they do?

Israel was and is in pursuit of eternal salvation. They were literally inundated under the Law by the hope of returning to the Tree of Life. They were promised the "Jewish Hope," namely a time when their nation would finally be delivered from the oppression of opposing nations, never to be judged again.

This Hope could not be found under standards of the Law, which I insist was given both to give Israel hope through its temporary atonements, and also discourage them from thinking they could obtain eternal life by their own efforts under the Law. As much as it was good for them to obey the Law, they were discouraged from thinking that it was by that system that eternal life would come. Rather, it would come through Messianic deliverance, which we know now was the case.

Romans 9:30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

What do you say was Paul saying that Israel was pursuing? Well we can say salvation. But, to be more accurate, righteousness, the righteousness that they know of, that is, the righteousness of the law (law of Moses).

What is the reason why Israel has not attained what they were pursuing? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.

Why was it that the Gentiles, while even not pursuing what Israel was pursuing, had attained it? They really did not attain what Israel was pursuing. What they obtained is righteousness, a righteousness that is by faith. Obviously, they obtained such righteousness because of faith and by faith.

What was Israel doing in the pursuit of it? Israel was pursuing the righteousness of the law not by faith but by works. They thought of righteousness as if it were attained by works. As such, they strive to attain it by the works of the law. And that is, what is called self righteousness. So that even if they attain it, they will never be justified by it. It was a wrong righteousness, that which is of man, something to boast about, though still not to God, but only to man.

How is it that Israel was pursuing it as Paul say they do? They were led astray into believing that righteousness is attained by the works of the law, by the false teachings of mainly by no less than their leaders, such as the Pharisees.

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<What does the Law being of "works" mean? It means the Law required works that brought blessings by faith, but could not completely remove sin, thus denying a person faith in a final atonement.>>>

It means that the Law is made up of actual works or practical deeds required of Israel to perform, keep, observe, live by, governed by~ their covenant obligations.

The Law denied nothing to Israel. To the contrary it provided what is good for them, according to the wisdom and grace of God.

This is false, and where you go wrong. The Law was an absolute obstacle to Israel achieving eternal life, which was indeed their goal. Their goal was ineed to obtain the eternal salvation of national Israel. They simply failed to accept that they could not achieve this themselves, by the Law.

It was not saying that they achieved *nothing* under the Law. They could and did achieve a lot! But they absolutely could not achieve their goal of obtaining eternal life and eternal salvation for the nation. They had to depend on Messiah to do this work of atonement for them.

Not false. I find no reason and sense for God to put an obstacle for them, whom He intended to make a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<The Law is works that do not achieve eternal life.>>>

Finally. Law is works ~ not of faith.

You keep saying this, but Faith was present under the Law. Paul is speaking of "Faith that Saves for Eternal Life." That particular kind of Faith had not yet come. The Law was not of that particular kind of "Faith." It had faith for temporary forgiveness, temporal blessings, and could obtain a regular display of Grace in covenant with God. But the "Faith" we're talking about is "faith in Christ," which is more than what Faith could have under the system of Law, or even at any time during the OT era.

It was Paul who says the law is not of faith. I just repeat it, perhaps every time it is needed to be pointed out.

Of course, faith that is referred to there in Gal.3:12 is that faith that comes from God, that by which God saves and through which man is saved. And this faith had come to man at various times, in various ways, to men chosen by God and willed to give His grace of salvation, giving them this faith, such as Abraham. This is the same faith that was yet to come to Israel, which Paul talks about in Gal.3:23. This faith comes to them through and in Jesus Christ, the word of God.

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<Paul was *not* saying there is no faith in the Law.>>>

Yes. What Paul is saying is that the law is not of faith. In the positive then, the law is of works.

That is *not* the distinction Paul is saying. He is using an abbreviated form of "Faith in Christ for Eternal Life," as opposed to Faith that does not achieve Israel's ultimate objectives. Paul assumes his listeners have already learned that much from him. But in our day, we need to review these things. We're 2000 years removed from Paul's time!

Well, it is in my reading. I don’t subscribe really to what you say about Paul as using an abbreviated form of “Faith in Christ for Eternal Life”. I think if a Bible translator would have that in their version, it would in all likelihood be criticized as an addition. Just an observation, I find not one Bible version among 60 that I checked.

Tong
R1707

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

But OT faith did *not* achieve Eternal Life.

Let the biggest <<know it all>> explain to you: Hebrews 11.

These are the <hero's of faith> everyone mentioned by name none of whose names are after one, two thousand years BEFORE the writer of Hebrews and four thousand years New-Testament times included. That could work out to ONE out of a total of say one billion people who ever lived BC, against ZERO - 0 - out of a total of maybe one trillion people who have ever lived AD. "NOT ONE" the 'saint' Paul said. <<But OT faith did *not* achieve Eternal Life.>> Hah!

 

[Tong2020]

Very well put!

Much love!

I find no sense in that God puts an obstacle that prohibits them to enter life (salvation), them who are under the law or under the old covenant, to whom He intended to make a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

The thing is, the law was not added for the purpose of attaining salvation. And if the law was not intended for that, it could not be said that by it, Israel was prohibited to attain salvation. Besides, salvation is by grace through faith.

Tong
R1708

 

[Tong2020]

The Law can only condemn. That's why it is for the ungodly. We have no condemnation. We are not governed by the Law. We are governed by Jesus in our hearts. He does not condemn us. He changes us. The Law cannot make one righteous. Jesus can.

Yes, it seems many think that the Law can make them righteous, or declares them righteous, it does not. It only condemns.

Much love!

While the law does condemn, it does not mean it is not good and not holy, nor that it is not good for those who sin.

Yes, the law was added because of transgression, and it is for the ungodly. However, condemnation is not the intention of the law. As the Law came from God, so Paul rightly said it is good and holy. And as it is good, the intention why it is given is good. I believe you know too well what are the good intentions of the law. It is in the scriptures.

Tong
R1709

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

By comparing verses 47 & 40, with verses 53-54 it will be seen that, 'believing on Christ,' is exactly the same thing as 'eating' and 'drinking' of His flesh and blood.

AMEN. Very important, absolutely true, <<'believing on Christ,' is exactly the same thing as 'eating' and 'drinking' of His flesh and blood>>.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

'I am the living bread which came down from heaven:
if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:
and the bread that I will give is My flesh,
which I will give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves,
saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,
and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life;
and I will raise Him up at the last day.'
For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.'
(John 6:51-55)

Hello @Marymog,

There is only one authority that I accept where the words used by the Holy Spirit in His Word are concerned, and that is that same Word, for only by carefully comparing Scripture with Scripture will we be sure that we have the truth.

* Just as the body lives temporarily by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.

* 'Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' That this verse does not refer to the Lord's Supper is clear from the fact that it was not then instituted; and that the words could not have been understood (as they were): also , it would shut out all who, from age and infirmity or other cause, had not partaken of that supper. It also cannot refer to the Mass, as there is no drinking at all in the Mass. By comparing verses 47 & 40, with verses 53-54 it will be seen that, 'believing on Christ,' is exactly the same thing as 'eating' and 'drinking' of His flesh and blood.

* Except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you.

* The Hebrews used the figure of eating and drinking in regard to the assimilation of knowledge. In Exodus 24:11. it is used of being alive, for the subjects of the verse saw God yet lived! (or 'did eat and drink') So 'eating and drinking' denoted the operation of the mind in receiving and inwardly digesting truth or the words of God. See Deu. 8:3; Jer. 15:16 and Ezekiel 2:8:-

'And He humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not,
neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only,
but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.'

'Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and Thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart:
for I am called by Thy name, O LORD God of hosts.'

'And thou shalt speak My words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear:
for they are most rebellious. But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee;
Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee.
And when I looked, behold, an hand was sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book was therein;
And he spread it before me; and it was written within and without:
and there was written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe.'
(Eze 2:7-10)

* No idiom was more common in the days of our Lord.
* The idiom, 'flesh and blood' referred to the whole person.

Thank you
In Jesus Name
Chris

Honestly, to me, it's the best, the truest, the most Christ-like post of yours I have yet read. God be with you.

Then kindly forgive me for remarking, my disappointment that Colossians 2 is not among your references. Would Colossians 2:14-19 not have been very apt in connection with, <<* Just as the body lives temporarily by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.>>, and, <<* Except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you.>>

Because of all the negative connotations TRADITION gave it?

PS: I assume you know who Tradition is.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I see Law this way. Law comes from God and is given to man as well. It comes to man through revelation by God to man and through various ways. It is one of many by which God reveals His character and His will ~ His person so to speak. It is also one of many by which God teaches the man for who he (man) is. It is also one of many by which God keep man under guard from sin, at least until He accomplishes His salvation of mankind, and makes all things new.

Now of what you say there is nothing Christ does not fill the space perfectly. So He being pre-eminent, I do not hesitate to render, for example, Now after that Christ is come, we are no longer under schoolmaster Messenger Law, but under Lawgiver Master Teacher Jesus Himself, to teach us, under Whom we for the rest of our lives shall receive instruction and upbringing in the Faith of HIM.

And I don’t think Paul would have minded.

 

[Brakelite]

For those of you (and there are many) who have it set in their minds that Seventh Day Adventists are legalists, working their way into heaven, etc etc, which bigoted mindset among you has turned you into a cult, here is a quote concluding the church's Sabbath School lesson for this week. We are studying Isaiah (the entire world church the same topic) and the sub title for this week has been Playing God. The memory text was
“ ‘Behold, this is our God; we have waited for Him, and He will save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for Him; we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation’ ” (Isaiah 25:9, NKJV).

“Is it by conditions that we receive salvation?—Never by conditions that we come to Christ. And if we come to Christ, then what is the condition? The condition is that by living faith we lay hold wholly and entirely upon the merits of the blood of a crucified and risen Saviour. When we do that, then we work the works of righteousness. But when God is calling the sinner in our world, and inviting him, there is no condition there; he draws by the invitation of Christ, and it is not, "Now you have got to respond in order to come to God". The sinner comes, and as he comes and views Christ elevated upon that cross of Calvary, which God impresses upon his mind, there is a love beyond anything that is imagined that he has taken hold of.”—Ellen G. White.

Just sayin.

 

[Brakelite]

Playing God is pride. There are some here who could do very well if they paid heed to Mrs White's counsel.
Advancement in Christian experience is characterized by increasing humility, as the result of increasing knowledge. Everyone who is united to Christ will depart from all iniquity. I tell you, in the fear of God, I have been shown that many of you will fail of everlasting life because you are building your hopes of heaven on a false foundation. God is leaving you to yourselves, “to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart.” You have neglected the Scriptures. You despise and reject the testimonies because they reprove your darling sins and disturb your self-complacency. When Christ is cherished in the heart, His likeness will be revealed in the life. Humility will reign where pride was once predominant. Submission, meekness, patience, will soften down the rugged features of a naturally perverse, impetuous disposition. Love to Jesus will be manifested in love to His people. It is not fitful, not spasmodic, but calm and deep and strong. The life of the Christian will be divested of all pretense, free from all affectation, artifice, and falsehood. It is earnest, true, sublime. Christ speaks in every word. He is seen in every deed. The life is radiant with the light of an indwelling Saviour.—Testimonies for the Church EGW

 

[CadyandZoe]

Really? Catholicism inherited “false interpretations”?

Protestants have multiple interpretations of the same passage from Scripture. Some of those interpretations agree with Catholic interpretations. Who decides if the interpretations are false? YOU?

Curious

Yes. I decide. God gave us a Bible and it is up to each one of us to read it, study it, and make application.

 

[charity]

Honestly, to me, it's the best, the truest, the most Christ-like post of yours I have yet read. God be with you.

Then kindly forgive me for remarking, my disappointment that Colossians 2 is not among your references. Would Colossians 2:14-19 not have been very apt in connection with, <<* Just as the body lives temporarily by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.>>, and, <<* Except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you.>>

Because of all the negative connotations TRADITION gave it?

PS: I assume you know who Tradition is.

'And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh,
hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us,
and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross;
And having spoiled principalities and powers,
He made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels,
intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered,
and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.'
(Col 2:13-19)

Hello @GerhardEbersoehnm,

Thank you for referring me to Colossians 2:14-19: verses 20-23 sum it up beautifully too, don't they:-

'Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world,
why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
(Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using )
after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom
in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body;
not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.'
(Col 2:20-23)

* Would you explain your words in reference to 'tradition' please.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[mailmandan]

Playing God is pride. There are some here who could do very well if they paid heed to Mrs White's counsel.
Advancement in Christian experience is characterized by increasing humility, as the result of increasing knowledge. Everyone who is united to Christ will depart from all iniquity. I tell you, in the fear of God, I have been shown that many of you will fail of everlasting life because you are building your hopes of heaven on a false foundation. God is leaving you to yourselves, “to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart.” You have neglected the Scriptures. You despise and reject the testimonies because they reprove your darling sins and disturb your self-complacency. When Christ is cherished in the heart, His likeness will be revealed in the life. Humility will reign where pride was once predominant. Submission, meekness, patience, will soften down the rugged features of a naturally perverse, impetuous disposition. Love to Jesus will be manifested in love to His people. It is not fitful, not spasmodic, but calm and deep and strong. The life of the Christian will be divested of all pretense, free from all affectation, artifice, and falsehood. It is earnest, true, sublime. Christ speaks in every word. He is seen in every deed. The life is radiant with the light of an indwelling Saviour.—Testimonies for the Church EGW

EGW was a false prophet.

The Ellen White Investigation
The Truth about the Seventh-day Adventist Church prophetess Ellen G. White
Quick Intro to SDA