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

[Brakelite]

Yes, created in His image, not in the "image" of the Law He gave to Israel as a covenant with them.

Much love!

Yet is not the law a reflection of the character of God? Is that not the character we are called to? A character of righteousness? Or perhaps we are talking about different laws here.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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)

They were pursuing both the righteousness of the Law and ultimate Salvation--a place where their sins would be completely forgiven, and they would no longer be subject to the curse of sin, which is death. Sadly, many Jews just pursued the righteousness of the Law, thinking that eternally applying themselves to rules of the Law they would obtain eternal life. But that was never the purpose of the Law. The purpose of the Law was to show that they had to rely on Messiah's coming to achieve for them what they could not do. They had to repent of their own inabilities and cast themselves upon the righteousness of one better than themselves.

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.

But you have to know what this means, and not just quote it. You have to recognize that Paul was speaking of the majority who had turned away from faith to pursue salvation through the rituals of the Law. And this only amplified their own flaws, and incapacities to obtain eternal life. The only way to properly pursue the righteousness of the Law was through faith, which extended beyond the Law to trust in someone who would forgive them for their failure under the Law. As such, it was a higher righteousness they should've been pursuing when they properly sought after the righteousness of the Law.

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.

Israel was old as godly nations go, and had lost their zeal for true righteousness. The Gentiles hadn't even started yet. But all nations basically end up in the same place, losing their desire, as a nation, for true righteousness.

True righteousness comes by pursuit of forgiveness, something that cannot be earned. The Law earned blessings, but could not earn eternal life. That had to come through God's forgiveness, which is the righteousness of faith. But OT faith was not complete until Christ had offered himself as an eternal atonement for sin.

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.

I agree. The righteousness of faith is a desire for forgiveness--not self-confidence.

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.

Not just the leaders, but the masses in the nation pursued doing things their own way, instead of casting themselves on the mercy of God. They were self-satisfied and content in their own works. They did not pay heed to the fact that all true righteousness comes from the word of God.

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.

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.

Again, true obedience to the Law in its time was based on faith. Forgiveness from God was pursued under the Law, although later, when the nation apostacized, they stopped feeling any sense of remorse for going their own way. So faith was *supposed* to be under the Law, but in the end, Israel relied on the works of the Law to get what the Law said they cannot get on their own. They needed both the mercy of God and the atonement of Christ. The Law could only get them temporary blessings.

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.

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

You checked *60 Bible versions!* Wow! That's pretty incredible. Checking Bible versions, however, will show, in every case, the same example of "abbreviation" that Paul used because every version shows the same way that Paul said it! If Paul in any version abbreviated something, he did it in all versions, because all versions are based on the same historical manuscripts. Of course there are different manuscripts, but they are all in pretty close agreement.

So I don't know why you would be checking *60 versions* when they would only tell you the same thing, using the words that I say abbreviate, indicating that when Paul said "Faith" in this particular context, he was speaking of "Christian Faith" that leads to eternal life? It would've been time better spent checking commentaries, rather than other versions!

 

[Brakelite]

Jesus is the Lord of Shabbat.
He healed on the Sabbath to show you, that the Law is lower then the God who made it.

Jesus has all power in heaven and on earth......the law and the commandments do NOT.

Replace the word "power' with the word "authority' because that would be a more appropriate word in context with Christ being the Lawgiver. And I agree with your premise above. I would ask you though, seeing as how you reject the fourth commandment , how is that not a rejection of the authority of the One who commanded?

See, God found FAULT with the Old and replaced it.

I would very much like to hear your explanation of what was actually faulty with the old covenant.

 

[BarneyFife]

Sorry but the entire Mosaic Law-including the decalogue was rendered inoperative by the blood of Jesus!

Sorry but however popular this fantasy may be it is still just that--FANTASY.

Where else in the Bible do you find the ten commandment law being referred to as a "ministration?" If 2 Corinthians 3 means the passing away of the ten commandments, then what does Romans 7:12 mean? And where else in 2 Corinthians 3 do you find the blood of Jesus mentioned?

What was fading away was not the ten commandments,
but the glory of Moses countenance.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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!

Faith does ultimately achieve eternal life, but not until Christ provided his atoning sacrifice for them. There is no other name under heaven by which a man may be saved.

 

[Tong2020]

I see it that way not because I claim to know Paul, but because that is the logical construction of what he is saying theologically. We know faith was how the Law operated and yes, that the Law at the same time was not "of faith."

What does that logically mean? It would be an absolute contradiction unless you recognize that "of faith" refers to it not being "faith in Christ." Clearly, if the Law had been operating through faith and by men of faith, then you could not say the Law was not "of faith" unless you're talking about a specific kind of faith that was already introduced in contrast to the generic faith of the Law.

And Paul does that in all of his letters. Yes, I know Paul that well! In all of his letters he points out not that the Law didn't operate by faith, but that the Law, operating by faith, did not operate by faith in Christ, because until Christ came, sins had not yet been put away.

That's why Paul regularly spoke against keeping the Law after Christ had come, because the Law had been inadequate and only looking forward to the point where faith could have as its object Christ. To reject Christ, all that remained was faith in a system that was premature to Salvation. It operated by faith, but that faith was meant to culminate in faith in Christ.

It makes no relevant sense to say that the Law had faith but was not "of faith!" That is a clear contradiction, as I see it. It may make sense in how you're thinking about it, but it makes no sense in the way Paul was writing it.

It makes no sense to me that law had faith or have no faith. The is not anything that could have faith or not have.

If what you say of the statement of Paul, that is, “the law is not of faith”, wherein you take as to have Paul mean by “of faith” as an abbreviation of “of faith in Jesus Christ”, it makes no point for Paul to cite Abraham’s faith in pointing out that justification is by faith.

Tong2020 said: ↑
They were blessed with Abraham because they too were justified by faith just as Abraham was.

The fact that God had justified Abraham, speaks well of him. Please read Romans 4 as it tells us a lot about Abraham and faith. Verse 22-24 is very telling about faith ~ of Abraham and of Christians. But please go through the entire chapter.

I memorized it a long time ago brother. Abraham was justified as a righteous man, but he did not yet receive eternal justification. He just didn't look to something like the Law to justify him, because its purpose was to condemn all those in the OT era who had not yet obtained eternal justification through Christ.

By looking for mercy, Abraham did not depend on self-effort or his own record for justification. He just looked for forgiveness.

And this is the basis that would bring eternal justification through Christ when he came. The example of Abraham was given to show this basis for justification, which would only become eternal in the NT era, after Christ had done his work.

What I read about Abraham is that God had chosen him and made a promise to him and his seed. Then after some time God had justified him because of his faith in Him. He was freely justified by God, and that is not because of anything that Abraham had done, nor because he was looking for mercy and forgiveness. It’s just that of faith in God. But even before that, even before Abraham obeyed God, when God send His word to Him (Gen.12:1-3), God had made him a promise that is basically conditioned on nothing. That by itself points to Abraham’s salvation by grace through faith.

<<<He just didn't look to something like the Law to justify him, because its purpose was to condemn all those in the OT era who had not yet obtained eternal justification through Christ.>>>

Wow, you memorized Romans 4. Great for you. Then you find there that Abraham was justified by faith, righteousness having been imputed to Him by God. It is not that he was righteous, or that he looked forward to someone else, that he was justified. If there is any that Abraham looked at, it is God. His justification came freely from God, God by grace, having imputed to him, righteousness.

I can’t even imagine such a thing. I don’t believe that God made a covenant with those whom He took out of slavery from Egypt, and gave them His law to condemn them. What scriptures says why He made a covenant with them is so He could fulfill His promises He made to Abraham and his seed, even make them, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. Also scriptures is clear as to why God added the law and that is not to condemn them, for He had already condemned them even at Sinai, when they made an idol and worshipped it as the God who took them out of Egypt. If not for Moses’ prayer and pleading to the Lord on their behalf, God would have destroyed them all at that very moment.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Not in my view which take this into account.

Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

Needless to say, the fault was not with God and so not with the Law, but with the man.

You make no point here. I said that the faulty record of man disqualified them for eternal life until Christ provided works of eternal redemption. The Law pointed this out.

So yes, the reason was the Sin Nature of Man--not God. But what point are you making that contradicts what I said? My point was that yes, it was "man's fault."

He had a Sin Nature, and it was this record that disqualified him, whether under the Law or not, from having eternal salvation. Not even Abraham could have that--not even having approached God for mercy--because he also had a Sin Nature that needed to be covered by Christ's blood.

<<<You make no point here. I said that the faulty record of man disqualified them for eternal life until Christ provided works of eternal redemption.>>>

My point is simple. The law is good and holy and so was given for their good. Why the law was against them is not because the law was faulty, but that the fault was with or in the man. As I said, the law was not added as a means for them to attain eternal life, but for some other purpose. So we can’t take the law as though it has to do something with attaining eternal life.

<<<He had a Sin Nature, and it was this record that disqualified him, whether under the Law or not, from having eternal salvation.>>>

I want to ask clarification of those in bold letters. Please clarify what you refer to as sin nature and what record that you say disqualifies the man.

Tong2020 said: ↑
As I said, in my view, there are not two faiths, only one. Paul clearly said that in one of his epistles, we only have one faith.

You are confusing Paul's conversation with mine--I'm only explaining what I think he means using my own words. Words mean what they mean *in context.*

In context, I speak of 2 kinds of faith, OT faith and NT faith. Paul was speaking only of NT faith. He did not reference OT faith, but implied it as part of the OT system of Law.

He did not assume there was no OT faith under the Law! On the contrary, Paul mentioned Abraham having faith even before the Law! This was OT faith!

Not that I am confusing Paul’s with yours. I was just pointing out my view that there is only one kind of faith, that is, faith that comes from God, and the object of which is God. All other so called faith are not what I am talking about. And that, that is what Paul speaks of in the ultimate sense. NT faith, OT faith, if there is any distinction there, it is not the faith, for faith in NT and OT came from God and the object is God. The difference I can say is that in the OT it was Moses through whom faith came to Israel while in the NT it was through Jesus Christ. And yes that certainly is a great difference. But it does not make of two kinds of faith, but only one, God being the object. For this is what Jesus said it means to have faith in Him:

John 12:44 Then Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me.”

Tong
R1723

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Also in my view, the matter of having eternal life is beyond man. For it is not something that is earned ~ it is a gift. In that sense, eternal life is neither a matter of works or of faith. It is not a matter of whether your faith is a kind that achieves it or not.

I can't agree with that. Your faith in Christ as its object is critical for Salvation! Works of repentance are also critical for Salvation. But the basis of our Salvation is, as you indicate, neither our Works nor our Faith, but rather, the object of our Faith, as well as the object of our Works of Faith--Christ!

So Faith and Works are essential. Both constitute Man's response to God's word in faith. But the basis of our Salvation is Christ, in whom we must place our faith. It comes through forgiveness of sins, but it must have Christ as its source.

Jesus Christ is God. Faith in Jesus Christ is actually faith in God. It’s not like when a Christian says his faith is in God that he says that as though Jesus Christ is not God or is not his God. Or not like when a Christian says God is my savior that he says that as though Jesus Christ is not the Savior or not his Savior.

Jesus Christ said “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me“. What do you understand there? How did you take that in your reading?

Tong2020 said: ↑
Taking for granted, for the sake of argument, that if it were that before Christ, God has not given eternal life to anyone yet, I don’t see it as though it is because God looks at faith then as lacking or falling short of sort or that because faith at the time before Christ is a kind of faith that is different from faith after Christ.

It is certain that nobody had Eternal Life before Christ died! Men of faith before Christ certainly had the words of life from God which would lead to that, but until Christ died, nobody had a basis for resurrection from the dead. Even when men rose from the dead, they would still have to die!

So yes, God did see the faith of men as they looked to Him for mercy. And He forgave them the things that kept them out of heaven. But that still did not give them eternal life--not until Christ actually purchased that for them.

Forgiveness was the basis for obtaining eternal life, as Abraham's faith showed. But the gift could not actually be delivered until Christ rose from the dead.

Maybe it's just a matter of point of view. Then I think it is also a matter of how one understand eternal life. For many Christians died too as did Abraham and Moses. Then there is Elijah who was said to had not died but was translated. Translated to where? Did he eventually die?

<<<. But that still did not give them eternal life--not until Christ actually purchased that for them.>>>

I don’t think that eternal life was purchased by Christ nor is something that could be bought.

Tong2020 said: ↑
That is why I don’t agree with you on that with regards faith.

As I said, I believe that there is only one and the same faith from the beginning, the faith that comes from God, the object of which is God, of course.

Faith in the OT and faith in the NT is of the same kind. Both are focused on the word of God, and both pursue forgiveness of sins.

However, OT faith did not yet have, as its object, Christ, who had to come and bring them eternal life before their faith could actually have it. It was quality faith, but faith that was indeed denied because their Sin Nature had not yet been mitigated.

Sorry, we are indeed in disagreement about this. When you say that men in the OT by their faith had Eternal Life before Christ died, you do a disservice to the importance of Christ dying!

<<<However, OT faith did not yet have, as its object, Christ, who had to come and bring them eternal life before their faith could actually have it.>>>

I think not really. Moses had told Israel about Christ. Christ was in fact with them in the wilderness. Even Abraham knew of Christ. Jesus even said regarding Abraham “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then we have in the scriptures knowledge about the Messiah and we know that Jesus Christ fulfilled scriptures.

Jesus Christ is every thing to me. So why would I give no importance or diminish His works especially his sacrificial death that he had done for me? So I do not say that. Why do I say that? For to me, eternal life is a gift, and is given freely to whom God wills to give it, anytime He wills to give it. It is not earned. Work could not earn it and neither could faith.

What I said is that, I believe that when God justified Abraham, he gave him the gift of eternal life. And that is not to give disservice to the importance of Christ’s dying. For I see no reason why God could not give it to him. That is why I always point you to Romans 4, and look into what Paul is saying concerning Abraham’s blessedness, the moment God justified him.

Romans 4:6just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered; 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”

God imputed righteousness to Abraham. What righteousness is that? Righteousness apart from works. What blessedness is that? All sins are forgiven. What else? No sin shall be imputed to him.

Is that righteousness and blessedness only for the moment or temporary? It seems unlikely. Three truths I take into consideration. One is that no sin shall be imputed to him. Two, faith that comes from God is continuing and abiding. Three, such righteousness and blessedness are apart from works.

Now if he was forgiven of all his sins, and if no sin shall be imputed to him, and if righteousness apart from works have been imputed to him, there is nothing that Abraham would do that would bring him death, unless God change His mind and impute sin to Him whenever he falls into sin. Now that sounds like eternal life, does it not?

Some may argue, what if he stop believing? He won’t. For the faith he have is one that came from God and was given to him, is one that is continuing and abiding. That faith is the one Paul refers to in Gal.3:23. That will be shown in the following paragraphs.

So that is what was imputed to Abraham. All those then who are of faith as Abraham, who lived before Christ, God imputed the same to them. Now this will also be imputed to the Christians.

Romans 4:23Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

So, it is clear, the Christians too are justified by God like Abraham. The proof of that is in v.25, the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Let me also share my thoughts here which I think is relevant to our discussion on eternal life. God had the tree of life for Adam and Eve to freely eat anytime they wanted to. When Adam and Eve sinned, this is what the Lord said “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”. Clearly, Adam and Eve still were with the capacity to take and eat of the tree of life and have eternal life. So it seems that, that suggest that the sinful nature is not really a reason regarding that concerning eternal eternal life.

Tong
R1724

 

[Brakelite]

Wow...soooooo the devil ONLY comes to Catholics with the same temptation he offered his Creator???

"Man cannot live by bread only, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God doth man live".

Does that mean Protestants are never wrong.

"Man cannot live by bread only, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God doth man live".

 

[Randy Kluth]

It makes no sense to me that law had faith or have no faith. The is not anything that could have faith or not have.

If what you say of the statement of Paul, that is, “the law is not of faith”, wherein you take as to have Paul mean by “of faith” as an abbreviation of “of faith in Jesus Christ”, it makes to point for Paul to cite Abraham’s faith in pointing out that justification is by faith.

It does in the way I explained it. Paul was saying Abraham's faith brought him justification. That is, it brought him temporary justification by his seeking God's forgiveness for his sins. This would ultimately lead to his accepting Christ's atonement for his sins so that he could be eternally justified.

Paul never said that Abraham had "eternal justification"--only that he was justified. That is, God found him righteous, just as God found righteous any man under the Law who obeyed God's requirements from the heart.

That's because justification is by faith, which is seeking God's forgiveness of sins, relying on God's way of living as opposed to a person living his own way, without consulting with God. Asking God for forgiveness is actually a recognition that life should be lived in concert with God. Repenting of sins is repenting of living out of partnership with God, because Man was created to live in fellowship with God.

You see, if we just quote Scriptures without understanding what Paul is saying by his words, and in the context in which he uses those words, we will just be reciting what we think are platitudes or dogmas. True understanding gives meaning to Paul's words as Paul meant to use them. Words are not always understood at face value. They require embracing the context for ourselves, so that we also understand from the same perspective.

What I read about Abraham is that God had chosen him and made a promise to him and his seed. Then after some time God had justified him because of his faith in Him. He was freely justified by God, and that is not because of anything that Abraham had done, nor because he was looking for mercy and forgiveness. It’s just that of faith in God. But even before that, even before Abraham obeyed God, when God send His word to Him (Gen.12:1-3), God had made him a promise that is basically conditioned on nothing. That by itself points to Abraham’s salvation by grace through faith.

Yes, faith is belief in God's word, and belief in things only God can do. But part of what only God can do is forgive us our sins. Therefore, faith is of course trusting in God's Grace to forgive us our sins. I don't know why you would neglect that part of faith?

As I said before, faith is embracing God's word to our heart. Part of that word shows us that we fall short and need His forgiveness, and then accepting that He offers His forgiveness, conditioned on our returning to Him as our source and way of life.

<<<He just didn't look to something like the Law to justify him, because its purpose was to condemn all those in the OT era who had not yet obtained eternal justification through Christ.>>>

Wow, you memorized Romans 4. Great for you. Then you find there that Abraham was justified by faith, righteousness having been imputed to Him by God. It is not that he was righteous, or that he looked forward to someone else, that he was justified. If there is any that Abraham looked at, it is God. His justification came freely from God, God by grace, having imputed to him, righteousness.

It was so long ago, but I believe I memorized most all of Romans back in 72-73. I'm not bragging--it's insulting when you tell me I need to read something that I memorized. Of course you didn't know that. I'm just letting you know.

"Imputation" is another of those "doctrinal" words we learn in Bible School. I have my own way of describing it. Christ provided in himself what we couldn't provide, in terms of living in perfection in order to obtain eternal life. He achieved that perfection for us, and then let us live in him by the Spirit he gave us. Since he gave us his Spirit he knows that we embrace his way of life as our righteousness. And he forgives us our failures to do so perfectly. The important thing is that we have chosen his life and live by it.

Obviously, this means faith embraces his forgiveness of our sins. It's a mistake if you think this has nothing to do with faith. Faith recognizes that Christ is Deity, and has perfect righteousness. And it recognizes that we also can live in that righteousness and have our sins not counted against us when we do so.

I can’t even imagine such a thing. I don’t believe that God made a covenant with those whom He took out of slavery from Egypt, and gave them His law to condemn them. What scriptures says why He made a covenant with them is so He could fulfill His promises He made to Abraham and his seed, even make them, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. Also scriptures is clear as to why God added the law and that is not to condemn them, for He had already condemned them even at Sinai, when they made an idol and worshipped it as the God who took them out of Egypt. If not for Moses’ prayer and pleading to the Lord on their behalf, God would have destroyed them all at that very moment.

I don't know what you do with the Scriptures that say that the Law was given to bind all men up in their sins, so that they must turn to Christ for complete redemption? Redemption under the Law was temporary. And it was temporary so that Israel would then turn to Christ for final redemption. It was their only option.

Rom 3.20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

<<<You make no point here. I said that the faulty record of man disqualified them for eternal life until Christ provided works of eternal redemption.>>>

My point is simple. The law is good and holy and so was given for their good. Why the law was against them is not because the law was faulty, but that the fault was with or in the man. As I said, the law was not added as a means for them to attain eternal life, but for some other purpose. So we can’t take the law as though it has to do something with attaining eternal life.

I agree with that. But I *never* said the Law was "faulty." I said the Law proved that men are faulty, and thus disqualified from eternal life apart from the eternal atonement of Christ. By the Law no man could be eternally justified.

<<<He had a Sin Nature, and it was this record that disqualified him, whether under the Law or not, from having eternal salvation.>>>

I want to ask clarification of those in bold letters. Please clarify what you refer to as sin nature and what record that you say disqualifies the man.

You don't know what our "Sin Nature" is? Most every Christian I know understands that we are sinners saved by grace. We now live in righteousness, since we've invited Christ into our hearts. But even as we live in righteousness, we continue to be flawed. We regularly have to cleanse ourselves through apologies. But we persist in living in the righteousness of Christ, because we've chosen that way of life.

The Sin Nature is something that will go away once we have received immortal bodies. The bodies we currently have can hold the righteousness of Christ. But it also holds the selfish nature that strives to do the opposite of what God's word wants us to do. We can resist the temptation at an autonomous life by embracing fellowship with God, and by submitting to the will of God.

Not that I am confusing Paul’s with yours. I was just pointing out my view that there os only one kind of faith, that is, faith that comes from God, and the object of which is God. And that, that is what Paul speaks of in the ultimate sense. NT faith, OT faith, if there is any distinction there, it is not the faith, for faith in NT and OT came from God and the object is God. The difference I can say is that in the OT it was Moses through whom faith came to Israel while in the NT it was through Jesus Christ. And yes that certainly is a great difference. But it does not make of two kinds of faith, but only one, God being the object. For this is what Jesus said it means to have faith in Him:

John 12:44 Then Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me.”

Tong
R1723

Faith did not come from Moses in the OT. You were right the 1st time--faith comes from God. When God's word comes to our conscience, whether we are conscious that it is God or not, we respond in faith when we accept that word and follow it. Moses was an agent of that word, but he was not himself that word.

And so men put their faith in God, and not just in Moses. We are talking specifically about faith in God. But there is clearly an OT faith and a NT faith. Both are faith in God, but one pre-existed Christ and followed God's word to obey Moses' Law. The other post-dates Moses' Law and trusts in the word of Christ. Trusting in Christ's word, post-resurrection, means that there is no longer any need for observing the Law. It is trusting that Christ provided for final atonement for sin.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus Christ is God. Faith in Jesus Christ is actually faith in God. It’s not like when a Christian says his faith is in God that he says that as though Jesus Christ is not God or is not his God. Or not like when a Christian says God is my savior that he says that as though Jesus Christ is not the Savior or not his Savior.

Jesus Christ said “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me“. What do you understand there? How did you take that in your reading?

I agree with it. Believing in Jesus is believing in God. Jesus' word is God's word. Jesus himself is God's word.

Maybe it's just a matter of point of view. Then I think it is also a matter of how one understand eternal life. For many Christians died too as did Abraham and Moses. Then there is Elijah who was said to had not died but was translated. Translated to where? Did he eventually die?

Yes, the body needs an earthly environment. He had to lose his body to survive where he went.

<<<. But that still did not give them eternal life--not until Christ actually purchased that for them.>>>

I don’t think that eternal life was purchased by Christ nor is something that could be bought.

He had "purchased" it, which is somewhat metaphorical, but nevertheless, biblical and real.

Rev 5.9 And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.

I think not really. Moses had told Israel about Christ. Christ was in fact with them in the wilderness. Even Abraham knew of Christ. Jesus even said regarding Abraham “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then we have in the scriptures knowledge about the Messiah and we know that Jesus Christ fulfilled scriptures.

Christ did preexist in a different form, as the word of God sent into the world to bring eternal redemption for men. That process began the moment Mankind fell into sin. But that is not the same thing as saying Christ had already come. I'm talking about the nativity and the crucifixion. That had not yet happened before Christ came. Eternal Life was not yet won until Christ rose from the dead and gave us his Spirit.

Jesus Christ is every thing to me. So why would I give no importance or diminish His works especially his sacrificial death that he had done for me? So I do not say that. Why do I say that? For to me, eternal life is a gift, and is given freely to whom God wills to give it, anytime He wills to give it. It is not earned. Work could not earn it and neither could faith.

What I said is that, I believe that when God justified Abraham, he gave him the gift of eternal life. And that is not to give disservice to the importance of Christ’s dying. For I see no reason why God could not give it to him. That is why I always point you to Romans 4, and look into what Paul is saying concerning Abraham’s blessedness, the moment God justified him.

Romans 4:6just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered; 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”

That verse does not say David or Abraham had "eternal righteousness"--just "righteousness." There is a righteousness, that existed prior to Christ's coming, which looked forward to eternal righteousness.

I don't think you're disrespectful towards Christ's sacrifice. I just think you're "selling it short" by depreciating its value for eternal redemption. You have said it had value even without Christ's death, specifically before his death. That depreciates the necessary link between his historic resurrection and our receiving eternal life. It was only after the resurrection that we received eternal life.

God imputed righteousness to Abraham. What righteousness is that? Righteousness apart from works. What blessedness is that? All sins are forgiven. What else? No sin shall be imputed to him.

Abraham was viewed as righteous despite his Sin Nature. He had enough righteousness in him for God to view him as a righteous man. This involves the forgiveness of sins, which Abraham obtained by valuing the life of obedience to God's word higher than going his own way.

Israel was viewed as righteous apart from the works of the Law in a sense. In one sense, by keeping the Law they showed that they valued the righteousness of God. In another sense, their attendance to God's Law showed that they recognized their need for atonement for their sins. As such, they needed a righteousness higher than what they themselves could do under the Law. The Law showed not just their obedience, but also their sins.

Is that righteousness and blessedness only for the moment or temporary? It seems unlikely. Three truths I take into consideration. One is that no sin shall be imputed to him. Two, faith that comes from God is continuing and abiding. Three, such righteousness and blessedness are apart from works.

Works exist as part of faith. But the Scriptures here speak of works that do not eternally justify, because in obeying God they also show they disqualify for eternal life.

Faith in the OT brought temporary righteousness, and temporal rewards. They could receive only temporal blessings.

But that faith was intended to last. And so, OT faith was designed to lead to eternal faith in Christ. OT faith needed a better object than laws that could not fully purge Israel of their Sin Nature. OT faith proved a need for faith in Christ as the pure means of dealing with sin.

Now if he was forgiven of all his sins, and if no sin shall be imputed to him, and if righteousness apart from works have been imputed to him, there is nothing that Abraham would do that would bring him death, unless God change His mind and impute sin to Him whenever he falls into sin. Now that sounds like eternal life, does it not?

Abraham died. His justification was temporary, and could not deliver him from death. Only Christ could do that. Abraham's faith was intended to lead him to embrace Christ as the object of his faith.

Some may argue, what if he stop believing? He won’t. For the faith he have is one that came from God and was given to him, is one that is continuing and abiding. That faith is the one Paul refers to in Gal.3:23. That will be shown in the following paragraphs.

So that is what was imputed to Abraham. All those then who are of faith as Abraham, who lived before Christ, God imputed the same to them. Now this will also be imputed to the Christians.

Romans 4:23Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

So, it is clear, the Christians too are justified by God like Abraham. The proof of that is in v.25, the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Yes, we share in like faith with Abraham. But we have the advantage of having received Christ, the eternal object of faith. Abraham was on his way there. And we start there.

Let me also share my thoughts here which I think is relevant to our discussion on eternal life. God had the tree of life for Adam and Eve to freely eat anytime they wanted to. When Adam and Eve sinned, this is what the Lord said “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”. Clearly, Adam and Eve still were with the capacity to take and eat of the tree of life and have eternal life. So it seems that, that suggest that the sinful nature is not really a reason regarding that concerning eternal eternal life.

Tong
R1724

I think you're reading that wrong. God was saying that He was preventing Adam and Eve from taking of the Tree of Life--not that they had the option to do so. They lost their capacity to live an immortal life. Now we have to receive eternal life spiritually first, and then suffer physical death, so that we can be restored to the Tree of Life.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Sorry, but I had to correct B at '23 do you'

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

There you are. What else can I say or do to show Colossians 2 is
not against God's Law and
does not make distinction between 'moral' and 'ceremonial' Laws of God, and
definitively is about the VAIN first principles of the WORLD and
not about alleged 'legalism of sabbatarianism'.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<You're not actually saying Abraham, by his faith, *had* eternal life before Christ came, are you?>>>
Yes, I am not. What I am saying is not that his faith had achieved eternal life. What I am saying is that I believe that even then, God had given him eternal life when He justified him. Whether that is actual to Abraham or not is outside the scope of what I said. For that is another matter. And what I am saying is that eternal life is it is not something that is earned ~ it is a gift. That I am saying, in that sense, eternal life is not a matter of faith.

I can agree that Faith, without Christ, indeed falls short of Eternal Life. NT Faith, by definition, obtains eternal life because it has Christ as its object. Of course, there are men in the NT era who have an incomplete faith, and it does not achieve eternal life unless Christ really is its source.

But OT faith did *not* achieve Eternal Life. It achieved temporary justification, temporary righteousness, and temporary blessing, because death had not yet been conquered. Eternal Life *requires* that we obtain resurrection from the dead. We obtained that only after Christ himself did it.

Incomplete faith? I can’t imagine the idea. Fir me, it’s faith (coming from and given by God and through which God saves man) or no faith.

And as I told you my view, works nor faith does not achieve eternal life. Eternal is a gift of God that He gives freely and as He wills.

In my view, justification has nothing to do with death really. Whether death was finally conquered or not, God can justify whom He wills to justify. Even now, God justified many, even while there is still death in the world. It is not as if for as long as death is around, justification is temporary and incomplete. To my mind there is even no such thing. Either you are justified or you are not. I don’t think there is half justification just as I don’t think there is temporary justification.

Eternal life requires nothing. It is not as though it can require anything.

Besides, if your take is that eternal life requires that we obtain resurrection from the dead, that would mean that nobody has yet actual eternal life, for no one yet hd resurrected from the dead. And we are talking about Christians, not Christ here.

Tong2020 said: ↑
It seems to me that we view faith differently. Perhaps, that one reason why we find it difficult to have our minds meet.

Paul speaks of faith as one that comes. Does that influence your view on faith?

Absolutely, that is the whole problem. Paul said, in context, that when the Law was in effect, *Faith had not yet come.* We know faith had already existed at that time. Abraham had faith even before the Law. Moses had faith during the Law. So how is it that Paul said *faith had not yet come?*

To me, it's simply that he was speaking of Faith of a kind--the kind that has Christ as its source. As you said, having faith was alone insufficient. It had to have Christ as its object in order to effect Salvation in our lives.

Therefore, I understand that Paul abbreviated things so as to not need to go down rabbit holes. He expected we understand the distinction he was making between OT faith and NT faith. For him all faith was designed to lead to Faith in Christ. That had *not yet come.* Fortunately, now it has come.

<<<Abraham had faith even before the Law. Moses had faith during the Law. So how is it that Paul said *faith had not yet come?*>>>

Faith sure had come to Abraham and Moses. And I meant by that, that faith was given to them as to have it. That they have it is evidenced by the fact they genuinely believed and continue on to their last breath. But, concerning Israel, faith had not yet come. That was evident in the history of Israel.

 

[mailmandan]

The shoe seems to fit YOU --- no matter who wrote this, 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.

I know too many characterizing words I would have liked to use-- which is not good for me.

No matter how much you slander me it still doesn't change the fact that 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

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

No matter how much you slander me it still doesn't change the fact that EGW was a false prophet

She was a false prophet for a false church. That does not change that what she in that place wrote was not true and because true is not applicable to anybody, myself one although I am a nobody. The same for you.

 

[Behold]

Replace the word "power' with the word "authority' because that would be a more appropriate word in context with Christ being the Lawgiver. And I agree with your premise above. I would ask you though, seeing as how you reject the fourth commandment , how is that not a rejection of the authority of the One who commanded?
I would very much like to hear your explanation of what was actually faulty with the old covenant.

I dont "reject" the commandments.

What i do is recognize that the commandments have no ability to impart or impute righteousness, which is why God "found fault" with them.

""""""""God, finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant"""""

""""""For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the = SECOND"""""


So, to live under what God has replaced is to be ignorant of the Blood Atonement and the New Testament.
We are not to be spiritually ignorant .
We are to be filled with the Truth that is the Light that comes from the NEW TESTAMENT, where Jesus the Light of the World, is found.
A Child of the Light is not to be found lost inside an old covenant that God has replaced.

Don't live there, if you are born again.

 

[mailmandan]

She was a false prophet for a false church.

Amen to that!

That does not change that what she in that place wrote was not true and because true is not applicable to anybody, myself one although I am a nobody. The same for you.

Even a false prophet can make some true statements and be right about some things. Even a clock with a dead battery is right twice a day.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<You're not actually saying Abraham, by his faith, *had* eternal life before Christ came, are you?>>>
Yes, I am not. What I am saying is not that his faith had achieved eternal life. What I am saying is that I believe that even then, God had given him eternal life when He justified him. Whether that is actual to Abraham or not is outside the scope of what I said. For that is another matter. And what I am saying is that eternal life is it is not something that is earned ~ it is a gift. That I am saying, in that sense, eternal life is not a matter of faith.

I can agree that Faith, without Christ, indeed falls short of Eternal Life. NT Faith, by definition, obtains eternal life because it has Christ as its object. Of course, there are men in the NT era who have an incomplete faith, and it does not achieve eternal life unless Christ really is its source.

But OT faith did *not* achieve Eternal Life. It achieved temporary justification, temporary righteousness, and temporary blessing, because death had not yet been conquered. Eternal Life *requires* that we obtain resurrection from the dead. We obtained that only after Christ himself did it.

Incomplete faith? I can’t imagine the idea. Fir me, it’s faith (coming from and given by God and through which God saves man) or no faith.

And as I told you my view, works nor faith does not achieve eternal life. Eternal is a gift of God that He gives freely and as He wills.

In my view, justification has nothing to do with death really. Whether death was finally conquered or not, God can justify whom He wills to justify. Even now, God justified many, even while there is still death in the world. It is not as if for as long as death is around, justification is temporary and incomplete. To my mind there is even no such thing. Either you are justified or you are not. I don’t think there is half justification just as I don’t think there is temporary justification.

Eternal life requires nothing. It is not as though it can require anything.

Besides, if your take is that eternal life requires that we obtain resurrection from the dead, that would mean that nobody has yet actual eternal life, for no one yet hd resurrected from the dead. And we are talking about Christians, not Christ here.

Tong2020 said: ↑
It seems to me that we view faith differently. Perhaps, that one reason why we find it difficult to have our minds meet.

Paul speaks of faith as one that comes. Does that influence your view on faith?

Absolutely, that is the whole problem. Paul said, in context, that when the Law was in effect, *Faith had not yet come.* We know faith had already existed at that time. Abraham had faith even before the Law. Moses had faith during the Law. So how is it that Paul said *faith had not yet come?*

To me, it's simply that he was speaking of Faith of a kind--the kind that has Christ as its source. As you said, having faith was alone insufficient. It had to have Christ as its object in order to effect Salvation in our lives.

Therefore, I understand that Paul abbreviated things so as to not need to go down rabbit holes. He expected we understand the distinction he was making between OT faith and NT faith. For him all faith was designed to lead to Faith in Christ. That had *not yet come.* Fortunately, now it has come.

Faith sure had come to Abraham and Moses. But concerning Israel, as a people, that faith had not yet obviously come. That was evident in the history of Israel. The coming of faith to Israel was prophesied in scriptures. That faith of Abraham, that faith given to him by God, is what Paul was referring to in Gal.3:23, and was yet to come to Israel. And it had finally come when the Word of God, some 2000 or so years ago, Himself came in the flesh, in the person of Jesus Christ.

Tong
R1728

 

[Brakelite]

No matter how much you slander me it still doesn't change the fact that 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

Would I be correct in assuming you haven't actually read any of her writings, and are relying on others opinions of her?