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

[Randy Kluth]

That is righteousness of faith we have there in Hebrews 11:8. It’s not another righteousness. In fact, before God appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said to him, ‘Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you, Abraham was said to belong to a family of idol worshippers. Do you think, Abraham was viewed by God as righteous then? I don’t think so. For how can one who worships idols be righteous in the sight of God?

You make no argument at all.

I am sorry but I do not find those scriptures as saying nor implying that Israel as a nation was viewed as righteous by God. Please give the best scriptures out of the many you say, that tells is that concerning Israel as a nation.

Many, many Scriptures inform Israel that in keeping the Law they will be viewed as "righteous." Way too obvious. If you can't accept that, you won't accept anything. I gave you Scriptures, and you don't accept them. Your problem--not mine.

That only shows that Israel was not righteous as per requirement of the law. If at all they could be said to have a righteousness for a time, it means they have, as a nation, perfectly observed and kept the law. Was there? I have not read any of that in scriptures.

That's a pathetic argument! Israel was righteous when they kept the Law. Period.

I am sorry but I don’t subscribe to the idea pf assuming that Adam and Eve righteous and innocent before the fall. For being righteous necessitates having knowledge of good and evil and choosing to do what they know is righteous. Which I understand Adam and Eve doesn’t have until they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

What was said is that they did not have the knowledge of good and evil. It doesn't say they had no knowledge of good. God said "it was very good" when He made them. Surely they knew that from the start?

The fact that they were prevented means if they were not, and they ate of the tree of life, they will live forever. That is clearly implied in Gen.3:22.

Non-argument.

Not arguing over words. I am trying to show you what is clearly implied in the passage pertaining to Adam and Eve’s capacity to eat of the tree of life and live forever. If they didn’t have such capacity, there was really no need for God to take them out of Eden so they won’t have access to the tree and eat of it.

Tong
R1790

Non-argument. I think we're nearing the end of this discussion. If you just want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, I'm not interested. I'm making real arguments, and you seem to just be rejecting them because you can.

 

[Randy Kluth]

<<<Obviously, the difference is that Christ rose from the dead for NT saints, but not for OT saints.>>>

What are you really trying to say by that? Please expound.

How many times must I explain this to you? I'm not saying the OT saints cannot benefit from Christ's death! I'm saying that until Christ actually died, they couldn't benefit from it.

<<<Death is evidence in both testaments that we've been cursed due to our sins.>>>

But are you not saying that when Christ had done his work on the cross, that the curse had been taken cared of? Then why do men still die, even the christians?

I've already explained all this in detail. I never said that Christ's atoning death immediately removes death or the Sin Nature. I said the legal work was done, resulting in the gift of the Spirit as an eternal gift. Eventually, death and the Sin Nature will go away for the Christian, but not immediately.

So, your view is that Christians have eternal life now, but they still die. On the other hand you have Abraham and OT saints as not having eternal life, because they died. And perhaps your view is that, eternal life is suspended for Christians until they are resurrected and Abraham and the OT saints will have eternal only at the resurrection. Is that what is your view of eternal life?

I've already explained this. Until Christ died his atoning death, the Sin Nature was a constant reminder that Man was ineligible for eternal life. After Christ's legal work on the cross, the Sin Nature, for the Christian, no longer stands as an indictment against Man, preventing him from having eternal life.

The whole difference is not the presence of a Sin Nature, but whether that Sin Nature has already seen Christ's redemptive work. Before Christ's death, the Sin Nature was damning. But after Christ's death, it became irrelevant unless one rejects Christ's atoning death for sin.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
I get what you are saying. However, I just don’t have the same view and mind as you do regarding that.

But what I really was asking you to comment about is on this:

That the salvation of God was and is by grace through faith (not through law or works or whatever).

You must define "grace" as "Christ's Grace." Otherwise, you may be talking about OT acts of divine grace that fell short of giving Man eternal life. "Grace," thus, is for Paul another "shortcut," or abbreviated term.

Both Grace and Faith are abbreviated terms, both referring to NT Grace and Faith. Neither one excludes works or obedience. What they exclude are works that take place *apart from Christ,* such as existed under the Law. Those works were temporarily accepted by God, but they were never designed to bring eternal life to Man.

"Salvation" also is a "shortcut" word. There were many instances of "salvation" in the OT, including the deliverance of Israel from their enemies. But NT Salvation has to do with receiving eternal life through the works of Christ. It is an eternal salvation, as opposed to temporal forms of salvation.

When I say grace there in my statement, I meant the loving kindness of God towards man pertaining to salvation from sin, evil, hell. Let me refer to that here as simply the grace of salvation.

When I say faith there in my statement, I meant to refer to it as that which comes from God, given to the man, through which God saves him; which is the surrendering and trusting of one’s life and will, with all his heart, body, mind and soul, to God, and not to self or to any other else other than God, acknowledging Him as the only creator and the owner of all that there is, including him, devoid of anything concerning self - trust, effort, reliance, confidence, desires; a total surrender of oneself to God.

So, let me state it again:

That the salvation of God was and is by grace through faith (not through law or works or whatever).

What is your comment to that?

Tong
R1791

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Not at all. In you view perhaps.

I agree that the NT scriptures proved that “the Law proved the innate sinfulness of Fallen Mankind”. But the scriptures does not mean to say that the law was given by God with the intention to be an obstacle for them in obtaining salvation. The Scriptures tells us why the law was added and was given to Israel, and what is the intention and the purposes of the law. And to be an obstacle to their salvation is not one of that.

Adam and Eve were barred from the Tree of Life due to their having adopted a position of independent judgment, separate from God's counsel. The Law was given to Israel to similarly bar them from eternal life by any method short of Christ's works. The works Israel was given to do under the Law were just temporary, to keep them in covenant with God until Christ could come and actually do his historical work.

You don't think the Law was designed to bar Israel from achieving eternal life by their own works? The tabernacle was separated from the people, and even from the priests, unless particular measures were taken to assure them that they were there by God's mercy and kindness.

Heb 10.3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

<<<The Law was given to Israel to similarly bar them from eternal life by any method short of Christ's works.>>>

I don’t see the need of barring them by giving the law. Even without the law, they were already barred, them being like Adam are outside of the garden of Eden.

<<<You don't think the Law was designed to bar Israel from achieving eternal life by their own works?>>>

With regards what the law was designed for, what was intended for, what purposes it was given, I need not think anything other than what scriptures says. And I just don’t find scriptures saying that. If there are, I would believe it with all my heart.

Tong
R1792

 

[Behold]

I by the grace of God won't. NO thanks!

Thats up to you.
You are accountable for your choices.
Just like us all.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Like for example, the passage in consideration in this segment, Romans 9:32. What is in what I said in the quote box, that you do not agree? What is your understanding of the passage we are considering here, which is, Romans 9:30-32?

Rom 9.30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal.

Paul is identifying 2 kinds of "works" that approach righteousness. That's why we need to see "works" as an example of Paul's abbreviations! Otherwise, how can we differentiate works that do not save from works that save?

Paul is saying that works that predate Christ or that discard Christ altogether do not achieve final righteousness. But the works of faith, which is obedience to Christ's word, does achieve eternal righteousness and eternal life.

As far as my view is concerned, no works of man could attain to the righteousness that is required of man to obtain salvation. Be it the works of the law or not. Speaking of work, salvation the work of God, not man. So, if there is any work that could be considered to effect salvation, it is the work of God, not man. That is why, God’s way is through faith, which is devoid of anything of man’s work.

And that was how it was with salvation, before and after Christ.

Tong2020 said: ↑
The law has nothing to do with faith. That said, no one is justified by the law in the sight of God.

I've already proven to you that the Law operated by faith. Therefore, it has everything to do with faith. Israel was to obey the Law by faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God. It pleased God for Israel to obey the Law. Therefore, they obeyed it *by faith!*

This underscores the importance of what I'm saying about understanding Paul's use of terms in an abbreviated way. You must understand his use of terms by their context! Unless you do so you will fail to understand how the Law operated by faith when you hear Paul say, "the Law is not of faith."

Paul simply meant that the system of the Law did not accomplish faith for eternal life. The object of faith was designed to be to arrive at final righteousness, at eternal life. You only understand that by the context of Paul's reference to this particular kind of "faith."

Perhaps, proven according to your view. And I also given my counter argument on that, of course per my view. I have also shown you an observation that there was none out of at least 60 Bible versions that reflects your view, while most of the versions that use paraphrasing like the amplified version, reflects my view.

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

Tong2020 said: ↑
What happened with Israel is that, they failed to understand the purpose of the law, and even while God sent word through the prophets of Israel concerning it, prophecies about their Messiah and what the Messiah will do for them, their teachers failed as well to teach them about that. Worst is, they were even led astray by false teachings concerning that. So that, they the Messiah they are hoping to come is a different Messiah altogether. And in addition to that, their leaders became greedy, that they used the law for selfish gain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men instead of that of God, and having the people of Israel to believe that justification in the sight of God is attained by the works of the law, by observing and keeping all that they tell them to do, in the disguise that all were commanded by God. The people believed them because these men seat at the seat of Moses, whom they look up to and believe as God’s great prophet to whom God talks to and mediates for them. And that in time, effectively blinded them of the truth that the righteousness that God seeks after men is the righteousness of faith.

If we're not careful we can make a huge mistake here, and many do. We should not argue that God gave the Law to Israel without wanting them to obey, without expecting that they could be blessed by their obedience. Obviously, God wanted them to enter into the Promised Land, and they did. God wanted them to prepare for the coming of Messiah, and they did.

The description of their many failures is obviously, therefore, a generalization, and not an outright claim that they always failed and never succeeded. The only thing they always failed at was in obtaining eternal life--something God kept them from having until Christ came to do his work of redemption.

By the time of Christ and Paul, Israel had once again arrived at a place of national apostasy. Thus, they had exchanged their worship of God for something idolatrous.

Saying this did not mean they had always failed, or that the Law could never ever bless them. That would be false. The Law and its obedience was meant to lead to Christ, where their temporary blessings could become eternal blessings.

You are right, we should not argue that God gave the Law to Israel without wanting them to obey, without expecting that they could be blessed by their obedience. We should not argue that the law was given by God to put an obstacle to their salvation.

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

Tong
R1793

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
And may I ask, do you take Sin Nature as sin, something to be forgiven as well and covered? Because it seems to me that you take it as sin.

The Sin Nature I take as a proneness to sin, and as a disease, disqualifying us from eternal life until we accept Christ as the legal basis for our Salvation. The Sin Nature is the condition we were given upon Man choosing to live a life independent of God.

This in effect created in us a new nature, disfigured and prone to doing things apart from God, and getting addicted to doing things not of God but for ourselves. Living a life independent of God's Spirit is a hybrid, double-minded life, which can only be undone by choosing to live in partnership with God today. It can't be perfect yet, but it is indeed a start.

Do you take Sin Nature as sin, something to be forgiven as well and covered?

I think in all of that your answer is no?

Tong
R1794

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
That is righteousness of faith we have there in Hebrews 11:8. It’s not another righteousness. In fact, before God appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said to him, ‘Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you, Abraham was said to belong to a family of idol worshippers. Do you think, Abraham was viewed by God as righteous then? I don’t think so. For how can one who worships idols be righteous in the sight of God?

You make no argument at all.

Of course, that is inarguable.

Tong2020 said: ↑
I am sorry but I do not find those scriptures as saying nor implying that Israel as a nation was viewed as righteous by God. Please give the best scriptures out of the many you say, that tells is that concerning Israel as a nation.

Many, many Scriptures inform Israel that in keeping the Law they will be viewed as "righteous." Way too obvious. If you can't accept that, you won't accept anything. I gave you Scriptures, and you don't accept them. Your problem--not mine.

If they observe and keep the law, and that, perfectly.

Yes you gave scriptures. Thank you. I just don’t find them saying that Israel was found righteous.

Tong2020 said: ↑
That only shows that Israel was not righteous as per requirement of the law. If at all they could be said to have a righteousness for a time, it means they have, as a nation, perfectly observed and kept the law. Was there? I have not read any of that in scriptures.

That's a pathetic argument! Israel was righteous when they kept the Law. Period.

What do you mean “kept the law”?

They did not transgress any of the commandments of the law?

Tong2020 said: ↑
I am sorry but I don’t subscribe to the idea pf assuming that Adam and Eve righteous and innocent before the fall. For being righteous necessitates having knowledge of good and evil and choosing to do what they know is righteous. Which I understand Adam and Eve doesn’t have until they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

What was said is that they did not have the knowledge of good and evil. It doesn't say they had no knowledge of good. God said "it was very good" when He made them. Surely they knew that from the start?

Then we have a different reading of what it means to have no knowledge of good and evil. That’s innocence not righteousness. A babe has no knowledge of good and evil. He/she is innocent, neither righteous nor unrighteous.

Tong2020 said: ↑
The fact that they were prevented means if they were not, and they ate of the tree of life, they will live forever. That is clearly implied in Gen.3:22.

Non-argument.

Inarguable, yes.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Not arguing over words. I am trying to show you what is clearly implied in the passage pertaining to Adam and Eve’s capacity to eat of the tree of life and live forever. If they didn’t have such capacity, there was really no need for God to take them out of Eden so they won’t have access to the tree and eat of it.

Non-argument. I think we're nearing the end of this discussion. If you just want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, I'm not interested. I'm making real arguments, and you seem to just be rejecting them because you can.

Yes, inarguable.

If that’s how you look at it, I am sad with that. But, if you think you are making are making real arguments and I am not, then I don’t want your time wasted on me. If you feel I am being dishonest in this discussion, by all means don’t waste your time on me.

Tong
R1795

 

[BarneyFife]

How many times must I explain this to you?

Let me assure you: YOU WILL NEVER GET ANYWHERE WITH HIM. I think he would really rather die than be part of a profitable discussion. I flipped the -ignore- switch off for him temporarily, because it looked like you were arguing with no one but, yeah, he will drive you stark raving mad if you let him. Don't let his politeness fool you. Whether he's completely aware of it I can't quite tell. But, make no mistake about it, he is here to make people pull their own hair out.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Of course, that is inarguable.

What is inarguable? You made no argument.

If they observe and keep the law, and that, perfectly.

Yes you gave scriptures. Thank you. I just don’t find them saying that Israel was found righteous.

Everybody knows Israel didn't keep the Law "perfectly." That is a non-argument. Neither the system of Law nor the system of Grace argues for the perfection of the observants. But that Israel was righteous by keeping the Law is such an understood concept that I wonder why you would ask for proof, and then claim it isn't there?

What do you mean “kept the law”?

You know what that means. You're resorting to an old insensible argument, that is predicated on the idea that "keeping the Law" means keeping the Law "perfectly." That has never been a part of observing the Law, since sacrifices for sin were always part of keeping the Law. Full observance was intended to include offering sacrifices. Doing this was therefore not a matter of "perfection," but rather of full compliance.

For example, I could enter into a contract with you, in which case you pay so much money, and I deliver you a stated product. If we do both, we've fully met the conditions of the contract--it does not require sinless perfection for us to do that. It is simply operating in good faith--not a matter of being perfect.

They did not transgress any of the commandments of the law?
Then we have a different reading of what it means to have no knowledge of good and evil. That’s innocence not righteousness. A babe has no knowledge of good and evil. He/she is innocent, neither righteous nor unrighteous.

I don't believe Adam was created a "babe." He was given a wife before the Fall. Righteousness was "walking with God in the garden," as Adam regularly did. That is not just "innocence." Jesus called walking in the image of God "very good." Adam had to know it was good to walk with God, and to obey His command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

If that’s how you look at it, I am sad with that. But, if you think you are making are making real arguments and I am not, then I don’t want your time wasted on me. If you feel I am being dishonest in this discussion, by all means don’t waste your time on me.

Tong
R1795

I thought you asked some reasonable questions. But when I gave you some pretty clear answers, it seemed that you were bent not on considering the points any longer, but rather, just finding reasons to object. So no, we're probably at the end of this. Thanks for the discussion. Even if you aren't interested in considering my points in a serious way, others may have been interested or may be interested in the future.

Again, I'm not demanding you agree with me. I was just asking for an honest discussion. If you are unable to recognize what my arguments were, that's one thing. But if you just reject them for whatever reason, then you're not serious.

You've shown, in the course of this discussion, a great ability to understand my arguments, in great detail. And so, you've simply begun to ignore them, finding reasons to disagree just because you can. If you wish to resume, you'll have to respond to arguments I've already made, and not just "disagree."

Right or wrong, I've given you real arguments. They just tend to challenge some conventional thinking, and use my own language to explain it. If the only thing you will hear is the language of your own personal orthodoxy, you'll never be able to argue this with me. You're just arguing "doctrine," right or wrong.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Let me assure you: YOU WILL NEVER GET ANYWHERE WITH HIM. I think he would really rather die than be part of a profitable discussion. I flipped the -ignore- switch off for him temporarily, because it looked like you were arguing with no one but, yeah, he will drive you stark raving mad if you let him. Don't let his politeness fool you. Whether he's completely aware of it I can't quite tell. But, make no mistake about it, he is here to make people pull their own hair out.

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

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

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

 

[Randy Kluth]

Do you take Sin Nature as sin, something to be forgiven as well and covered?

I think in all of that your answer is no?

Tong
R1794

A "sin" is what we do. A "Sin Nature" is a condition we are in.

Our hearts, or our spirits, have been contaminated with rebellion against God's word. When we are in this condition, and we are, we sin. It is the sin of acting apart from God's word that put us in this condition, and we remain there until God delivers us from it.

In the mean time, we can minimize the sins that come out of this condition by preferring the righteousness that continues to come to us through the word of God. It produces a New Nature when we both prefer this righteousness and embrace Christ's atonement for our sins.

It has always been available, simply by responding to God's word, but our New Nature was never seen as distinct from our old nature until Christ provided his atonement for our sin.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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

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

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

We agree on this.

Even before the giving of the law, faith is through which God saves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are right, we should not argue that God gave the Law to Israel without wanting them to obey, without expecting that they could be blessed by their obedience. We should not argue that the law was given by God to put an obstacle to their salvation.

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

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

Tong
R1793

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

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

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

 

[BloodBought 1953]

Amen!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!........Amen!

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<Obviously, the difference is that Christ rose from the dead for NT saints, but not for OT saints.>>>

What are you really trying to say by that? Please expound.

How many times must I explain this to you? I'm not saying the OT saints cannot benefit from Christ's death! I'm saying that until Christ actually died, they couldn't benefit from it.

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

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

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

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<Death is evidence in both testaments that we've been cursed due to our sins.>>>

But are you not saying that when Christ had done his work on the cross, that the curse had been taken cared of? Then why do men still die, even the christians?

I've already explained all this in detail. I never said that Christ's atoning death immediately removes death or the Sin Nature. I said the legal work was done, resulting in the gift of the Spirit as an eternal gift. Eventually, death and the Sin Nature will go away for the Christian, but not immediately.

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

Tong2020 said: ↑
So, your view is that Christians have eternal life now, but they still die. On the other hand you have Abraham and OT saints as not having eternal life, because they died. And perhaps your view is that, eternal life is suspended for Christians until they are resurrected and Abraham and the OT saints will have eternal only at the resurrection. Is that what is your view of eternal life?

I've already explained this. Until Christ died his atoning death, the Sin Nature was a constant reminder that Man was ineligible for eternal life. After Christ's legal work on the cross, the Sin Nature, for the Christian, no longer stands as an indictment against Man, preventing him from having eternal life.

The whole difference is not the presence of a Sin Nature, but whether that Sin Nature has already seen Christ's redemptive work. Before Christ's death, the Sin Nature was damning. But after Christ's death, it became irrelevant unless one rejects Christ's atoning death for sin.

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

I am not arguing against your explanation concerning Christ’s work of having taken cared of the sin nature. For I agree with that.

Tong
R1804

 

[Tong2020]

What is inarguable? You made no argument.

Never mind. For I think, there is something not clear between us on this issue. Perhaps we can just go back on this sometime when it comes up again in our discussion. Meantime I’ll review our exchanges on this and try to find out where the misunderstanding is.

Tong2020 said: ↑
If they observe and keep the law, and that, perfectly.

Yes you gave scriptures. Thank you. I just don’t find them saying that Israel was found righteous.

Everybody knows Israel didn't keep the Law "perfectly." That is a non-argument. Neither the system of Law nor the system of Grace argues for the perfection of the observants. But that Israel was righteous by keeping the Law is such an understood concept that I wonder why you would ask for proof, and then claim it isn't there?

Forget it then. For It seems there is a misunderstanding on this particular issue. As I said above, we can go back to that some other time.

Tong2020 said: ↑
What do you mean “kept the law”?

You know what that means. You're resorting to an old insensible argument, that is predicated on the idea that "keeping the Law" means keeping the Law "perfectly." That has never been a part of observing the Law, since sacrifices for sin were always part of keeping the Law. Full observance was intended to include offering sacrifices. Doing this was therefore not a matter of "perfection," but rather of full compliance.

For example, I could enter into a contract with you, in which case you pay so much money, and I deliver you a stated product. If we do both, we've fully met the conditions of the contract--it does not require sinless perfection for us to do that. It is simply operating in good faith--not a matter of being perfect.

And this is yet part of the same issue above.

I am not resorting to any tactics Randy. We apparently are not talking about the same thing.

But thank you for the clarification on what you mean by “kept the law”.

Now it is clear that when you say that Israel was righteous in being compliant to the law. They are righteous in that sense, a righteousness of submitting to the law, not a righteousness of not transgressing the commandments of the law.

Tong2020 said: ↑
They did not transgress any of the commandments of the law?
Then we have a different reading of what it means to have no knowledge of good and evil. That’s innocence not righteousness. A babe has no knowledge of good and evil. He/she is innocent, neither righteous nor unrighteous.

I don't believe Adam was created a "babe." He was given a wife before the Fall. Righteousness was "walking with God in the garden," as Adam regularly did. That is not just "innocence." Jesus called walking in the image of God "very good." Adam had to know it was good to walk with God, and to obey His command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Of course I did not mean that. I was just giving you an analogy by which you could understand what I meant in having no knowledge of good and evil, that it is like that with a babe ~ innocent and neither righteous nor unrighteous.

Tong2020 said: ↑
If that’s how you look at it, I am sad with that. But, if you think you are making are making real arguments and I am not, then I don’t want your time wasted on me. If you feel I am being dishonest in this discussion, by all means don’t waste your time on me.

I thought you asked some reasonable questions. But when I gave you some pretty clear answers, it seemed that you were bent not on considering the points any longer, but rather, just finding reasons to object. So no, we're probably at the end of this. Thanks for the discussion. Even if you aren't interested in considering my points in a serious way, others may have been interested or may be interested in the future.

Again, I'm not demanding you agree with me. I was just asking for an honest discussion. If you are unable to recognize what my arguments were, that's one thing. But if you just reject them for whatever reason, then you're not serious.

You've shown, in the course of this discussion, a great ability to understand my arguments, in great detail. And so, you've simply begun to ignore them, finding reasons to disagree just because you can. If you wish to resume, you'll have to respond to arguments I've already made, and not just "disagree."

Right or wrong, I've given you real arguments. They just tend to challenge some conventional thinking, and use my own language to explain it. If the only thing you will hear is the language of your own personal orthodoxy, you'll never be able to argue this with me. You're just arguing "doctrine," right or wrong.

You need not ask for an honest discussion, for that is what I have been giving you. Never did I intend to be dishonest in this forum. Some may feel I am not. They have their reasons to give. But that does not mean I am dishonest.

<<<You've shown, in the course of this discussion, a great ability to understand my arguments, in great detail.>>>

And with that, it only shows then that when my responses seems to not be dealing with your arguments, then it’s not that I ignore them or just want to disagree with them. If you noticed, I always ask questions for clarifications. Because I begin to sense that perhaps we dis not understand each other. That indicates that I don’t always get what you mean to say. Perhaps you always do, bit I am not you. So, when my responses seems to not be dealing with your arguments, ot may be because I did not understand what it is you really are meaning to say bu tour statements.

I am not here to fool around and just go around making unreal arguments with you while you make the real ones.

Tong
R1805

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Do you take Sin Nature as sin, something to be forgiven as well and covered?

I think in all of that your answer is no?

A "sin" is what we do. A "Sin Nature" is a condition we are in.

Our hearts, or our spirits, have been contaminated with rebellion against God's word. When we are in this condition, and we are, we sin. It is the sin of acting apart from God's word that put us in this condition, and we remain there until God delivers us from it.

In the mean time, we can minimize the sins that come out of this condition by preferring the righteousness that continues to come to us through the word of God. It produces a New Nature when we both prefer this righteousness and embrace Christ's atonement for our sins.

It has always been available, simply by responding to God's word, but our New Nature was never seen as distinct from our old nature until Christ provided his atonement for our sin.

<<<A "sin" is what we do. A "Sin Nature" is a condition we are in.>>>

Clear.

You haven’t mentioned the body, the flesh here. But in your past posts, you take sin nature as that very much have to do with the flesh. In contrast, you speak of sin nature here as having to do with the spirit and there as having to do with the body. So, I need to be clarified on that, so I could understand you better.

For now, what is clear is that sin nature is not sin. Therefore it is not something that one could be forgiven of nor atoned for. This means that the law could not do anything about it, and the blood of Christ has nothing to do with it either. There is another work of God that took care of that.

Tong
R1806

 

[Randy Kluth]

Never mind. For I think, there is something not clear between us on this issue. Perhaps we can just go back on this sometime when it comes up again in our discussion. Meantime I’ll review our exchanges on this and try to find out where the misunderstanding is.


Forget it then. For It seems there is a misunderstanding on this particular issue. As I said above, we can go back to that some other time.


And this is yet part of the same issue above.

I am not resorting to any tactics Randy. We apparently are not talking about the same thing.

But thank you for the clarification on what you mean by “kept the law”.

Now it is clear that when you say that Israel was righteous in being compliant to the law. They are righteous in that sense, a righteousness of submitting to the law, not a righteousness of not transgressing the commandments of the law.


Of course I did not mean that. I was just giving you an analogy by which you could understand what I meant in having no knowledge of good and evil, that it is like that with a babe ~ innocent and neither righteous nor unrighteous.


You need not ask for an honest discussion, for that is what I have been giving you. Never did I intend to be dishonest in this forum. Some may feel I am not. They have their reasons to give. But that does not mean I am dishonest.

<<<You've shown, in the course of this discussion, a great ability to understand my arguments, in great detail.>>>

And with that, it only shows then that when my responses seems to not be dealing with your arguments, then it’s not that I ignore them or just want to disagree with them. If you noticed, I always ask questions for clarifications. Because I begin to sense that perhaps we dis not understand each other. That indicates that I don’t always get what you mean to say. Perhaps you always do, bit I am not you. So, when my responses seems to not be dealing with your arguments, ot may be because I did not understand what it is you really are meaning to say bu tour statements.

I am not here to fool around and just go around making unreal arguments with you while you make the real ones.

Tong
R1805

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

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

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

 

[Randy Kluth]

<<<A "sin" is what we do. A "Sin Nature" is a condition we are in.>>>

Clear.

You haven’t mentioned the body, the flesh here. But in your past posts, you take sin nature as that very much have to do with the flesh. In contrast, you speak of sin nature here as having to do with the spirit and there as having to do with the body. So, I need to be clarified on that, so I could understand you better.

For now, what is clear is that sin nature is not sin. Therefore it is not something that one could be forgiven of nor atoned for. This means that the law could not do anything about it, and the blood of Christ has nothing to do with it either. There is another work of God that took care of that.

Tong
R1806

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

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

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

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

 

[Randy Kluth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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