How good is a fragment of the Law? Do we justify ourselves more? (true?)

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I just want to introduce a concept, that relates to the Law. The concept is this: if we cannot be condemned without the Law, because we are ignorant of its direction, can we be condemned on the basis of a fragment of that law? The answer is "only by a fragment". Now this is interesting, because there is a tremendous difference between being condemned for the whole of the law, and only a fragment of it. We cannot hope to redeem ourselves, in our own strength, from the whole of the Law, it is too overwhelming. But a fragment of the Law, at least for a time, is something we can hold back. Do we want to hold it back? Perhaps more enthusiastically than for the whole of the Law! (For who indeed gets enthusiastic about the whole of the Law?)

The reason there is optimism, is in part because a fragment of the Law gives hope that we can be moral in the law. To be partially right, most of the time, is moral - therefore to be partially strong in the Law, for the sake of greater conviction, is greatly moral. This is what it is to take up the cause of the Law, for the sake of justifying ourselves more consistently. If we fail in the whole of the Law, that is no indication we will fail in a fragment of it, because the context for both is radically different in the Law. So then, if we have the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit gives us a fragment of the Law, we know that for a time we will be able to sustain it. And he who sustains the law, grows in spirit - indeed we grow to be like the Holy Spirit!

The encouragment of this, is that it is up to us, what fragment of the Law we keep. If we desire to be greatly justified, the more the fragment we need - more of the fragment, being less of the whole of the law. This then, begins to strengthen us between one law and another. We gain experience of the fulfilment of the law, and by extension of that, the whole of the Law. Not in complete justification, but in principle. In other words we find our way back to the Law, by attempting to be greatly moral about part of it. This accords with the words of the Lord "he who is faithful in the least, is faithful also in much". Indeed we are behoven to live by faith, no matter how small the fragment of the Law. But who fragmented the Law, that we might entertain a fragment of it?

The question of who fragmented the law, is like the question of "who made the crystal sea, in Revelation?", it is a state of destruction that the raw power of Jesus on the Cross has brought about in the spiritual realm. The reflection of Christ's Heavenliness in Heaven, was shattered by the intensity of His Purity; the ground of the Law on Earth shattered the Law with a great Earthquake at the Cross. Now the Law is only in fragments, as fools we try to gather it all up - until we gain the experience of fulfilling the law (a fragment of it) that puts distance between the need to fulfil something of the Law and foolishly trying to fulfil all of it. This experience can in turn become powerful. That is, as Christ was able, to see that false prophets will come, in the veil of that power - until such time as all men, at some level, justify morality. That is a good thing to hope in!

The power of this, at its utmost, is that all men justifying morality and having a fragment of the Law, will be able to cleanse themselves, of their wrongdoing, in their own time. As the Bible says "The time is coming when no one will say 'know the Lord', for everyone will know Him and will learn from Him of their own accord" (Old Testament, from memory). This fundamental conviction, requires that the provocation of the Spirit be laid down, and the beacon of the way to the light be upheld the more brightly. I think this is in our future! It makes sense to pray to the Lord, to make us clean, for the joy of the Spirit that is to come. Certainly that is a fragment of the Law, that you can obey!

I hope this has been of some encouragement to you.

God bless.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hi there,

So I just want to introduce a concept, that relates to the Law. The concept is this: if we cannot be condemned without the Law, because we are ignorant of its direction, can we be condemned on the basis of a fragment of that law? The answer is "only by a fragment". Now this is interesting, because there is a tremendous difference between being condemned for the whole of the law, and only a fragment of it. We cannot hope to redeem ourselves, in our own strength, from the whole of the Law, it is too overwhelming. But a fragment of the Law, at least for a time, is something we can hold back. Do we want to hold it back? Perhaps more enthusiastically than for the whole of the Law! (For who indeed gets enthusiastic about the whole of the Law?)

The reason there is optimism, is in part because a fragment of the Law gives hope that we can be moral in the law. To be partially right, most of the time, is moral - therefore to be partially strong in the Law, for the sake of greater conviction, is greatly moral. This is what it is to take up the cause of the Law, for the sake of justifying ourselves more consistently. If we fail in the whole of the Law, that is no indication we will fail in a fragment of it, because the context for both is radically different in the Law. So then, if we have the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit gives us a fragment of the Law, we know that for a time we will be able to sustain it. And he who sustains the law, grows in spirit - indeed we grow to be like the Holy Spirit!

The encouragment of this, is that it is up to us, what fragment of the Law we keep. If we desire to be greatly justified, the more the fragment we need - more of the fragment, being less of the whole of the law. This then, begins to strengthen us between one law and another. We gain experience of the fulfilment of the law, and by extension of that, the whole of the Law. Not in complete justification, but in principle. In other words we find our way back to the Law, by attempting to be greatly moral about part of it. This accords with the words of the Lord "he who is faithful in the least, is faithful also in much". Indeed we are behoven to live by faith, no matter how small the fragment of the Law. But who fragmented the Law, that we might entertain a fragment of it?

The question of who fragmented the law, is like the question of "who made the crystal sea, in Revelation?", it is a state of destruction that the raw power of Jesus on the Cross has brought about in the spiritual realm. The reflection of Christ's Heavenliness in Heaven, was shattered by the intensity of His Purity; the ground of the Law on Earth shattered the Law with a great Earthquake at the Cross. Now the Law is only in fragments, as fools we try to gather it all up - until we gain the experience of fulfilling the law (a fragment of it) that puts distance between the need to fulfil something of the Law and foolishly trying to fulfil all of it. This experience can in turn become powerful. That is, as Christ was able, to see that false prophets will come, in the veil of that power - until such time as all men, at some level, justify morality. That is a good thing to hope in!

The power of this, at its utmost, is that all men justifying morality and having a fragment of the Law, will be able to cleanse themselves, of their wrongdoing, in their own time. As the Bible says "The time is coming when no one will say 'know the Lord', for everyone will know Him and will learn from Him of their own accord" (Old Testament, from memory). This fundamental conviction, requires that the provocation of the Spirit be laid down, and the beacon of the way to the light be upheld the more brightly. I think this is in our future! It makes sense to pray to the Lord, to make us clean, for the joy of the Spirit that is to come. Certainly that is a fragment of the Law, that you can obey!

I hope this has been of some encouragement to you.

God bless.

Well, not really. It kind of leaves me confused, although I find your logic somewhat interesting. As I would normally see it, one who is not justified by the whole of the Law would hardly be different from one not justified by a fragment of the Law.

In other words, Justification by the Law has been delegitimized, not just at the Cross but at the Tree of Knowledge. Once Man stepped outside of dependence upon God all efforts at the Law became untenable with respect to partaking of the Tree of Life.

So the assumption you seem to be making is that trying to obey some of the Law is better than failure under the totality of the Law? That may sound somewhat true because in our failure to achieve Salvation it seems right that we should at least try to do some good?

And if so, I would concur--we should try to do some good. But regardless, Justification is not possible without throwing our lot in with Christ, who is *all good* and certainly not a *fragment of the good.* Choosing him gets the monkey off our back so that we don't need Justificaiton at all.

 

[Gottservant]

[...]

And if so, I would concur--we should try to do some good. But regardless, Justification is not possible without throwing our lot in with Christ, who is *all good* and certainly not a *fragment of the good.* Choosing him gets the monkey off our back so that we don't need Justificaiton at all.

The difference is that justified in the whole of the law, is a boast that can't justify the Law; whereas understanding justice in a fragment of the Law, is also faith that less of the Law will need to be justified (in order for something to be justified, as we understand by Grace).

Christ never boasts of how many He has saved, before Time, but in a fragment of time, He will appear that more be saved.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The difference is that justified in the whole of the law, is a boast that can't justify the Law...

Who said the Law had to be justified? This sounds a bit off to me.

; whereas understanding justice in a fragment of the Law, is also faith that less of the Law will need to be justified (in order for something to be justified, as we understand by Grace).

But that isn't Faith for Salvation, but faith in something else. And faith in Justification by a fragment of the Law gets no farther towards Salvation than faith in Justification by the whole of the Law.

Christ never boasts of how many He has saved, before Time, but in a fragment of time, He will appear that more be saved.

I don't know that Christ boasts at all about Saving people?

 

[Davy]

Arguments regarding condemnation by the law was settled by Jesus of Nazareth, Immanuel God with us, upon His cross. There is NO salvation through works of the law, only FAITH on Jesus Christ's Blood shed upon His cross can save us, period.

That does not mean all of God's law is now dead for Christian society though. Like Apostle Paul taught in 1 Timothy 1, the law was not made for the righteous, but for the sinner, the lawless and ungodly. Paul did not preach salvation by the law by that, but only that the law is good if used justly.

1 Tim 1:8-11
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
KJV

 

[Gottservant]

The Law can't ultimately save us, but shouldn't we be doing good in the meantime?

Shouldn't we committing all the more, to the Law of the Spirit?

This is what Paul talks about, in the warring of his members - he is tempted to try and live according to the whole of the Law, when for piety's sake less will do.

 

[Soyeong]

Hi there,

So I just want to introduce a concept, that relates to the Law. The concept is this: if we cannot be condemned without the Law, because we are ignorant of its direction, can we be condemned on the basis of a fragment of that law? The answer is "only by a fragment". Now this is interesting, because there is a tremendous difference between being condemned for the whole of the law, and only a fragment of it. We cannot hope to redeem ourselves, in our own strength, from the whole of the Law, it is too overwhelming. But a fragment of the Law, at least for a time, is something we can hold back. Do we want to hold it back?

Hello,

God's was given for our own good in order to teach us how to know Him, so we have no need to redeemed from the law, then but rather we had the need to be redeemed from our lawlessness. In Titus 2:14, it doesn't say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from God's law, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20).

Perhaps more enthusiastically than for the whole of the Law! (For who indeed gets enthusiastic about the whole of the Law?)

The Psalms express an extremely positive view of obeying God's law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of obeying it, then we will also delight in obeying it as Paul did (Roman 7:22), while having anything less than the view that we ought to delight in obeying it is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so we can't believe in the truth of these words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape our view of getting to obey God's law.

The reason there is optimism, is in part because a fragment of the Law gives hope that we can be moral in the law. To be partially right, most of the time, is moral - therefore to be partially strong in the Law, for the sake of greater conviction, is greatly moral. This is what it is to take up the cause of the Law, for the sake of justifying ourselves more consistently. If we fail in the whole of the Law, that is no indication we will fail in a fragment of it, because the context for both is radically different in the Law. So then, if we have the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit gives us a fragment of the Law, we know that for a time we will be able to sustain it. And he who sustains the law, grows in spirit - indeed we grow to be like the Holy Spirit!

Obedience to God's law has nothing to do with trying to justify ourselves. Even if someone managed to live in perfect obedience to the whole of God's law, then they still wouldn't earn their justification as a wage (Romans 4:1-5), so that was never the goal of why we should obey it. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law.

The encouragment of this, is that it is up to us, what fragment of the Law we keep. If we desire to be greatly justified, the more the fragment we need - more of the fragment, being less of the whole of the law. This then, begins to strengthen us between one law and another. We gain experience of the fulfilment of the law, and by extension of that, the whole of the Law. Not in complete justification, but in principle. In other words we find our way back to the Law, by attempting to be greatly moral about part of it. This accords with the words of the Lord "he who is faithful in the least, is faithful also in much". Indeed we are behoven to live by faith, no matter how small the fragment of the Law. But who fragmented the Law, that we might entertain a fragment of it?

The question of who fragmented the law, is like the question of "who made the crystal sea, in Revelation?", it is a state of destruction that the raw power of Jesus on the Cross has brought about in the spiritual realm. The reflection of Christ's Heavenliness in Heaven, was shattered by the intensity of His Purity; the ground of the Law on Earth shattered the Law with a great Earthquake at the Cross. Now the Law is only in fragments, as fools we try to gather it all up - until we gain the experience of fulfilling the law (a fragment of it) that puts distance between the need to fulfil something of the Law and foolishly trying to fulfil all of it. This experience can in turn become powerful. That is, as Christ was able, to see that false prophets will come, in the veil of that power - until such time as all men, at some level, justify morality. That is a good thing to hope in!

The power of this, at its utmost, is that all men justifying morality and having a fragment of the Law, will be able to cleanse themselves, of their wrongdoing, in their own time. As the Bible says "The time is coming when no one will say 'know the Lord', for everyone will know Him and will learn from Him of their own accord" (Old Testament, from memory). This fundamental conviction, requires that the provocation of the Spirit be laid down, and the beacon of the way to the light be upheld the more brightly. I think this is in our future! It makes sense to pray to the Lord, to make us clean, for the joy of the Spirit that is to come. Certainly that is a fragment of the Law, that you can obey!

I hope this has been of some encouragement to you.

God bless.

The cross had nothing to do with fragmenting God's law.

 

[Soyeong]

Arguments regarding condemnation by the law was settled by Jesus of Nazareth, Immanuel God with us, upon His cross. There is NO salvation through works of the law, only FAITH on Jesus Christ's Blood shed upon His cross can save us, period.

That does not mean all of God's law is now dead for Christian society though. Like Apostle Paul taught in 1 Timothy 1, the law was not made for the righteous, but for the sinner, the lawless and ungodly. Paul did not preach salvation by the law by that, but only that the law is good if used justly.

1 Tim 1:8-11
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
KJV

Every example of faith listed in Hebrews 11 is an example of works, so the significance of doing good works is not that they are part of something that they are required to have done first in order to earn their salvation as the result, but rather the significance is that that is is expressing their faith and it is by that faith that they are justified. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so living in obedience to God's law is intrinsically part of what the gift of salvation is. In Titus 2:11-13, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so it is not the case that we are required to have first done those works in order to result in our salvation or that we are required to do those works as the result of having first been saved, but rather God graciously teaching us to do those works is intrinsically the content of His gift of saving us from not doing those works. Furthermore, in Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20).

 

[Davy]

The Law can't ultimately save us, but shouldn't we be doing good in the meantime?

Shouldn't we committing all the more, to the Law of the Spirit?

This is what Paul talks about, in the warring of his members - he is tempted to try and live according to the whole of the Law, when for piety's sake less will do.

No "ultimately" adverbs should be added to how... we are saved. God's Word is very plain that we are saved ONLY by Faith on The Father and His Son Jesus Christ's death and resurrection.

I suggest you study what Paul taught in Romans 7 again, but using the KJV next time.

In Romans 7 Paul revealed there is a "law of sin" that exists in our fleshy members, and that he often found himself doing that which he did not want to do, i.e., sin in his flesh. Now I'm not making excuse for sin, only that during this present world those born in the flesh have been assigned to that 'law of sin' that dwells in our fleshy members, and it is the main reason WHY we need The Savior Jesus Christ, Who had no sin while in the flesh.

So if we could ever dwell in this flesh, and be completely without sin, like Lord Jesus, we would not need what He did for us on His cross. This is why it is impossible to believe anyone who tries to claim that they are sinless. The Scriptures declare that all... have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God. If that were not true then we wouldn't need saving.

And this also is why Apostle John said what he did in 1 John 1 to the believer on Jesus Christ. It was to show us that when we do mess up at times and do future sin, that we need to repent to Jesus about it and ask His forgiveness, and John then says Jesus is Just to forgive us. That is showing that we still need to have a WALK with Lord Jesus in our daily lives, and not think we have no more need for repentance after our first belief and baptism.

As for the portions of God's laws which still exist among Christian society, that is so we might live in peace with each other, and have joy, for the law is for control of the sinners and the godless, not for the righteous, like Apostle Paul said.