If the law was abolished at the cross...

[brrrilliantsteve]

Stan reply

Did you read my post? I did justify it.
Let's just be clear that we're talking about written law not law in general. God has had law since he first told Adam to not eat from the tree at the center of the garden...

The law requires nothing more than what Jesus did so in that vein all is accomplished under the law..

Actually if you were to use your rationale in this regard then when Jesus returns would be when all is accomplished, but as I've just shown you above, that is not the case...

As far as your facetious comments are concerned, I suggest you stop while you're head. You'll find I don't suffer people like you quietly or kindly.

Your right Stan, we should back up a little and make it clear what we both are talking about.
In regards to the law you said it is only the written law that was abolished. (But not the law written on our hearts of course). I do agree with you there has always been law and that his law is now written on our hearts. Where we seem to be at odds is what happened to the "written law" at the cross. Let's talk about Colossians.

Col 2:10-22
10. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ
12. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14. Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15. And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17. Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ
18. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19. And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?

In this passage v14 is the root of our disagreement. What is "nailed to his cross "here is not all written laws but the "handwriting of ordinances which was against us". Yes all laws are against us because they act as a mirror showing us our shortcomings, but here there is a tighter focus than "all written laws" as you put it. This passage is focusing on the "handwritten ordinances "characterized by circumcision. They come into sharper focus when you read v17 which describes them as "shadows of things to come" and even more so in v22 which states plainly these are "commandments and doctrines of Men".

I put it to you that since "the LORD said unto Moses... I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them", that these same commandment are distinct and Holy, set apart from other "commandments and doctrines of men" because they were written by God. Also that they were Not shadows of things to come but a reflection of Gods character which we as Christians strive for, but not as a means of redemption.


When you say "The law requires nothing more than what Jesus did so in that vein all is accomplished under the law.." I think your taking it (the requirements of the law) a step too far. What the law requires of a sinner is death. If that is all Jesus did then he would not have risen, he would not have returned to his fathers side etc, and if dying is all Jesus did then he didn't need to die because each and every one of us can do that. Jesus did far more than just accomplish the law for us, that is what the good news is.


Now as far as you interpreting my comments a facetious, I assure you I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt... But I can see from your further comment below there Is reason for my doubt after all.

not much different than when Peter says God is not willing that any should perish but that all should have eternal life. Both don't actually express a reality that will happen, they express the condition of God's heart if you will.

Now you are saying that eternal life is not a reality!
Combine this with your belief that Jesus only had to die to fulfill the law and it is clear what doctrines have beguiled you.

 

[FHII]

I put it to you that since "the LORD said unto Moses... I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them", that these same commandment are distinct and Holy, set apart from other "commandments and doctrines of men" because they were written by God. Also that they were Not shadows of things to come but a reflection of Gods character which we as Christians strive for, but not as a means of redemption.

Thia reminds me of a former converation i had with someone who believes that the law of Moses is different from the law of God and that the 10 commandants (what this person believes to be the law of God and not Moses) is still in effect.

Is that what yoy are saying?

 

[StanJ]

Your right Stan, we should back up a little and make it clear what we both are talking about.
In regards to the law you said it is only the written law that was abolished. (But not the law written on our hearts of course). I do agree with you there has always been law and that his law is now written on our hearts. Where we seem to be at odds is what happened to the "written law" at the cross. Let's talk about Colossians.
Col 2:10-22
In this passage v14 is the root of our disagreement. What is "nailed to his cross "here is not all written laws but the "handwriting of ordinances which was against us". Yes all laws are against us because they act as a mirror showing us our shortcomings, but here there is a tighter focus than "all written laws" as you put it. This passage is focusing on the "handwritten ordinances "characterized by circumcision. They come into sharper focus when you read v17 which describes them as "shadows of things to come" and even more so in v22 which states plainly these are "commandments and doctrines of Men".
I put it to you that since "the LORD said unto Moses... I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them", that these same commandment are distinct and Holy, set apart from other "commandments and doctrines of men" because they were written by God. Also that they were Not shadows of things to come but a reflection of Gods character which we as Christians strive for, but not as a means of redemption.

Whenever 'the law' is used in the New Testament it refers to the Mosaic / Levitical laws. Basically what was given to Moses as a foundation for the nation of Israel. That law was the basis of the old Covenant and what was used afterwards by Moses and subsequent judges of Israel. Hebrews 8 teaches us that 'the law' and the 'old Covenant' are obsolete and outdated. I'm sure you know what obsolete means. So simply put if they are obsolete and outdated, then they're NOT in effect in any way, shape, or form. This chapter ends with they will soon disappear and they did when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, along with the Levitical priesthood. We are now under the New Covenant that has a New High Priest in a New Order. The New Covenant does not mean a resurrected old Covenant law.
What Paul is dealing with in Colossians 2 has nothing to do with the law. What he was dealing with was the Judaic influence that was being peddled on the Colossians by Jews who were determined to turn Christianity into just another religion. These people that Paul refers to in vs 18-19 are apostate, which is why their rules and regulations are not to be heeded. This has nothing at all to do with the Mosaic/Levitical law. Maybe you're just not understanding the Elizabethan English that's used in the KJV?

When you say "The law requires nothing more than what Jesus did so in that vein all is accomplished under the law.." I think your taking it (the requirements of the law) a step too far. What the law requires of a sinner is death. If that is all Jesus did then he would not have risen, he would not have returned to his fathers side etc, and if dying is all Jesus did then he didn't need to die because each and every one of us can do that. Jesus did far more than just accomplish the law for us, that is what the good news is.

I think you need to read or re-read Romans 8:3-4 and rethink your response here. Clearly what you state above is not what Paul teaches.

Now you are saying that eternal life is not a reality!
Combine this with your belief that Jesus only had to die to fulfill the law and it is clear what doctrines have beguiled you.

As my vernacular is very straight-forward, I can only assume that you're purposefully trying to misrepresent what I said or in fact wrote.
If you want clarification ask for it but my post was pretty clear. If you think you actually have eternal life then why are you going to die as Hebrew 9:27 states?

 

[brrrilliantsteve]

Hey what do you know Stan, it seems we have come close to finding common ground, being of one accord if you will.
When taking your definition of "the law" as the Mosaic/ Levitical laws I completely agree with what you have been saying. I do slightly disagree with you though on Col 2 only in that I believe the Judaic influence being peddled was aspects of the mosaic / Levitical laws, but that is nothing to get stuck on for me.

I did re-read Rom 8:3-4 and I don't think what I said contradicts that verse.

Now...

not much different than when Peter says God is not willing that any should perish but that all should have eternal life. Both don't actually express a reality that will happen, they express the condition of God's heart if you will.

... Will you please explain your comment "don't actually express a reality that will happen" when referencing a statement saying that God wants us all to have eternal life?

 

[StanJ]

When taking your definition of "the law" as the Mosaic/ Levitical laws I completely agree with what you have been saying. I do slightly disagree with you though on Col 2 only in that I believe the Judaic influence being peddled was aspects of the mosaic / Levitical laws, but that is nothing to get stuck on for me.
I did re-read Rom 8:3-4 and I don't think what I said contradicts that verse.

I said Paul contradicts what you said not vice versa so you need to look at what you said there and compare it to wharf Paul says and see if it matches up. It did not as far as I am concerned.

Now...Will you please explain your comment "don't actually express a reality that will happen" when referencing a statement saying that God wants us all to have eternal life?

This was not the issue. I said that God giving us eternal life doesn't mean we actually have it, it means if we endure we're guaranteed of receiving it. Your wording is that God wants us all to have eternal life, which is not what the Bible says. God also did not want any to perish but the fact of the matter is people do perish without Jesus. The point I was making was that God's desires are not always fulfilled by men.

 

[brrrilliantsteve]

?..This was not the issue. I said that God giving us eternal life doesn't mean we actually have it, it means if we endure we're guaranteed of receiving it. Your wording is that God wants us all to have eternal life, which is not what the Bible says. God also did not want any to perish but the fact of the matter is people do perish without Jesus. The point I was making was that God's desires are not always fulfilled by men.

Here I think we believe the same thing yet are expressing it different ways. I also believe that Gods will is not always done on earth as it is in heaven. Your choice of words "if we endure" we recieve... I would be more inclined to say "if we chose against Him" we perish.

 

[StanJ]

Here I think we believe the same thing yet are expressing it different ways. I also believe that Gods will is not always done on earth as it is in heaven. Your choice of words "if we endure" we recieve... I would be more inclined to say "if we chose against Him" we perish.

2 Tim 2:12
if we endure,
we will also reign with him.
If we disown him,
he will also disown us.

 

[Barrd]

Mat 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Are we to obey these two great commandments? Or have they been "nailed to the cross"?

 

[StanJ]

Mat 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Are we to obey these two great commandments? Or have they been "nailed to the cross"?

Is the old Covenant obsolete or not?

 

[FHII]

Mat 22:35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Are we to obey these two great commandments? Or have they been "nailed to the cross"?

This is the foundation of the new covenant. Paul, James and John noted it. Peter probably did too but i can't remember when. I might be slipping!

 

[StanJ]

This is the foundation of the new covenant. Paul, James and John noted it. Peter probably did too but i can't remember when. I might be slipping!

It can't be if the old Foundation was abolished then became obsolete. Would help if you actually cited some scripture to support your POV.

 

[Barrd]

This is the foundation of the new covenant. Paul, James and John noted it. Peter probably did too but i can't remember when. I might be slipping!

Okay, then....let's look at those two great commandments, shall we?

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

In other words, obey the first several of the original Ten:

Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
...
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God,
...
Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
...
Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
:blink: (Yeah, I know. But there it is, right?)
...

Now, some folks think that the next commandment, which involves honoring our parents, ought to go with these first few, and some think they pertain for to how we are to treat our fellow man. In either case, here it is:

Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

(As a Mom and a Grandma, I heartily approve of that one ^_^)
Anyhow, that covers the first and great commandment, and gives us a running start on the second, which is like unto it, I think...

Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
...
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
...
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
...
Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
...
Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet...

Once again, the New Covenant was never promised to be a Lawless Covenant...

 

[Tropical Islander]

"Once again, the New Covenant was never promised to be a Lawless Covenant..." Lucifer likes the Lawless Covenant and wants us to look at the law in the flesh: Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. // As long as we remain in the carnal mind we object to be governed by the will of God. Once you give your rule to God the Holy Spirit will guide us, then we are able to love God and our neighbours, and of course we respect and love God's will/law. So simple.

 

[StanJ]

Once again, the New Covenant was never promised to be a Lawless Covenant...

That's right, it was based on God writing his laws on our hearts. Not the obsolete law of the obsolete old Covenant.

 

[mjrhealth]

Once again, the New Covenant was never promised to be a Lawless Covenant...

There is one thing tha tnever changed since the beginning of Time. "LOVE" God is love, Jesus came to show God, JHesus is love,. Jesus asked us to LOve, love is not lawless, only bad people need laws to keep them straight, do you think Jesus needs laws, or God, that is why it says.

1Ti_1:9 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,

I guess that is why so many need it, they have not put on the righteousnes of Christ so still walk after the flesh, and so condemned by there sin and the law, for that is all teh law could ever do,

Rom_7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

and why it says

Luk 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

Simply they have never tasted grace, new covenant so prefer the law, teh old.

 

[Barrd]

That's right, it was based on God writing his laws on our hearts. Not the obsolete law of the obsolete old Covenant.

Just once, I'd like someone to explain to me just how the Ten Commandments are "obsolete".
Seriously, take a long, hard look at that list and explain to me how Christianity could even exist without them.

Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Christians have other gods before our God? This is news to me!

Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God,

Idols, now? Nobody told me!

Exo 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Well, I guess I've heard enough Christians using the Name of God as a curse...

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
:blink: (Yeah, I know. But there it is, right?)

No more lazy Saturdays! Get to work!

Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Sorry, Moms and Dads. It was nice to think that Someone appreciated us...

Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

And Jesus nailed this one to the cross as well? Murder, she screamed!!

Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

So, "getting a little on the side" really isn't a sin, then? All marriages are now "open marriages"...and it is none of your d....n business where he/she was last night.

Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.

Wow....bad news for WalMart...

Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Hey...hey guys....did you know that psssst psst psst psssssst psst....Yes, he did, and she said....that's right! I heard it myself! Now, I'm not one to gossip...but did you hear about...

Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet...

But i really like my neighbor's new car...

And this is the new covenant? I don't think so....

 

[mjrhealth]

If you did not have the law would you steal,
if you did not have teh law would you murder
if you did not have the law would you not love God
if you did not have the law would you covet you neighbours ggods,
if you did not have the law would you lie
if you did not have the law would you commit adultry

if you need the law to not do these things than you are not walking in love, and if you are not walking in love than you are not doing as Christ said, to love

and so the law is for you for it is for sinners, and it will condmen you as it is all it can do.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

And that is why it is foolishness because it undoes all teh Good work that Jesus did.of course you might do a better job than Him so many do try tooo.

 

[FHII]

Some folks just seem to like to put new wine into old wineskins.

Appearently God didn't see man living up to the law. He sent his son as a sacrifice, and STILL some people aren't accepting God's will.

 

[mjrhealth]

Some folks just seem to like to put new wine into old wineskins.

Some wont ask God and so dont get the revelation

 

[Barrd]

If you did not have the law would you steal,
if you did not have teh law would you murder
if you did not have the law would you not love God
if you did not have the law would you covet you neighbours ggods,
if you did not have the law would you lie
if you did not have the law would you commit adultry

if you need the law to not do these things than you are not walking in love, and if you are not walking in love than you are not doing as Christ said, to love

Did men once need the law not to do these things, then?
Evidently, they did, or God would not have written these laws with His Own hand.

So, why do you think that we would not need these written laws any more?
What could be so different about us, then?
Could it be that we have these same laws written on our hearts?
And that is why, as you say, if you are walking in the love of Christ, you will keep these laws naturally...because they are part of you.

and so the law is for you for it is for sinners, and it will condmen you as it is all it can do.

So, are you not a sinner, as well?

1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

You have to watch Paul.
See, here he takes another little turn..

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

That would mean you, too...wouldn't it?

And that is why it is foolishness because it undoes all teh Good work that Jesus did.of course you might do a better job than Him so many do try tooo.

Jesus, you say?
The same Jesus Who told me:

Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

When did Jesus ever teach anyone not to keep the law?