Understanding the Law vs. Grace

[gadar]

Since ALL scripture must account for your doctrinal beliefs, you cite Rom 6:14 but neglect Titus 2:10-11 which states: For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age,....According to this verse, grace is given in order to enable the believer to live godly life, something that was impossible to do under the old covenant. No one could live a godly life under the old covenant as the animal sacrifices were only a temporary "covering" for sin as dictated by the law. There is no difference today. The Law defines what sin is per 1 Jn 3:4. Thus, grace enables the believer to obey the law, something that was previously impossible. God defines what sin is according to the Law. We don't get to define what sin is -- unless you consider yourself to be God.

 

[gadar]

You dont "receive God's righteousness by confessing sin".

You receive God's Righteousness when He gives it to you because you have "believed in Jesus"..

"FAITH" is counted as righteousness"..... "justification by Faith."

Of course belief is requisite, but then do you only think that belief is necessary without the need to be obedient and confess your sins as well? I suggest you read Heb 5:9.

 

[gadar]

Ok.

"the power of sin is the law"".

"Jesus came to redeem us from the CURSE of THE LAW".

Why is the law a curse regarding a person?
Because it requires righteousness from you, and you dont have any because "all have sinned".
So, the LAW defines you as a SINNER = "the curse of the Law".
And what is worse, is that "the power of sin is the law"" and that means that when you try to keep the law, the dominion of the law empowers your flesh to be strong and stronger, and that is why you can't stop "sinning and confessing".

See that 'curse"?

"Jesus came to redeems us from the CURSE of the Law".

How

"Jesus is the END OF THE LAW.....= for Righteousness", and the born again ... "are not under the Law, but under GRACE".

But grace enables you and I to obey the law, something that was formerly impossible to do under the old covenant. Grace now enables the believer in the new covenant to live a sanctified life. For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, Titus 2:11-12. By doing away with the law, you've thrown out the baby with the bath water.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Since ALL scripture must account for your doctrinal beliefs, you cite Rom 6:14 but neglect Titus 2:10-11 which states: For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age,....According to this verse, grace is given in order to enable the believer to live godly life, something that was impossible to do under the old covenant. No one could live a godly life under the old covenant as the animal sacrifices were only a temporary "covering" for sin as dictated by the law. There is no difference today. The Law defines what sin is per 1 Jn 3:4. Thus, grace enables the believer to obey the law, something that was previously impossible. God defines what sin is according to the Law. We don't get to define what sin is -- unless you consider yourself to be God.

One was clearly able to live a godly life under the Law. Otherwise, all OT saints would've been considered ungodly and foolish for obeying the Law. What we can say, however, is that it was *not enough* to be godly under the Law. Being godly did not get one Eternal Life. We must add to a godly life the need to *follow Jesus.* In doing so, our godliness is entrusted to Jesus, who rose from the dead and grants to his followers Eternal Life.

 

[gadar]

One was clearly able to live a godly life under the Law. Otherwise, all OT saints would've been considered ungodly and foolish for obeying the Law. What we can say, however, is that it was *not enough* to be godly under the Law. Being godly did not get one Eternal Life. We must add to a godly life the need to *follow Jesus.* In doing so, our godliness is entrusted to Jesus, who rose from the dead and grants to his followers Eternal Life.

While the law saves no one, we are to follow Jesus who himself followed the Law. The disciples who were mentored by Jesus followed the law prior to the cross and continued to follow the Law after his death. How do you explain that? The Apostle Paul followed the law and stated "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." 1 Cor 11:1
Doctrinal disputes are often resolved by just examining the actions of the NT writers as their actions demonstrate what they taught. Since they followed the law even after Jesus' death, it would behoove us to follow their example instead of dismissing it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

While the law saves no one, we are to follow Jesus who himself followed the Law. The disciples who were mentored by Jesus followed the law prior to the cross and continued to follow the Law after his death. How do you explain that? The Apostle Paul followed the law and stated "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." 1 Cor 11:1
Doctrinal disputes are often resolved by just examining the actions of the NT writers as their actions demonstrate what they taught. Since they followed the law even after Jesus' death, it would behoove us to follow their example instead of dismissing it.

I dismiss any sense that we should follow the Law because the NT authors said we are *not* under the Law. It is a passe covenant system. We are now under the New Covenant. We were told that the Jewish People under the Law failed that covenant, broke it, and were exiled because of it, just as they had been exiled after breaking the covenant during the time before the Babylonian Captivity.

Jesus would have us follow him not as though he followed the Law, but only as he modelled following the Law for those who were under the Law at that time. Jesus had no need to observe the Law except as a means of providing an example for sinful Israel. Jesus himself had no sin by which sacrifices of the Law would be required in order to deal with his sin!

Even Paul, who was no longer under the Law, showed respect for the Law on behalf of those who still believed they were under the Law. But his purpose ultimately was to free them from the restraints of the Law, leading them to experience a full and final relationship with God, apart from any more need to mitigate sin. Paul did not observe the Law as if he was under the Law, but only to show respect for those who believed they were still under its restraints.

Today, Jesus would have us follow him as he has always been, not under the Law but as Giver of the Law. As Giver of the Law he had only given Israel the Law as a temporary means of atoning for their sin to keep them in standing with God. But his goal was to preserve them in relationship with God until he could provide final atonement as a means of eternal fellowship with God on behalf of those who would choose that path.

As Giver of the Law we should know that he gave Israel the Law only on a temporary basis until he could come and make a better sacrifice than the sacrifices under the Law. Where the animal sacrifices of the Law only mitigated sin temporarily, and did not achieve for Israel eternal life, Jesus' sacrifice dealt with sin with finality and does grant us Eternal Life. Which covenant then should we consider ourselves under--the covenant of Grace or the covenant of Law?

 

[gadar]

I dismiss any sense that we should follow the Law because the NT authors said we are *not* under the Law. It is a passe covenant system. We are now under the New Covenant. We were told that the Jewish People under the Law failed that covenant, broke it, and were exiled because of it, just as they had been exiled after breaking the covenant during the time before the Babylonian Captivity.

Jesus would have us follow him not as though he followed the Law, but only as he modelled following the Law for those who were under the Law at that time. Jesus had no need to observe the Law except as a means of providing an example for sinful Israel. Jesus himself had no sin by which sacrifices of the Law would be required in order to deal with his sin!

Even Paul, who was no longer under the Law, showed respect for the Law on behalf of those who still believed they were under the Law. But his purpose ultimately was to free them from the restraints of the Law, leading them to experience a full and final relationship with God, apart from any more need to mitigate sin. Paul did not observe the Law as if he was under the Law, but only to show respect for those who believed they were still under its restraints.

Today, Jesus would have us follow him as he has always been, not under the Law but as Giver of the Law. As Giver of the Law he had only given Israel the Law as a temporary means of atoning for their sin to keep them in standing with God. But his goal was to preserve them in relationship with God until he could provide final atonement as a means of eternal fellowship with God on behalf of those who would choose that path.

As Giver of the Law we should know that he gave Israel the Law only on a temporary basis until he could come and make a better sacrifice than the sacrifices under the Law. Where the animal sacrifices of the Law only mitigated sin temporarily, and did not achieve for Israel eternal life, Jesus' sacrifice dealt with sin with finality and does grant us Eternal Life. Which covenant then should we consider ourselves under--the covenant of Grace or the covenant of Law?

The fact is that the early church met on the Jewish Sabbath as detailed throughout the book Acts with Gentiles in attendance. So for you to claim that Paul showed respect for those who were under the law contradicts the text. According to your belief, the Gentiles are never under the law so why would Paul act as if he were under the law at synagogue with both Jews and Gentiles in attendance? If your view is correct, Paul would say to the Gentiles come hear me tomorrow after the Jewish Sabbath when you Gentiles meet at your church and I'll come and preach to you there. Paul never did that. Paul kept the Sabbath. The Jewish believers kept the Sabbath. The Gentile believers kept the Sabbath. Those are indisputable facts as described in Acts.

 

[Behold]

Of course belief is requisite, but then do you only think that belief is necessary without the need to be

The Cross is God's Salvation.

John 14:6

You can't earn it.
You have to receive it.

We receive salvation, who is Jesus.

Jesus is Salvation.

You receive Him by FAITH.

 

[Behold]

But grace enables you and I to obey the law,

Christ came "to redeem us from the Curse of the Law".

"The power of sin is the Law".

""""Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become DEAD TO THE LAW....by the body of Christ; """

The born again are "not under the LAW... but under GRACE"

""""" Christ is the END OF THE LAW for RIGHTEOUSNESS, to everyone who BELIEVES"....(Born again).

 

[Randy Kluth]

The fact is that the early church met on the Jewish Sabbath as detailed throughout the book Acts with Gentiles in attendance. So for you to claim that Paul showed respect for those who were under the law contradicts the text. According to your belief, the Gentiles are never under the law so why would Paul act as if he were under the law at synagogue with both Jews and Gentiles in attendance? If your view is correct, Paul would say to the Gentiles come hear me tomorrow after the Jewish Sabbath when you Gentiles meet at your church and I'll come and preach to you there. Paul never did that. Paul kept the Sabbath. The Jewish believers kept the Sabbath. The Gentile believers kept the Sabbath. Those are indisputable facts as described in Acts.

Gentiles in attendance may have been reported, but the idea was to show all, whether Jew or Gentile, that living and operating in Jewish territory, where the Law was still practiced, requires that Christians treat Jewish culture and the Law with respect, if one is to truly act as a Christian. Paul clearly indicated that this was not a theological statement in support of the Law as a currently-applicable covenant. On the contrary, he denied that and argued extensively with Christians that the Law was no longer in effect for them or for anybody.

Paul stated, quite clearly, that his purpose in observing the Law in the proximity of Jewish society, was to witness to them Christian respect for their particular cultural values, in order to carry a message of love that is different from the popular religious belief. Without this respect, differences could not be discussed meaningfully and in a good spirit. "Become like them to win them," Paul argued.

He was not arguing for their position, but for respect so that the differences could be argued properly. One may abstain from alcohol without sending the message that alcohol is "evil." Around alcoholics who are "on the wagon," it is the respectful thing to do to avoid alcohol in their midst. One need not argue for the current applicability of the Law by not eating swine meat. It may be done out of respect for a culture that does not believe in eating swine meat.

 

[Behold]

Gentiles in attendance may have been reported, but the idea was to show all, whether Jew or Gentile, that living and operating in Jewish territory, where the Law was still practiced, requires that Christians treat Jewish culture and the Law with respect, if one is to truly act as a Christian. Paul clearly indicated that this was not a theological statement in support of the Law as a currently-applicable covenant. On the contrary, he denied that and argued extensively with Christians that the Law was no longer in effect for them or for anybody.

Paul stated, quite clearly, that his purpose in observing the Law in the proximity of Jewish society, was to witness to them Christian respect for their particular cultural values, in order to carry a message of love that is different from the popular religious belief. Without this respect, differences could not be discussed meaningfully and in a good spirit. "Become like them to win them," Paul argued.

He was not arguing for their position, but for respect so that the differences could be argued properly. One may abstain from alcohol without sending the message that alcohol is "evil." Around alcoholics who are "on the wagon," it is the respectful thing to do to avoid alcohol in their midst. One need not argue for the current applicability of the Law by not eating swine meat. It may be done out of respect for a culture that does not believe in eating swine meat.

1 Corinthians 9:19

 

[Bob Estey]

I was raised in Lutheran Doctrine, in which Luther placed Law and Grace in opposite camps. This left me wondering, "How can the Scriptures speak so glowingly of the Law, while at the same time Paul spoke with such hostility about the same thing?" Even Paul seemed to praise and curse the very same Law at the same time!

Rom 7.12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
Gal 3.10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

It seems apparent to me that Paul is describing what the Law was meant to be, a just judgment from God presenting a dilemma for sinful mankind. God pursues our obedience to His ways, while at the same time condemning us as failed human beings. How can God present to us a system that condemns us for all eternity, while at the same presenting to us a picture of His grace and love?

The simple answer is that God didn't quite do that. He did that only to produce an understanding of how He intended to resolve this dilemma. He would not recant His perfect standard of obedience to righteousness. But at the same time He would forgive man if he was willing to return to the standard of obedience God requires.

And that does not require sinlessness. It only requires adoption of God's standard of righteousness, which is dependent on Him, or on "faith," rather than on our own independent abilities and choices.

I think it is important here to understand what biblical "faith" really means, as opposed to how it is often portrayed. We are sometimes confused by how Paul, or the Bible, portrays things, and need to understand how they defined their words.

Biblical "faith" is not a simple believing in Christ for our forgiveness alone. Rather, it is acceptance of Christ's standard of forgiveness, which requires we adopt his system of righteousness, which comes through him, or through his Spirit dispensed at his will, rather than at our own independently-conceived will.

It is embracing a system of righteousness that he has displayed as coming through grace and forgiveness, and not by perfect obedience to his righteous standard. We accept him as our righteous standard, while at the same time embracing the idea of forgiveness of sin.

So leaving the system of Law was not a "Get Out Of Jail Free card" for those who wished to be forgiven apart from a standard of righteousness suggested by the Law. Rather, it was simply a call to return to righteous standards when it became clear that we regularly fail in a variety of ways.

The Law can be reduced to a simple example. In the garden of Eden Man chose to disobey God's law to choose to live by a knowledge apart form His own righteousness. Man wished to establish his own righteousness apart from the help of God's word.

The Law of Moses was intended to amplify this one central truth, that living apart from God's word is the same as choosing the tree of knowledge. And it cannot lead to true righteousness, nor can it result in fellowship with God.

This is, in a nutshell, what the Law was given to Israel to show, that we must live by faith, ie in conjunction with, or in partnership with, God in order to produce the true fruits of righteousness. Otherwise, we will be imitating God without true righteousness, or apart from God's word, the source of true righteousness. And we will find ourselves distant from God and producing evil.

John 15.4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

As such, the Law is not a bad system, but not intended to be a testimony we would wish to live under in perpetuity. It only illustrated the dilemma, and not the resolution. Living under it only showed that we need God, but cannot sustain that relationship indefinitely apart from God's act of Grace in providing Christ on a perennial basis. He brought righteousness that could not be cut off by our sins, as long as we are willing to repent in his name, ie in the name Christ, who owns the only way to the Tree of Life.

When we sin, trouble enters our life. The law is a gift from God showing us how to avoid trouble. God forgives the repentant sinner, but we can suffer a good deal before we choose to repent.

 

[Jim B]

But grace enables you and I to obey the law, something that was formerly impossible to do under the old covenant. Grace now enables the believer in the new covenant to live a sanctified life. For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, Titus 2:11-12. By doing away with the law, you've thrown out the baby with the bath water.

Not according to Paul. You need to read Romans 6 and 7. Here is one portion: " In the same way, my brothers and sisters, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are enslaved in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the written code." Romans 7:4-6

 

[Jim B]

While the law saves no one, we are to follow Jesus who himself followed the Law. The disciples who were mentored by Jesus followed the law prior to the cross and continued to follow the Law after his death. How do you explain that? The Apostle Paul followed the law and stated "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." 1 Cor 11:1
Doctrinal disputes are often resolved by just examining the actions of the NT writers as their actions demonstrate what they taught. Since they followed the law even after Jesus' death, it would behoove us to follow their example instead of dismissing it.

Read my post immediately above (#93).

 

[Jim B]

I dismiss any sense that we should follow the Law because the NT authors said we are *not* under the Law. It is a passe covenant system. We are now under the New Covenant. We were told that the Jewish People under the Law failed that covenant, broke it, and were exiled because of it, just as they had been exiled after breaking the covenant during the time before the Babylonian Captivity.

Jesus would have us follow him not as though he followed the Law, but only as he modelled following the Law for those who were under the Law at that time. Jesus had no need to observe the Law except as a means of providing an example for sinful Israel. Jesus himself had no sin by which sacrifices of the Law would be required in order to deal with his sin!

Even Paul, who was no longer under the Law, showed respect for the Law on behalf of those who still believed they were under the Law. But his purpose ultimately was to free them from the restraints of the Law, leading them to experience a full and final relationship with God, apart from any more need to mitigate sin. Paul did not observe the Law as if he was under the Law, but only to show respect for those who believed they were still under its restraints.

Today, Jesus would have us follow him as he has always been, not under the Law but as Giver of the Law. As Giver of the Law he had only given Israel the Law as a temporary means of atoning for their sin to keep them in standing with God. But his goal was to preserve them in relationship with God until he could provide final atonement as a means of eternal fellowship with God on behalf of those who would choose that path.

As Giver of the Law we should know that he gave Israel the Law only on a temporary basis until he could come and make a better sacrifice than the sacrifices under the Law. Where the animal sacrifices of the Law only mitigated sin temporarily, and did not achieve for Israel eternal life, Jesus' sacrifice dealt with sin with finality and does grant us Eternal Life. Which covenant then should we consider ourselves under--the covenant of Grace or the covenant of Law?

Great post!!

 

[Jim B]

The fact is that the early church met on the Jewish Sabbath as detailed throughout the book Acts with Gentiles in attendance. So for you to claim that Paul showed respect for those who were under the law contradicts the text. According to your belief, the Gentiles are never under the law so why would Paul act as if he were under the law at synagogue with both Jews and Gentiles in attendance? If your view is correct, Paul would say to the Gentiles come hear me tomorrow after the Jewish Sabbath when you Gentiles meet at your church and I'll come and preach to you there. Paul never did that. Paul kept the Sabbath. The Jewish believers kept the Sabbath. The Gentile believers kept the Sabbath. Those are indisputable facts as described in Acts.

Not so. Read my previous text #93.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Great post!!

Thanks Jim. It's always great to be appreciated for our contributions. May the Lord's kindness be evident in both of our lives!

 

[Randy Kluth]

When we sin, trouble enters our life. The law is a gift from God showing us how to avoid trouble. God forgives the repentant sinner, but we can suffer a good deal before we choose to repent.

Bob, it is so easy to misinterpret Paul's statements, which are often more complex than they appear. They are often abbreviated, as I like to say, and must be understood in context.

Paul never meant to indicate that under the Law Israel could not keep the Law at all, or could not be righteous at all. I hear some here say that. What Paul was actually saying, in abbreviated fashion, is that Israel could not complete their righteousness with Eternal Life under the Law. They could not achieve *final justification* even if they could find a temporary reprieve under the Law.

Paul was trying to make it clear, for those who wanted to remain under the Law after Christ, that they could not by the Law achieve Eternal Life, since the purpose of the Law was not just to produce a temporary righteousness, but to also prove that any sin not mitigated by Christ could never obtain Eternal Life.

 

[gadar]

The Cross is God's Salvation.

John 14:6

You can't earn it.
You have to receive it.

We receive salvation, who is Jesus.

Jesus is Salvation.

You receive Him by FAITH.

Doctrine must conform to ALL of what the scriptures state. you cite Jn 14:6 but neglect to cite Heb 5:9 which states that we must also OBEY Jesus to have eternal salvation. You might want to read it.

 

[Behold]

Doctrine must conform to ALL of what the scriptures state. you cite Jn 14:6 but neglect to cite Heb 5:9 which states that we must also OBEY Jesus to have eternal salvation.

Here is how you "obey "Jesus.

To BELIEVE the Gospel, is to "obey".

Its The Gospel that offers the Cross of Christ, which is ALL that God offers you, to accept you.

Commandments and Law, do not offer The Cross of Christ.

Think of it like this..

If it didn't die on the Cross for you sin, then it can't be your Savior.

All of these, .... cannot be your savior.

1.) Water Baptism
2.) Commandments
3.) Law
4.) Enduring to the End
5.) Trying to be like Christ
6.) Self Effort
7.) Holding unto Faith
8.) A Denomination
9.) Communion
10) Mary
11.) Confessing sin