Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Condemnation, and a savior

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Condemnation, and a savior

    Originally posted by randyk View Post
    I agree.



    No, I really do follow, and am aware. There are, however, semantics difficulties in discussing the "Law of God," because it can be looked at, I believe, in two ways. There is, first of all, the sense of "God's Law" that is associated with God's eternal word, in which He commanded Man to exist and live in the image and likeness of God. This Law preexisted the Fall of Man.

    Secondly, there is what you refer to--the Law of Moses. This is also the "Law of God," and is often what Paul is talking about with respect to the Covenant with Israel, prior to the Covenant of Christ. This Law confined Israel, both righteous and unrighteous, in a hopeless condition, where atonement remained as yet unfulfilled and without which Man was doomed. When Christ came, he fulfilled this Law by providing the final touches of atonement upon Israel, so that not just Israel but the whole world could benefit from this atonement.

    You refer to the "flesh" and the "Spirit," to Ishmael and to Isaac, to the children of bondage and to the children of freedom, who are viewed as the "children of promise." The children of Promise existed under the Law, and even today, because they were promised final atonement, even while they were as yet under an incomplete system of atonement, the Law of Moses.

    What this is saying is that Israel, under the Law, consisted of some people who treated the Law strictly by the flesh, performing the rituals pretentiously, and without genuine faith. They could never attain to the fulfillment of the promise of atonement simply because they were not in pursuit of final atonement. They were obeying laws for their own benefit, and not strictly out of obedience to God, spiritually.

    But this is not to say that there weren't those who properly, under the Law, obeyed God in that Law and properly pursued final atonement. Their faith saved them by the completed work of Christ in the New Covenant.



    I see the Law of Moses as 613 laws providing temporary atonement for sins until Christ came. Once Christ came, he completed the process of legal atonement, rendering unnecessary these temporary, ritualistic laws. The Moral Law, of course, remained as God's eternal word for Man.



    What I'm saying is that those who actually put these laws into effect, under the Old Covenant, recognized that they were not laws to be rashly put into effect without discerning the gravity of the matter. They were to be implemented with great discretion, recognizing that people do sin and do repent. Acting too hastily in applying capital punishment may not offer proper time for repentance.

    So when we speak of the "harshness" of the Law, we have to understand that there was also *mercy* under the Law. The whole purpose of the Law, for Israel, was to grant mercy to Israel in their proneness to sin so that they would remain in standing with God as His Covenant People. This was the basis for their recovery from sin, and also for their continuing to act on behalf of God while they remained imperfect. The Law was not so harsh as to destroy people at the 1st sign of sin!

    What you seem to be talking about is the incapacity of the Law of Moses to bring final atonement for Israel? Under that system atonement remained incomplete. And as long as it remained as such, death was final--there could be no resurrection and no immortality. Christ had to come to finish redemption so that Israel could obtain eternal atonement. No legal remedy would be required beyond what Christ would do.

    The difference between death under the Law and eternal life with Christ is a distinction, but does not indicate a different God in each of the two testaments! Rather, it indicates a temporary fix until the final solution could be delivered. But yes, the grave situation under the Law, before final atonement, was the picture we are given in the OT system. And it is no less grave for those who remain apart from Christ's finished work under the NT system today!



    Paul is arguing that inasmuch as the Law was given to correct Israel in their sin, and to divide sinners in Israel from the righteous, those who remain under the Law, with finished atonement available, are choosing to remain in a place of unfinished redemption. They are choosing to live not just in abandonment of a completed atonement, but also in a system that was incomplete in its atonement. It is, in reality, a choice to live with sins not fully atoned for, particularly since the Law was designed for those who pursued final atonement!



    The Law was designed for those of faith, yes. But Paul is arguing that faith could not be *completed* under the Law. To remain under the Law was to remain in a state of uncompleted faith. To live by faith under the Law is to look forward to the promise of a completed atonement.



    Paul is talking about those who choose to continue to live under the Law, even though it pointed towards final atonement. To remain under that system is to reject its very purpose, to point forward to a completed atonement.



    I'm not sure what you mean here? Moses was simply saying that those who lived by faith under the Law were the children of promise, and would naturally persevere in the temporary fix that the Law was. To believe in a final atonement one must continue in the then-current atonement, which was only temporary until the permanent fix had come!

    Some people think that Moses was teaching Israel to remain forever and ever under the system of Law, and to offer animal sacrifices forever. I believe Moses was speaking the language of "perpetuity," but not the language of "eternity."

    In other words, he was stating the requirements of the Law of Moses *while it remained in effect,* in perpetuity. Once the Law was completed in the sacrifice of Christ, Moses would've wholeheartedly embraced the end of the system of animal sacrifice in favor of the sacrifice of Christ. Moses was looking forward to a completed system of atonement, to the end of legal condemnation for sin in Israel.



    The Law was full of grace. It was designed with grace in mind.

    But it did not bring completed grace, but only temporary forgiveness, or what I've called, "temporary atonement." It was designed to eventually lead to a final legal rectification for sin, when Christ came.

    But in the meantime it provided an opportunity for faith to express itself in a temporary means of relationship with God. In that respect, it did have grace. It just didn't complete grace until Christ had made final legal rectification for sin.

    we're pretty far apart on this bro, it seems like no matter what scripture you see, you sort of just explain what it means without ever providing scripture to say what you are explaining. That's not in any way an insult, but it's just me I guess, in order for me to let someone's ideas into the things I know directly from scripture, I need them to show me what they are saying ....in scripture. I have learned not to follow other people thoughts that have no scriptural basis.


    it might just be me, but it seems like you sort of just go around the scriptures and explain what they " really mean" not always but in this post you keep doing it. Can you take the time to show me the things your explaining what Paul meant and Moses meant ect....I'm open, but can you show scripture in context to say show me where all this understanding is found in the bible? That's what I would need in order to consider it , I base what I believe on the scriptures, I don't base it on what I think or have heard others think. Whether that's wrong or right I do not know, I do know I believe what's there and it's easy to convince me , if you can show me some scripture from someone like Paul, or Peter, or Jesus .....like I keep showing you to support what I'm saying.

    but again you seem to just go around it and explain that I just don't understand it....which is just going to go in a circle with me, and it appears you also on this subject. I'll look back again to see if you have given some scripture to enlighten me as to why I've got it wrong. God bless bro I have enjoyed the discussion

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Condemnation, and a savior

      Originally posted by Follower1977 View Post
      we're pretty far apart on this bro, it seems like no matter what scripture you see, you sort of just explain what it means without ever providing scripture to say what you are explaining. That's not in any way an insult, but it's just me I guess, in order for me to let someone's ideas into the things I know directly from scripture, I need them to show me what they are saying ....in scripture. I have learned not to follow other people thoughts that have no scriptural basis.
      Yes, I get this regularly. I've been in the Scriptures my entire life, and I tend to predicate my comments on an assumed Scriptural understanding. I have to say, though--I can't write a book here--certainly not all in one post! I will lose all interest. I try to keep the posts short, but I'm completely willing to follow up with a very long extended thread--all with shorter posts, to keep things interesting and piece meal.

      My contention here is that much that is based on Scripture is based on formulations of Scripture that over time have been diluted a class of "nominal Christians." I grew up in a very formula-oriented church--one that mislead me for years into a veneer of understanding--sometimes completely false.

      And so, I do produce my own understanding of Scriptures, as opposed to these denominational or popular presentations--all without wandering into "cult" territory. The formulas are often good, and based on Scriptures. But the "understanding" is not.

      One of the most important areas, for me, is this area of Law vs. Grace. And I'm quite willing to back things up with Scriptures over time. It just matters whether the interest is discussion or argument. I don't mind argument, but the stronger the argument, the less the discussion.

      Originally posted by Follower
      it might just be me, but it seems like you sort of just go around the scriptures and explain what they " really mean" not always but in this post you keep doing it. Can you take the time to show me the things your explaining what Paul meant and Moses meant ect....I'm open, but can you show scripture in context to say show me where all this understanding is found in the bible? That's what I would need in order to consider it , I base what I believe on the scriptures, I don't base it on what I think or have heard others think. Whether that's wrong or right I do not know, I do know I believe what's there and it's easy to convince me , if you can show me some scripture from someone like Paul, or Peter, or Jesus .....like I keep showing you to support what I'm saying.
      That's totally respectable. It's an extensive subject, so let's give it time. I will be following up when I have more time to give references, etc.

      Originally posted by Follower
      but again you seem to just go around it and explain that I just don't understand it....which is just going to go in a circle with me, and it appears you also on this subject. I'll look back again to see if you have given some scripture to enlighten me as to why I've got it wrong. God bless bro I have enjoyed the discussion
      This is one of my favorite subjects. It isn't easy for me to explain, even after decades of dealing with it. Yes, I will try to organize for purposes of clarity. Then you can decide if I have it right or not. There's nothing "personal" in this with me. I'm just glad there is interest, as opposed to the "you're wrong, I'm right" thing. We just want to serve the Lord, right?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Condemnation, and a savior

        Originally posted by randyk View Post
        There are, however, semantics difficulties in discussing the "Law of God," because it can be looked at, I believe, in two ways. There is, first of all, the sense of "God's Law" that is associated with God's eternal word, in which He commanded Man to exist and live in the image and likeness of God. This Law preexisted the Fall of Man.
        1) God's Law can be defined as either God's Word or as the Law of Moses.

        Exo 24.3 When Moses went and told the people all the Lord’s words and laws, they responded with one voice, “Everything the Lord has said we will do.”
        Rom 2.14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.

        Originally posted by randyk
        Secondly, there is what you refer to--the Law of Moses. This is also the "Law of God," and is often what Paul is talking about with respect to the Covenant with Israel, prior to the Covenant of Christ. This Law confined Israel, both righteous and unrighteous, in a hopeless condition, where atonement remained as yet unfulfilled and without which Man was doomed. When Christ came, he fulfilled this Law by providing the final touches of atonement upon Israel, so that not just Israel but the whole world could benefit from this atonement.
        1) The Law is identified as the code of law given in the Pentateuch. This needs no proof. But by contrast we have the "Law of Christ."

        Gal 6.2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

        2) Atonement was temporary and incomplete under the Law.

        Heb 9.8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning.

        Originally posted by randyk
        You refer to the "flesh" and the "Spirit," to Ishmael and to Isaac, to the children of bondage and to the children of freedom, who are viewed as the "children of promise." The children of Promise existed under the Law, and even today, because they were promised final atonement, even while they were as yet under an incomplete system of atonement, the Law of Moses.
        1) There were people of faith under the Law. This needs no proof. If Isaac a child of promise, so were all those under the Law who like Isaac were children of faith.

        Originally posted by randyk
        What this is saying is that Israel, under the Law, consisted of some people who treated the Law strictly by the flesh, performing the rituals pretentiously, and without genuine faith. They could never attain to the fulfillment of the promise of atonement simply because they were not in pursuit of final atonement. They were obeying laws for their own benefit, and not strictly out of obedience to God, spiritually.
        1) People under the Law were performing the Law hypocritically.

        Matt 23.25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean."

        But this is not to say that there weren't those who properly, under the Law, obeyed God in that Law and properly pursued final atonement. Their faith saved them by the completed work of Christ in the New Covenant.

        Originally posted by randyk
        I see the Law of Moses as 613 laws providing temporary atonement for sins until Christ came. Once Christ came, he completed the process of legal atonement, rendering unnecessary these temporary, ritualistic laws. The Moral Law, of course, remained as God's eternal word for Man.
        1) Christ made rituals under the Law moot.

        Col 2.16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

        Originally posted by randyk
        What I'm saying is that those who actually put these laws into effect, under the Old Covenant, recognized that they were not laws to be rashly put into effect without discerning the gravity of the matter. They were to be implemented with great discretion, recognizing that people do sin and do repent. Acting too hastily in applying capital punishment may not offer proper time for repentance.

        So when we speak of the "harshness" of the Law, we have to understand that there was also *mercy* under the Law. The whole purpose of the Law, for Israel, was to grant mercy to Israel in their proneness to sin so that they would remain in standing with God as His Covenant People. This was the basis for their recovery from sin, and also for their continuing to act on behalf of God while they remained imperfect. The Law was not so harsh as to destroy people at the 1st sign of sin!
        It's apparent that David and Moses both murdered people, and were forgiven. The sacrificial system was designed to cover those who were impetuous and rash, not fully understanding the ramifications of what they were doing. It requires no proof to understand that the sacrifices were designed to ameliorate sin, and to forgive the sinner.

        Originally posted by randyk
        What you seem to be talking about is the incapacity of the Law of Moses to bring final atonement for Israel? Under that system atonement remained incomplete. And as long as it remained as such, death was final--there could be no resurrection and no immortality. Christ had to come to finish redemption so that Israel could obtain eternal atonement. No legal remedy would be required beyond what Christ would do.

        The difference between death under the Law and eternal life with Christ is a distinction, but does not indicate a different God in each of the two testaments! Rather, it indicates a temporary fix until the final solution could be delivered. But yes, the grave situation under the Law, before final atonement, was the picture we are given in the OT system. And it is no less grave for those who remain apart from Christ's finished work under the NT system today!
        We know the Law confirmed the universal sentence of death upon mankind because he now has a sin nature. See Rom 7. But the fact God does not change from covenant to covenant, and from age to age, is apparent in Mal 3.6.

        Originally posted by randyk
        Paul is arguing that inasmuch as the Law was given to correct Israel in their sin, and to divide sinners in Israel from the righteous, those who remain under the Law, with finished atonement available, are choosing to remain in a place of unfinished redemption. They are choosing to live not just in abandonment of a completed atonement, but also in a system that was incomplete in its atonement. It is, in reality, a choice to live with sins not fully atoned for, particularly since the Law was designed for those who pursued final atonement!

        The Law was designed for those of faith, yes. But Paul is arguing that faith could not be *completed* under the Law. To remain under the Law was to remain in a state of uncompleted faith. To live by faith under the Law is to look forward to the promise of a completed atonement.

        Paul is talking about those who choose to continue to live under the Law, even though it pointed towards final atonement. To remain under that system is to reject its very purpose, to point forward to a completed atonement.

        I'm not sure what you mean here? Moses was simply saying that those who lived by faith under the Law were the children of promise, and would naturally persevere in the temporary fix that the Law was. To believe in a final atonement one must continue in the then-current atonement, which was only temporary until the permanent fix had come!

        Some people think that Moses was teaching Israel to remain forever and ever under the system of Law, and to offer animal sacrifices forever. I believe Moses was speaking the language of "perpetuity," but not the language of "eternity."

        In other words, he was stating the requirements of the Law of Moses *while it remained in effect,* in perpetuity. Once the Law was completed in the sacrifice of Christ, Moses would've wholeheartedly embraced the end of the system of animal sacrifice in favor of the sacrifice of Christ. Moses was looking forward to a completed system of atonement, to the end of legal condemnation for sin in Israel.

        The Law was full of grace. It was designed with grace in mind.

        But it did not bring completed grace, but only temporary forgiveness, or what I've called, "temporary atonement." It was designed to eventually lead to a final legal rectification for sin, when Christ came.

        But in the meantime it provided an opportunity for faith to express itself in a temporary means of relationship with God. In that respect, it did have grace. It just didn't complete grace until Christ had made final legal rectification for sin.
        I'll have to finish this later. It's a start.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Condemnation, and a savior

          Originally posted by randyk View Post
          1) God's Law can be defined as either God's Word or as the Law of Moses.

          Exo 24.3 When Moses went and told the people all the Lord’s words and laws, they responded with one voice, “Everything the Lord has said we will do.”
          Rom 2.14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.



          1) The Law is identified as the code of law given in the Pentateuch. This needs no proof. But by contrast we have the "Law of Christ."

          Gal 6.2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

          2) Atonement was temporary and incomplete under the Law.

          Heb 9.8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning.



          1) There were people of faith under the Law. This needs no proof. If Isaac a child of promise, so were all those under the Law who like Isaac were children of faith.



          1) People under the Law were performing the Law hypocritically.

          Matt 23.25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean."

          But this is not to say that there weren't those who properly, under the Law, obeyed God in that Law and properly pursued final atonement. Their faith saved them by the completed work of Christ in the New Covenant.



          1) Christ made rituals under the Law moot.

          Col 2.16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.



          It's apparent that David and Moses both murdered people, and were forgiven. The sacrificial system was designed to cover those who were impetuous and rash, not fully understanding the ramifications of what they were doing. It requires no proof to understand that the sacrifices were designed to ameliorate sin, and to forgive the sinner.



          We know the Law confirmed the universal sentence of death upon mankind because he now has a sin nature. See Rom 7. But the fact God does not change from covenant to covenant, and from age to age, is apparent in Mal 3.6.



          I'll have to finish this later. It's a start.

          brother ��

          rather than the long explainations , I'm asking you to explain what you are saying with scripture. I've read and hear your thinking, I just disagree with it, what I'm asking you is all the things you are explaining, can you show scripture that supports what you are saying. I'm not asking you to do this

          “For there is no respect of persons with God.”
          **Romans‬ *2:11‬ *KJV‬‬


          and then explain to me what that means and why it shows the law is the same as the gospel....

          I'm asking you to show me in the scriptures where you are getting your thoughts on it.

          see where you say " it needs no explaination that the law is of faith"

          I've shown you this two times and you just go around it rather than accepting it look closely at these scriptures

          “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:


          For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

          Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

          But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

          Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”
          **Galatians‬ *3:11-13, 18-19, 23-25‬ *KJV‬‬


          Just take those scriptures in before you respond. The law is not of faith. The law was put in place because of sin, the law was only meant to bring us to Christ, now that Christ has come with faith , we are no longer held under a law that was only meant to bring us to the need for forgiveness through him.

          further, do you see where your saying " because Isaac was under law that means the law is of faith?

          you can't understand unless your willing. The law came 400 years after Isaac was born. He was not under the law of Moses , Abraham was not under the law of Moses, Abraham was under the priesthood of melchezidek, not the Levites. The law was given through Moses, Moses was a descendant of Abraham, but Isaac was the seed which God made the covenant with. Ishmael represents the old covenant as again I showed you the whole teaching by Paul. There are two distinct covenant promises to Abram, and the Abraham. One coresponds to Ishmael the son of the bondmaid, which causes the bondage of sin, this son is born first , but is cast out of Abrams household. That's the first covenant of Sinai. The law of Moses.


          the seed of promise Isaac, is a promise of Christ. It was made before the law covenant , and is put in place after the law covenant. It's like a bridge to get man from the promise to Abraham , and the manifestation of Jesus Christ. Who is the seed of promise Isaac was a foretelling


          “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

          And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

          For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.”
          **Galatians‬ *3:16-18‬ *KJV‬‬


          the promise to Abraham is 430 years before the law came. God had already made this covenant promise, but here when Abraham offers Isaac, he confirms it by oath

          “And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”
          **Genesis‬ *22:15-18‬ *KJV‬‬


          This happened 400 plus years before the law , Paul is explaining , the law which came 430 years after the promise cannot dis annul the promise of God. The law comes not from the above promise to Abraham, but it came to Abram here in this form

          “And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

          And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

          And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.”
          **Genesis‬ *15:12-17‬ *KJV‬‬


          it's no coincidence that Abrahams descendants were then led into Egypt four hundred years , put under bondage , God judged Egypt and brought them out with great possessions....that is the promise which brought the law , it's based upon sin. It's made to Abrahams natural descendants. Isaac, was not born of Abrams will, or Sarai's will, he was born only because God promised and Abraham believed. It's not literally isaacs bloodline, Isaac is a figure for the true seed, the true only begotten who is Jesus.


          There are two covenant promises all along. Again look here

          “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

          Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”
          **Galatians‬ *4:21-26, 28-31‬ *KJV‬‬


          Paul isn't talking about ishmales blood descendants or isaacs, he's saying the two sons are an allegory representing the two covenants on the first, the law is of bondage and brings bondage, the other is born of promise to a free woman, and makes us free from bondage. Notice in the story of Abraham and Ishmael, Ishmael is blessed said 12 princes will come of you, and you'll be a great nation? That represents Israel of the flesh. But notice the bond woman's son, that covenant , is cast out that he cannot share in the son of promises inheritance. Isaac who represents the gospel and new covenant.

          they just are opposite bro. I've shown you from the start Moses commands different things, to different people really nothing like Jesus doctrine . The purposes were different, one is meant only to bring condemnation, because it's not until you know your a sinner and condemned that you can really need a savior enough to have faith in him and keep his words as they are life to the already condemned by the law.....

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Condemnation, and a savior

            Here's what I began trying to show

            here's the law of Moses concerning divorce

            When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.”
            **Deuteronomy‬ *24:1-2‬ *KJV‬‬

            ok so Moses law says "of you marry and you find some reason you don't want to be married to her, write a bill of divorce and give it to her, then she can go re marry"

            pretty clear now notice it's not that the Pharisees didn't get it or didn't know how to obey it...observe

            “And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

            notice they are right. Now what's Jesus say about it according to you it's no different but....


            And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

            And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”
            **Mark‬ *10:2-12‬ *KJV‬‬


            here's the thing, it's not just my cooky opinion that those two things are contrary, they simply are contrary. Can you acknowledge that Moses and Jesus taught at least 1 contrary thing now? If so, then consider that Adam , wasn't under the law of Moses .....and Jesus isn't teaching the law of Moses, but is teaching the things before the law which came because of sin, again note what he said " because of the hardness of your hearts Moses wrote you this precept" sin hardens the heart toward God which I'm sure you already know that part.

            Jesus is of the priesthood before the law, the true law of God . Note again this is four hundred plus years before the blood of the laws covenant was ever shed, before God spoke the law from Sinai.

            “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.”
            **Genesis‬ *14:18‬ *KJV‬‬


            melchezidek then disappears from scripture....later four hundred years later, while the laws are being given God exclusively makes Aaron the high priest of the law, and his sons the Levites are the only bloodline allowed to be high priest of the law. Now consider the three chapters in Hebrews dedicated to melchezideks priesthood a lot of great information there but explicitly for this conversation I'm assuming you know a bit of these chapters saying Jesus is the high priest of the order of melchezidek but I want to direct you to this part

            If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

            For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

            And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”
            **Hebrews‬ *7:11-12, 14-19‬ *KJV‬‬

            they go on to explain Jesus had no authority to be a priest at all of the law, only the Levites were ordained priests. That Jesus priesthood is in heaven , showing clearly as far greater are the heavens, than the earth, so is the priesthood ofmjesus higher than that of the law.

            the Old Testament law is not meant for eternal life , it was ordained from the first to be what brings the world to the truth of Jesus Christ, who was before the law, and after the law, during the law he was, but they the people, they were the issue , that's why the law looks like it does, it's also why we need to be reborn in the spirit, and follow the gospel because it's about not restraining our sinful hearts , but about remaking them into the hearts which look like those of Gods children , without lust, who don't need to be told " don't commit adultery" because Christ circumsized that from the heart ....


            the law has its purpose and yes, it's also Gods word, it's just the part of the plan that condemns us , so we will go to the savior of a true and real need for salvation.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Condemnation, and a savior

              Originally posted by randyk View Post
              Paul is arguing that inasmuch as the Law was given to correct Israel in their sin, and to divide sinners in Israel from the righteous, those who remain under the Law, with finished atonement available, are choosing to remain in a place of unfinished redemption. They are choosing to live not just in abandonment of a completed atonement, but also in a system that was incomplete in its atonement. It is, in reality, a choice to live with sins not fully atoned for, particularly since the Law was designed for those who pursued final atonement!
              1) The Law was given to correct Israel, and to divide the righteous from the unrighteous. This is a given.

              Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.

              2) Those who remain under the Law, offering sacrifices and obeying its rules, are treating Christ's sacrifice with contempt.

              Gal 2.17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
              19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

              Paul is saying here that returning to the Law, after the crucifixion of Christ, would be rebuilding what had been torn down, and setting aside the grace of God. It was not that the Law was bad, but that contained in its righteous demands was the continued testimony that our sins lead to death, as exemplified in the death of Christ for our sins. In going back to the Law we go back to testifying to our death sentence, setting aside the grace of God.

              Originally posted by randyk
              The Law was designed for those of faith, yes. But Paul is arguing that faith could not be *completed* under the Law. To remain under the Law was to remain in a state of uncompleted faith. To live by faith under the Law is to look forward to the promise of a completed atonement.
              Faith under the Law was directed beyond the Law to Christ.

              Gal 3.18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

              Originally posted by randyk
              Paul is talking about those who choose to continue to live under the Law, even though it pointed towards final atonement. To remain under that system is to reject its very purpose, to point forward to a completed atonement.

              I'm not sure what you mean here? Moses was simply saying that those who lived by faith under the Law were the children of promise, and would naturally persevere in the temporary fix that the Law was. To believe in a final atonement one must continue in the then-current atonement, which was only temporary until the permanent fix had come!
              People who lived under the Law trusted that their sacrifices were accepted, in faith, by God. Sins were covered over and sins were truly forgiven so that Israel could continue in a covenant relationship with God. It did not mean they experienced eternal redemption, but only that in the moment they could continue in a relationship with God as His people.

              Lev 26.11 I will put my dwelling place among you, and I will not abhor you. 12 I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people.

              Originally posted by randyk
              Some people think that Moses was teaching Israel to remain forever and ever under the system of Law, and to offer animal sacrifices forever. I believe Moses was speaking the language of "perpetuity," but not the language of "eternity."
              The Law was said to be "for all your generations." This is a covenant in perpetuity. It does not necessarily mean that the use of temporal symbols would always be in used, but that they would always be in use until they are fulfilled in eternity.

              Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

              What this says is not that the 613 rules, and the temporal symbols used, would be in place forever. Rather, it means that they were in effect until they were fulfilled with respect to eternity, until the heavens and earth were established in an eternal state.

              Once Christ died, the laws of animal sacrifice were no longer needed, because the eternal satisfaction for sin had come. And it was good for all eternity.

              Originally posted by randyk
              In other words, he was stating the requirements of the Law of Moses *while it remained in effect,* in perpetuity. Once the Law was completed in the sacrifice of Christ, Moses would've wholeheartedly embraced the end of the system of animal sacrifice in favor of the sacrifice of Christ. Moses was looking forward to a completed system of atonement, to the end of legal condemnation for sin in Israel.
              Heb 9.25 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

              Originally posted by randyk
              The Law was full of grace. It was designed with grace in mind.

              But it did not bring completed grace, but only temporary forgiveness, or what I've called, "temporary atonement." It was designed to eventually lead to a final legal rectification for sin, when Christ came.

              But in the meantime it provided an opportunity for faith to express itself in a temporary means of relationship with God. In that respect, it did have grace. It just didn't complete grace until Christ had made final legal rectification for sin.
              I hope this helps clarify what I believe, and provide enough Scriptural backing to support it?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Condemnation, and a savior

                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                1) The Law was given to correct Israel, and to divide the righteous from the unrighteous. This is a given.

                Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.

                2) Those who remain under the Law, offering sacrifices and obeying its rules, are treating Christ's sacrifice with contempt.

                Gal 2.17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
                19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

                Paul is saying here that returning to the Law, after the crucifixion of Christ, would be rebuilding what had been torn down, and setting aside the grace of God. It was not that the Law was bad, but that contained in its righteous demands was the continued testimony that our sins lead to death, as exemplified in the death of Christ for our sins. In going back to the Law we go back to testifying to our death sentence, setting aside the grace of God.



                Faith under the Law was directed beyond the Law to Christ.

                Gal 3.18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.



                People who lived under the Law trusted that their sacrifices were accepted, in faith, by God. Sins were covered over and sins were truly forgiven so that Israel could continue in a covenant relationship with God. It did not mean they experienced eternal redemption, but only that in the moment they could continue in a relationship with God as His people.

                Lev 26.11 I will put my dwelling place among you, and I will not abhor you. 12 I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people.



                The Law was said to be "for all your generations." This is a covenant in perpetuity. It does not necessarily mean that the use of temporal symbols would always be in used, but that they would always be in use until they are fulfilled in eternity.

                Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

                What this says is not that the 613 rules, and the temporal symbols used, would be in place forever. Rather, it means that they were in effect until they were fulfilled with respect to eternity, until the heavens and earth were established in an eternal state.

                Once Christ died, the laws of animal sacrifice were no longer needed, because the eternal satisfaction for sin had come. And it was good for all eternity.



                Heb 9.25 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.



                I hope this helps clarify what I believe, and provide enough Scriptural backing to support it?

                I appreciate you taking the time there bro. It's not that I haven't understood what your saying, I think we have some things were not far apart on concerning this subject, then other things were contrary on. Which.....that's something that happens .


                the sacrifices under the law did not provide forgiveness, in fact they reminded them of thier sins...again the opposite of Christ's blood which does take away sin.

                “But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”
                **Hebrews‬ *10:3-4‬ *KJV‬‬

                they were forgiven through Christ's atonement only if they were forgiven through thier sacrifices brother, they would have raised up like Jesus did having no sin just like we're promised . Sin not being forgiven under the law is rather evident honestly to me. Sort of just the very first original post here.

                Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the Lord your God. And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the Lord which sanctify you.

                For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

                And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

                And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

                And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

                If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

                And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.”
                **Leviticus‬ *20:7-15‬ *KJV‬‬


                that's not grace bro, I'm not sure who could make the argument that it is... This however is grace notice they are going to follow what Moses commanded....in the law.

                “And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

                So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last:

                and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
                **John‬ *8:3-5, 7-11‬ *KJV‬‬


                that's where grace is shown, she was dead according to the law, grace saved her,

                Again this is grace

                “And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,

                ....Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

                And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.”
                **Luke‬ *7:37, 47-48, 50‬ *KJV‬‬

                that's grace and faith..

                again not grace...

                Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
                **Exodus‬ *21:24-25‬ *KJV‬‬

                but grace...

                “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
                **Matthew‬ *5:38-39‬ *KJV‬‬

                “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

                And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
                **John‬ *1:14, 16-17‬ *KJV‬‬


                it's just sort of plain at least I think, I thought the op was a rather good observation to begin with lol

                anyways brother , I truly do appreciate the discussion and even if we don't agree I do truly thank you for taking the time, and do respect your beliefs and opinions and insight and everything. And either way....we're discussing things that aren't required to agree on for salvation or anything. God bless you either way..

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Condemnation, and a savior

                  Originally posted by randyk View Post
                  1) The Law was given to correct Israel, and to divide the righteous from the unrighteous. This is a given.

                  Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.

                  2) Those who remain under the Law, offering sacrifices and obeying its rules, are treating Christ's sacrifice with contempt.

                  Gal 2.17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
                  19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

                  Paul is saying here that returning to the Law, after the crucifixion of Christ, would be rebuilding what had been torn down, and setting aside the grace of God. It was not that the Law was bad, but that contained in its righteous demands was the continued testimony that our sins lead to death, as exemplified in the death of Christ for our sins. In going back to the Law we go back to testifying to our death sentence, setting aside the grace of God.



                  Faith under the Law was directed beyond the Law to Christ.

                  Gal 3.18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.



                  People who lived under the Law trusted that their sacrifices were accepted, in faith, by God. Sins were covered over and sins were truly forgiven so that Israel could continue in a covenant relationship with God. It did not mean they experienced eternal redemption, but only that in the moment they could continue in a relationship with God as His people.

                  Lev 26.11 I will put my dwelling place among you, and I will not abhor you. 12 I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people.



                  The Law was said to be "for all your generations." This is a covenant in perpetuity. It does not necessarily mean that the use of temporal symbols would always be in used, but that they would always be in use until they are fulfilled in eternity.

                  Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

                  What this says is not that the 613 rules, and the temporal symbols used, would be in place forever. Rather, it means that they were in effect until they were fulfilled with respect to eternity, until the heavens and earth were established in an eternal state.

                  Once Christ died, the laws of animal sacrifice were no longer needed, because the eternal satisfaction for sin had come. And it was good for all eternity.



                  Heb 9.25 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.



                  I hope this helps clarify what I believe, and provide enough Scriptural backing to support it?

                  can I ask you something? Sort of relating to this discussion..

                  you keep focusing on the atonement, is it your belief that the only difference is the atonement sacrifice? And that the new covenant is just Christ died and all is forgiven no matter what? Or are you someone who accepts the gospel of the kingdom and it's law?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Condemnation, and a savior

                    Originally posted by Follower1977 View Post
                    I appreciate you taking the time there bro. It's not that I haven't understood what your saying, I think we have some things were not far apart on concerning this subject, then other things were contrary on. Which.....that's something that happens .

                    the sacrifices under the law did not provide forgiveness, in fact they reminded them of thier sins...again the opposite of Christ's blood which does take away sin.
                    I think you may be referring to the book of Hebrews, where it is suggested that animal sacrifices could not *completely* forgive sins in an eternal way? But I don't think there's any question that animal sacrifices were provided to cover Israel's sins so as to keep Israel in relationship with God as His people!

                    Heb 9.12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!


                    Originally posted by Follower
                    “But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”
                    **Hebrews‬ *10:3-4‬ *KJV‬‬

                    they were forgiven through Christ's atonement only if they were forgiven through thier sacrifices brother, they would have raised up like Jesus did having no sin just like we're promised . Sin not being forgiven under the law is rather evident honestly to me. Sort of just the very first original post here.
                    You're failing to distinguish between the forgiveness that comes through animal sacrifices and the forgiveness that comes through Christ. The Scriptures indicate that both are true--only that Christ's forgiveness is final and eternal. Animal sacrifices were, as I said, temporal, pointing forward to something eternal.

                    Why do you think some animal sacrifices were called "sin offerings?" Why do you think the sins of penitents were declared "forgiven" after they had obeyed the Law, and had given animal sacrifices? You appear to be arguing an absurdity, that God asked animal sacrifices to be given for atonement, and that it really meant nothing to God?

                    For example, we read of the consecration of the Aaronic priesthood...
                    Exo 29.35 “Do for Aaron and his sons everything I have commanded you, taking seven days to ordain them. 36 Sacrifice a bull each day as a sin offering to make atonement. Purify the altar by making atonement for it, and anoint it to consecrate it. 37 For seven days make atonement for the altar and consecrate it. Then the altar will be most holy, and whatever touches it will be holy."

                    This cannot be meaningless to God! He has to mean what He says.
                    We also read of the regulations, under the Law, for cleansing those afflicted with skin diseases...

                    Lev 14.19 “Then the priest is to sacrifice the sin offering and make atonement for the one to be cleansed from their uncleanness. After that, the priest shall slaughter the burnt offering 20 and offer it on the altar, together with the grain offering, and make atonement for them, and they will be clean."

                    Either God meant what He said, or He didn't! But I explain this as *temporary atonement* under the Law, leading to *eternal atonement* by Christ. Both were genuine examples of atonement. But one was temporal, and the other was eternal.

                    Originally posted by Follower
                    Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the Lord your God. And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the Lord which sanctify you.

                    For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

                    And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

                    And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

                    And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

                    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

                    And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.”
                    **Leviticus‬ *20:7-15‬ *KJV‬‬


                    that's not grace bro, I'm not sure who could make the argument that it is... This however is grace notice they are going to follow what Moses commanded....in the law.
                    If you are to argue that way, neither is Christianity "grace!" In the NT Christ comes a 2nd time to destroy a good portion of humanity. Where's the "grace" in that?

                    And yet, the NT system is called "Grace" because it is a completion of a process that began with mercy under the Old Covenant. Under the Law, mercy came through a system of atonement that temporarily covered the sin nature of Israel, so that as they pursued righteousness in faith, they could remain in good standing with God. But eternal redemption required the Cross.

                    Grace eliminates the need for all of the rules under the Old Covenant that continually remind men that they were not yet saved from death. Once Christ died for sin, those rules no longer needed to be kept. Grace began under the Old Covenant, but was completed under the New Covenant, and made the keeping of all these rules no longer necessary.

                    But none of this has a thing to do with distinguishing God's judgment from Old Covenant to New Covenant. Judgment is in both testaments! My argument was and remains: judgment came to the recalcitrant, and to the willfully obstinate--not to those willing to come to their senses and repent. To make that determination one must go beyond just reading the Law. One must discern from God's pov whether a guilty party deserves to be prosecuted to death under the Law or not.

                    Originally posted by Follower
                    “And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

                    So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last:

                    and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
                    **John‬ *8:3-5, 7-11‬ *KJV‬‬


                    that's where grace is shown, she was dead according to the law, grace saved her,

                    Again this is grace

                    “And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,

                    ....Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

                    And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.”
                    **Luke‬ *7:37, 47-48, 50‬ *KJV‬‬

                    that's grace and faith..

                    again not grace...

                    Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
                    **Exodus‬ *21:24-25‬ *KJV‬‬

                    but grace...

                    “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
                    **Matthew‬ *5:38-39‬ *KJV‬‬

                    “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

                    And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”
                    **John‬ *1:14, 16-17‬ *KJV‬‬


                    it's just sort of plain at least I think, I thought the op was a rather good observation to begin with lol

                    anyways brother , I truly do appreciate the discussion and even if we don't agree I do truly thank you for taking the time, and do respect your beliefs and opinions and insight and everything. And either way....we're discussing things that aren't required to agree on for salvation or anything. God bless you either way..
                    Forgiveness was given to David and to Moses, along with many others, under the Old Covenant. Grace did not just happen with the woman caught in adultery which, by the way, was still under the Old Covenant!

                    If you find Grace under both covenants, and Judgment under both covenants, how is the God of the OT any different from the God of the NT? I think you would agree--they are the same God?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Condemnation, and a savior

                      Originally posted by Follower1977 View Post
                      can I ask you something? Sort of relating to this discussion..

                      you keep focusing on the atonement, is it your belief that the only difference is the atonement sacrifice? And that the new covenant is just Christ died and all is forgiven no matter what? Or are you someone who accepts the gospel of the kingdom and it's law?
                      That certainly does not sound like anything I would say! Christ's death has value for us only when we accept Christ as our spiritual life, and choose to live it. Without the sacrifice of Christ this life would not have been made available to us. To think that men can accept this atonement for forgiveness without receiving and exhibiting that life is illogical.

                      In both testaments atonement came by sacrifice, one by animals and the other by Christ. Both provided standing with God. Both provided forgiveness for sin. But only Christ provided *eternal* and *final* forgiveness for sin, leading to eternal life.

                      I don't know what you mean about the "gospel of the kingdom and it's law?" The gospel of the Kingdom is the message that Christ came to make his Kingdom available to us when we receive and exhibit his spiritual life. The law of the Kingdom is the Law of Christ, requiring that we submit to and exemplify his spiritual life. I trust that is clear enough?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Condemnation, and a savior

                        Originally posted by randyk View Post
                        That certainly does not sound like anything I would say! Christ's death has value for us only when we accept Christ as our spiritual life, and choose to live it. Without the sacrifice of Christ this life would not have been made available to us. To think that men can accept this atonement for forgiveness without receiving and exhibiting that life is illogical.

                        In both testaments atonement came by sacrifice, one by animals and the other by Christ. Both provided standing with God. Both provided forgiveness for sin. But only Christ provided *eternal* and *final* forgiveness for sin, leading to eternal life.

                        I don't know what you mean about the "gospel of the kingdom and it's law?" The gospel of the Kingdom is the message that Christ came to make his Kingdom available to us when we receive and exhibit his spiritual life. The law of the Kingdom is the Law of Christ, requiring that we submit to and exemplify his spiritual life. I trust that is clear enough?

                        first bro I was asking , I wasn't saying that's how you felt.

                        I'm talking about Jesus and hie teachings, commands... That is our law. What Jesus preached is the kingdom of God. That's Christian law. What I'm asking is, do you believe the gospel is only the death and resurrection of Jesus and there's now no law which we are to obey....

                        again I'm not saying that's your belief just am wondering because of conversations I've had with other folks who don't see the difference in the gospel, and the law and what is taught in both. Usually people insist that Jesus is re teaching Moses law, rather then preaching the gospel and it's law, which is the eternal covenant.

                        what do you mean by " exemplify his spiritual life?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Condemnation, and a savior

                          Originally posted by randyk View Post
                          I think you may be referring to the book of Hebrews, where it is suggested that animal sacrifices could not *completely* forgive sins in an eternal way? But I don't think there's any question that animal sacrifices were provided to cover Israel's sins so as to keep Israel in relationship with God as His people!

                          Heb 9.12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!




                          You're failing to distinguish between the forgiveness that comes through animal sacrifices and the forgiveness that comes through Christ. The Scriptures indicate that both are true--only that Christ's forgiveness is final and eternal. Animal sacrifices were, as I said, temporal, pointing forward to something eternal.

                          Why do you think some animal sacrifices were called "sin offerings?" Why do you think the sins of penitents were declared "forgiven" after they had obeyed the Law, and had given animal sacrifices? You appear to be arguing an absurdity, that God asked animal sacrifices to be given for atonement, and that it really meant nothing to God?

                          For example, we read of the consecration of the Aaronic priesthood...
                          Exo 29.35 “Do for Aaron and his sons everything I have commanded you, taking seven days to ordain them. 36 Sacrifice a bull each day as a sin offering to make atonement. Purify the altar by making atonement for it, and anoint it to consecrate it. 37 For seven days make atonement for the altar and consecrate it. Then the altar will be most holy, and whatever touches it will be holy."

                          This cannot be meaningless to God! He has to mean what He says.
                          We also read of the regulations, under the Law, for cleansing those afflicted with skin diseases...

                          Lev 14.19 “Then the priest is to sacrifice the sin offering and make atonement for the one to be cleansed from their uncleanness. After that, the priest shall slaughter the burnt offering 20 and offer it on the altar, together with the grain offering, and make atonement for them, and they will be clean."

                          Either God meant what He said, or He didn't! But I explain this as *temporary atonement* under the Law, leading to *eternal atonement* by Christ. Both were genuine examples of atonement. But one was temporal, and the other was eternal.



                          If you are to argue that way, neither is Christianity "grace!" In the NT Christ comes a 2nd time to destroy a good portion of humanity. Where's the "grace" in that?

                          And yet, the NT system is called "Grace" because it is a completion of a process that began with mercy under the Old Covenant. Under the Law, mercy came through a system of atonement that temporarily covered the sin nature of Israel, so that as they pursued righteousness in faith, they could remain in good standing with God. But eternal redemption required the Cross.

                          Grace eliminates the need for all of the rules under the Old Covenant that continually remind men that they were not yet saved from death. Once Christ died for sin, those rules no longer needed to be kept. Grace began under the Old Covenant, but was completed under the New Covenant, and made the keeping of all these rules no longer necessary.

                          But none of this has a thing to do with distinguishing God's judgment from Old Covenant to New Covenant. Judgment is in both testaments! My argument was and remains: judgment came to the recalcitrant, and to the willfully obstinate--not to those willing to come to their senses and repent. To make that determination one must go beyond just reading the Law. One must discern from God's pov whether a guilty party deserves to be prosecuted to death under the Law or not.



                          Forgiveness was given to David and to Moses, along with many others, under the Old Covenant. Grace did not just happen with the woman caught in adultery which, by the way, was still under the Old Covenant!

                          If you find Grace under both covenants, and Judgment under both covenants, how is the God of the OT any different from the God of the NT? I think you would agree--they are the same God?

                          alright bro, it's pretty apparent were far apart here. Again it's just like you sort of go around and re explain what the scriptures say. My faith works based on what is there. your right about David, but your not considering, that David is when the kingdom promises began to be given.

                          Moses was not forgiven for what he did under the law, he was punished for the slightest thing. After all he did, when they got to the edge of the promised land, God did not allow him to go into it, he only let him look f rom a long distance at the promised land.

                          there is grace before the law, there is grace promised in the second covenant , which is mentioned in the law, and there is grace after the law. There aren't two different kinds of faith, or two different kinds of grace....faith is when you believe what you can't see, and are sure of it based upon the word of God. Like Abraham, everything Abraham saw concerning his body and his wife's body, proved " you aren't going to conceive a child with her, your too old, she's too old and barren. Faith is because Abraham believed when God said " you will have your own son, with your wife"

                          the natural, what Abraham could see and reason said no way, but he believed God and his faith was counted for righteousness. That is in no way how the law worked. They saw the fire, they witnessed the miracles which he did to bring them out of Egypt, they saw the pillar and fire ....it wasn't faith for them it terrified them so much what they saw that they begged Moses not to let God speak to them or they would die. That isn't faith it's fear. They saw and were afraid to come near, whatever obedience they mustered, though they continually rebelled, was not faith, it was fear based on the design and purpose of the law.

                          I think I'm understanding where you are a bit better now. And I do appreciate the conversation. I'm not seeing any fruit in this particular subject between us at the moment it seems a circular thing

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Condemnation, and a savior

                            Originally posted by randyk View Post
                            That certainly does not sound like anything I would say! Christ's death has value for us only when we accept Christ as our spiritual life, and choose to live it. Without the sacrifice of Christ this life would not have been made available to us. To think that men can accept this atonement for forgiveness without receiving and exhibiting that life is illogical.

                            In both testaments atonement came by sacrifice, one by animals and the other by Christ. Both provided standing with God. Both provided forgiveness for sin. But only Christ provided *eternal* and *final* forgiveness for sin, leading to eternal life.

                            I don't know what you mean about the "gospel of the kingdom and it's law?" The gospel of the Kingdom is the message that Christ came to make his Kingdom available to us when we receive and exhibit his spiritual life. The law of the Kingdom is the Law of Christ, requiring that we submit to and exemplify his spiritual life. I trust that is clear enough?
                            remember how this started, I was saying the law was meant for condemnation and brought death, whereas the gospel is ordained unto life? So we started discussing? So address or I gues go around this scripture and re explain to me what it means

                            “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

                            But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

                            How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

                            ...For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

                            Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament;

                            which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.”
                            **2 Corinthians‬ *3:6-18‬ *KJV‬‬


                            so what's Paul saying there about the ministration of death? The one engraved on stones ? The letter? The one that brings death?

                            the spirit gives life right?

                            It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
                            **John‬ *6:63‬ *KJV‬‬

                            compare to the book of the law of Moses

                            Take this book of the law, and put it at the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.”
                            **Deuteronomy‬ *31:26‬ *KJV‬‬

                            the law is meant to witness against people who break it, in other words sinners. Here's Paul making the reference to this

                            “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

                            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;”
                            **Colossians‬ *2:13-14‬ *KJV‬‬


                            the law is meant to condemn sinners, Jesus came to save them.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Condemnation, and a savior

                              Originally posted by Follower1977 View Post
                              first bro I was asking , I wasn't saying that's how you felt.
                              I'm not bothered by anything you've said. I'm just trying to respond to your question.

                              Originally posted by Follower
                              I'm talking about Jesus and hie teachings, commands... That is our law. What Jesus preached is the kingdom of God. That's Christian law. What I'm asking is, do you believe the gospel is only the death and resurrection of Jesus and there's now no law which we are to obey....
                              There's a couple of questions built into this. First, I agree that the Kingdom of God was at the core of Jesus' message, and that it represents the Law of Christ. Of course, you would have to define what the "Law" is?

                              Originally posted by Follower
                              again I'm not saying that's your belief just am wondering because of conversations I've had with other folks who don't see the difference in the gospel, and the law and what is taught in both.
                              Yes, there's an odd assortment of beliefs expressed here--the kind you get from forums like this one. And I don't mean to disparage forums like this--obviously, I utilize it a lot. I do differentiate between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. In the Law of Christ we lose all of the 613 requirements codified under one body of Law. The Law of Christ may repeat some of the laws contained in the Law of Moses, but they are codified in an entirely new body of Law.

                              For example, the law to honor parents is in the Law of Moses. That same law is repeated in the Law of Christ, but the temple, priestly, and sacrificial rituals are stripped from it. Christ has become the defacto source of all these things, which were just shadows of something more permanent.

                              Originally posted by Follower
                              Usually people insist that Jesus is re teaching Moses law, rather then preaching the gospel and it's law, which is the eternal covenant.

                              what do you mean by " exemplify his spiritual life?
                              Christ's sacrifice was the legal requirement to give us his spiritual life. His spiritual life is the life of God embodied in his human frame--body, soul, and spirit.

                              By his merit we are able to participate in his own divine/human presentation of his spiritual life to us. Rather than just accepting what he did redemptively, it is equally important that we prove our sincerity by actually receiving what he died to give us--namely, salvation.

                              I would define "salvation," therefore, as becoming participatory in his life. Thus, for me, one must, in order to properly receive salvation, also receive Christ's spiritual life.

                              In this way we show our repentance in deeds. We must be connected to the vine, and produce fruit. This is evidence that we have received salvation.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Condemnation, and a savior

                                Originally posted by Follower1977 View Post
                                alright bro, it's pretty apparent were far apart here. Again it's just like you sort of go around and re explain what the scriptures say. My faith works based on what is there. your right about David, but your not considering, that David is when the kingdom promises began to be given.
                                I don't know what you mean by this?

                                Originally posted by Follower
                                Moses was not forgiven for what he did under the law, he was punished for the slightest thing. After all he did, when they got to the edge of the promised land, God did not allow him to go into it, he only let him look f rom a long distance at the promised land.
                                Moses was forgiven for a murder committed before the Law was given. And I'm sure Moses was not perfect from day to day when he was in the wilderness. God's grace has always been active. God is not different today than He was when He used Moses. If you think there are 2 different gods from OT to NT, yes, we are far, far apart! Or, if you think God changes, from OT to NT--again, we are far, far apart. The Law of Moses was a different system with different requirements. But God Himself was the same God as the One who presides over the NT.

                                Originally posted by Follower
                                there is grace before the law, there is grace promised in the second covenant , which is mentioned in the law, and there is grace after the law. There aren't two different kinds of faith, or two different kinds of grace....
                                It depends on what you mean by this? If you are saying there is only Grace in the NT system, then you would have to say there was *no grace* under the Law? Or, if you are saying there was grace under both OT and NT systems, what then is your point? We would agree! The only point I wish to make is that "grace" under the OT was as yet incomplete. And this is what has caused us to call the NT system a system of Grace!

                                Originally posted by Follower
                                faith is when you believe what you can't see, and are sure of it based upon the word of God. Like Abraham, everything Abraham saw concerning his body and his wife's body, proved " you aren't going to conceive a child with her, your too old, she's too old and barren. Faith is because Abraham believed when God said " you will have your own son, with your wife"
                                I agree. All Christians live by faith, if they are genuine Christians. They live by the ethics of an invisible God, and produce the fruit of an invisible Christ.

                                Originally posted by Follower
                                the natural, what Abraham could see and reason said no way, but he believed God and his faith was counted for righteousness. That is in no way how the law worked.
                                Paul argued that the Law does not *of necessity* work by faith, but he was *not* saying that faith did not operate under the Law at all! Would you actually argue that Moses, David, and the Prophets did not operate under the Law in faith? Do you really think Aaron and the Levites did not operate their priesthood in faith?

                                Of course they did! So what Paul was really expressing, in Biblical Terminology, is that the Law *without faith* does not have to operate by faith, because there were people who did not have faith and yet continued to operate under the Law. That is, they performed a variety of rituals without having faith in their hearts, and so produced only an external form of service under the Law. Paul wasn't at all saying that the Law was *supposed* to operate that way, or could *only* operate that way!

                                Originally posted by Follower
                                They saw the fire, they witnessed the miracles which he did to bring them out of Egypt, they saw the pillar and fire ....it wasn't faith for them it terrified them so much what they saw that they begged Moses not to let God speak to them or they would die. That isn't faith it's fear. They saw and were afraid to come near, whatever obedience they mustered, though they continually rebelled, was not faith, it was fear based on the design and purpose of the law.
                                I think you're conflating two groups of people here, who were necessarily mixed at that time. There were, as I said, those with faith and those without faith. Both were in fear at that stage in their lives because they were unaccustomed to living under the rules of God's Law. They all had a healthy respect for God, and even Moses had a healthy fear of God.

                                However, Moses could confidently go up on Sinai, knowing that God had called him up there. Others were in fear not because they had no faith, but only because the faith of men tend to be weak even when they have faith. Others had no faith at all. They were all mixed together. This certainly did not mean that all Israel lacked all faith!

                                Originally posted by Follower
                                I think I'm understanding where you are a bit better now. And I do appreciate the conversation. I'm not seeing any fruit in this particular subject between us at the moment it seems a circular thing
                                We probably won't resolve everything, but I do hope we do understand where we're coming from? Communication is not always easy in these kinds of subjects. But thanks for the discussion!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X