Are we still required to follow Mosaic law?

[Kurieuo]

John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commands;

John 14:21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me, and the one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.”

All your Scripture still applies to the grace-filled gospel that I believe in.

Keep in mind Christ was talking at a time before His death and resurrection. The new convenant had not yet been born, although Christ at times alludes to much.

Yet, I single these two out verses above because they clarify what I see as the difference between your "good news" and my own.

My life is transformed due to Christ and out of that extends a love for God. A natural outworking of this love is becoming sanctified.

You believe you are obligated to keep God's law as verification for your love for God or faith in Christ? And that you are able to sanctify yourself by knowing the Law and trying to keep it?

[Gman]

You believe you are obligated to keep God's law for what -- as verification for your love for God?

I believe that there is a unity between faith and obedience.. The things that you do in serving G-d have to be because you believe in him, and you accept what he says as true and faithful. Therefore if we profess to have faith, that type of faith should somehow reflect in an action that somehow is in alignment with either G-d's word or spirit.. Otherwise it's really not faith but merely words.

But that doesn't mean that we will always follow G-d's word out to a "T" either, but a willingness to obey..

Hope that helps..

[Kurieuo]

You believe you are obligated to keep God's law for what -- as verification for your love for God?

I believe that there is a unity between faith and obedience.. The things that you do in serving G-d have to be because you believe in him, and you accept what he says as true and faithful. Therefore if we process to have faith, that type of faith should somehow reflect in an action that somehow is in alignment with either G-d's word or spirit.. Otherwise it's really not faith but merely words.

But that doesn't mean that we will always follow G-d's word out to a "T" either, but a willingness to obey..

Hope that helps..

Sorry, I re-edited my previous post a couple of times as I felt the full thrust was not being correctly conveyed in my original words. Not sure if this changes much your post.

[Gman]

Sorry, I re-edited my previous post a couple of times as I felt the full thrust was not being correctly conveyed in my original words. Not sure if this changes much your post.

I just misspelled something.. Again.

No.. No one can sanctify themselves but Christ, or justify themselves but Christ.. The point I'm trying to make by willing to follow G-d's ways or commandments is not exactly knowing the "whys" to follow G-d's commandments in the Bible whether they are in the OT or NT or anywhere else. We just don't know... But we follow in faith, even if we don't really know why. Not to get brownie points, not for salvation, not for bragging rights... Etc. We understand that G-d laws are actually good as described in 1 Timothy 1:8, as long as they are followed out correctly (G-d will know not us). Therefore we use them for instruction.... To correct ourselves when we blow it, not that we won't again. What I'm talking about here is the sanctification process in obeying... Christ is Holy.. True, not me.. Therefore hopefully my walk should reflect that..

[Gman]

Keep in mind Christ was talking at a time before His death and resurrection. The new convenant had not yet been born, although Christ at times alludes to much.

Sorry, I re-edited my previous post a couple of times as I felt the full thrust was not being correctly conveyed in my original words. Not sure if this changes much your post.

I see.. In reference to John 14:15 and John 14:21?

Yes therefore when Christ was talking about "His commandments" we refer to those commandments that He gave on Mt Sinai and elsewhere in the OT. Since Christ was G-d himself... Actually the NT wasn't constructed until some three hundred years after His death.. But part of what He said in the NT mimics the OT... Christ however never addressed homosexuality in the NT... But that doesn't mean that we can do that now too..

See what I mean?

[KBCid]

Round and round we go, verse after verse being given for both points of view and never comming to the same state of understanding. This is the difficult part of trying to understand others POV's. All that can be defined by an outside observer is one of three things, one view is correct, one view is wrong or both views are wrong. Ultimately both views cannot be correct since they in some points contradict each other.
If I had my 'druthers' on this subject I would like to have both sides develop a detailed list of all the verses with their understanding for them and then we can analyse each of the salient points to draw a conclusion. (my scientific side).

The one thing that keeps my understanding consistently siding with the POV that we should try to become more like God is the fact that in numerous places within the NT text, people are admonished to turn from sinning and since sinning is the breaking of a commandment of God then it means there are laws provided as guidelines for us to observe.
Now here is the rub (so to say) against those who assert that striving for a less sinfull state is irrelevant. If doing such a thing is truely irrelevant then why was anything written to admonish believers to do it. If there was no longer any need to try and change our old fleshly ways then why teach it in so many places within the NT?
If I designed a new car that had no need for gas I would not give any instruction for its being needed right? If all we are required to do is believe then a fair part of the NT is a waste of time to read and I am extremely against this thought since all scripture is given for what exactly?

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Even here it is written that all scripture is profitable for "instruction in righteousness" That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
But if the contradicting viewpoint given here is correct then that statement from scripture holds no meaning because we would need no instruction in righteousness because we can't affect the free gift by our own actions nor would we need anything to help furnish us in doing good works because it doesn't matter if we do any good works. we can just essentially do anything as long as we do it for God. I can murder others just as the catholics did because they did it for God, right? I can have everyone commit suicide like Jim Jones did because he did it for God. Without some guidelines we can do whatever we want as long as we do it for God. So far this position doesn't set well with my understanding. To me we should do what God wants according to the intent that he gave within his two main laws for loving him and loving our neighbor.
If faith in Christ alone is all thats necessary to attain eternal life then the majority of biblical text is an uneeded filler and the extent of what we need to do can be distilled down to "believe only and thou shalt be saved". Thus I could just throw the rest of the bible away and live according to that one sentence.
So essentially everyone that is contradictory to my understanding believes that everyone must simply have the understanding of that one sentence or they are wrong and the question then becomes "if I am wrong then what is the result of being wrong?" Do I now get an express ticket to nonexistence because I understand that more is required than just the simple understanding of that one sentence? and how does it work if I do in fact believe In God and Christ as the only way to eternal existence as just one part of the necessity required? aren't I fulfilling the minimal requirement being asserted by those I am in contradiction with? Do we all get the ticket to heaven just by holding this one tenet of understanding alone and anything more than that means nothing either way?
As yet I need to study the subject further but I need to better define the opposing points with scriptural references in conjunction with interpretational methodology. Just asserting a contradictory position from others holds no value to my understanding since I don't fully grasp how the position was reached.
Anyone can assert that evolution is a fact and many can be coerced in to believing in its asserted truth just from the force of the original assertion but the devil is in the details for how the asserted position was reached. If it were not for my own work to uncover the details I may have never known how empty the final assertion was. So I dig into the foundations looking for the supports that hold a position as rational and in the realm of religion I do the same thing. I will dig until these foundations are flushed out and understandable.

[Kurieuo]

The one thing that keeps my understanding consistently siding with the POV that we should try to become more like God is the fact that in numerous places within the NT text, people are admonished to turn from sinning and since sinning is the breaking of a commandment of God then it means there are laws provided as guidelines for us to observe.
Now here is the rub (so to say) against those who assert that striving for a less sinfull state is irrelevant. If doing such a thing is truely irrelevant then why was anything written to admonish believers to do it. If there was no longer any need to try and change our old fleshly ways then why teach it in so many places within the NT?

Actually, both sides are in agreement that we are to become more God-like.

The difference comes in whether we have the power to transform ourselves and live up to the Law. Or whether this is something God brings about in us via the work of the Holy Spirit which was given to us when Christ ascended.

Let's pray, "Please God, give me the wisdom to know that which I can do, and give over to you that which I cannot."

Scripture is clear we fail with the Law. It says if you even break one law, you've broken it all (James 2:10). I cannot keep it all. That's not giving into sin. That's a fact of reality demonstrated over and over again in Scripture, in life and what I experience, and is plainly said in Scripture of us. So "God, I give over to you that which I cannot do. Please help me to become more like you."

And guess what? Now I can just focus on life's problems and showing the hopefully, with God's help, showing the same love and grace to others that was demonstrated to us through Christ. I don't focus on becoming self-righteous, but self-giving. This is just one main difference between a works-based theology and grace-based.

Is this also not "striving for less sin" in one's life? Of course it is. It's just a different understanding of the method with which we become transformed. An understanding that we are transformed by the power of God from the inside-out, rather than outside-in through knowing the law and trying to keep it.

You might think this an easy way out, but a grace-based theology is actually harder. For in it, if God is transforming us, than that is something to be scared of -- especially if we try to continue sinning. CS Lewis points out that God screams to us in our pain; talking of a dentist he writes:

The terrible thing is that a perfectly good God is hardly less formidable than a Cosmic Sadist. The more we believe that God hurts only to heal, the less we can believe that there is any use in begging for tenderness. A cruel man might be bribed, might grow tired of his vile sport, might have temporary fit of mercy, as alcoholics have fits of sobriety. But suppose that what you are up against is a surgeon whose intentions are wholly good. The kinder and more conscientious he is, the more inexorably he will go on cutting. If he yielded to your entreaties, if he stopped before the operation was complete, all the pain up to that point would have been useless.

What do people mean when they say, "I am not afraid of God because I know He is good"? Have they never even been to a dentist?

If we give our lives to Christ, and continue resisting God to continue in our sin, don't you know your life is now Christ's? You've forfeited it, and as blackened as you might be, Christ has taken it. Just expect a lot of pain and heartache as He steers you in the right direction. He'll keep poking and prodding you, drilling into your teeth, and refining you into pure gold.

Take James 1:2-4 -- "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that athe testing of your faith produces endurance. And let aendurance have its perfect result, so that you may be bperfect and complete, lacking in nothing." and 1 Peter 1:6-7 -- "In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;"

You see, I believe when we give our life to Christ from our hearts, that a transaction actually takes place. We give our lives to Christ, and Christ takes them. He doesn't let us go at the first sign of our next sin. We belong to Him now, and so He's going to transform us, not simply give up on us and cast us back to Satan.

We came to Christ because we know we fail. Christ is the healer. Healing often takes time. But at the revealing of Christ the proof of our faith will be seen. Not because we produced good works, but because the Holy Spirit operated on us like a dentist and produced good in us.

[KBCid]

The one thing that keeps my understanding consistently siding with the POV that we should try to become more like God is the fact that in numerous places within the NT text, people are admonished to turn from sinning and since sinning is the breaking of a commandment of God then it means there are laws provided as guidelines for us to observe.
Now here is the rub (so to say) against those who assert that striving for a less sinfull state is irrelevant. If doing such a thing is truely irrelevant then why was anything written to admonish believers to do it. If there was no longer any need to try and change our old fleshly ways then why teach it in so many places within the NT?

Actually, both sides are in agreement that we are to become more God-like.

I wish to clarify a point of understanding here. I am not making an assertion that "we are to become more God-like". It is important to understand that my position is that we are to become more "like" God. This may seem trivial but, to me it is an important point in communicating intent. From my understanding satan wants to be God-like to the point of replacing God himself so when I see things worded that way it seems to have a different meaning than you may intend to be conveying.

The difference comes in whether we have the power to transform ourselves and live up to the Law. Or whether this is something God brings about in us via the work of the Holy Spirit which was given to us when Christ ascended.
Let's pray, "Please God, give me the wisdom to know that which I can do, and give over to you that which I cannot."

Yes here is a good foundational point to consider and indeed (Lord help me understand your intent).

This is where free will comes into play. You see when God formed man we were given power. We were given at that point in existence the power to reflect God since it is impossible for anything to reflect Gods image properly without some empowerment from him to begin with. Christ says we are gods and scripture cannot be broken. So we already have the power to reflect God in a limited way if we choose to. For evidence to back that concept I give you Elijah and Job.
Now the problem that arises in this discussion is whether we as independant beings (as we were designed) are having our will controlled by God or whether our will (as designed) would always remain free. The current push I get from the opposed positions on this forum is that our will becomes controlled.... we lose the free choice ability and so far no one has presented a realistic rationale for how being controlled and freely choosing can both be true at the same time. Of course you can give it another go if you feel that such is the case.

Scripture is clear we fail with the Law. It says if you even break one law, you've broken it all (James 2:10). I cannot keep it all. That's not giving into sin. That's a fact of reality demonstrated over and over again in Scripture, in life and what I experience, and is plainly said in Scripture of us. So "God, I give over to you that which I cannot do. Please help me to become more like you."

Indeed if you break even one law you are a failure at being a reflection of God thus a complete failure in every way but,.... are you failing because you know what is right and can't control your body? or do you know what is right and knowingly keep breaking it?

There is key concept given in the NT from Paul about this. Rom 7:7 ...I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
This command was founded on a spiritual concept which is in direct contradiction to what our flesh may desire. Our animal instincts are essentially our fleshy desires manifesting in our minds and we can choose to follow that desire or we can follow the spiritual intent of the command by God. Coveting will always and forever remain a sin before God because it describes something that is in opposition to a property of his very being. This command by God to Israel was a testament of some extremely important understandings about the nature of God himself. He gives understanding to beings with free will to help them make the right choice but, he never makes their choices for them. Even the "helper" or HS is described as a guide indwelling with us in our body. A guide or a helper is not a controller. A guide or helper or comforter is there to provide things for a free willed being to make better choices.

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The Holy Spirit is a guide to a free willed being. If as some here assert that God does the changing then we have no need to be taught or any need for remembrance thus these verses hold no value to our understanding. What sense would it make for me to teach my children to look both ways at a crossing if in fact I was going to put something within them that makes sure they do it my way anyway? God does not teach us for no reason. To be taught entirely implies the exchange of concepts between two unique intellectual entities and the reciever is gaining from the greater. So ultimately why is God wasting ink in the conveyance of understanding if in the end we are incapable of following by free will anyway?

And guess what? Now I can just focus on life's problems and showing the hopefully, with God's help, showing the same love and grace to others that was demonstrated to us through Christ. I don't focus on becoming self-righteous, but self-giving. This is just one main difference between a works-based theology and grace-based.

You can certainly believe that you don't have to actively follow Gods will believing that he will do it for you. This certainly is a commonly held belief for many christian sects but when I see the scriptures below it doesn't fit;

Luk 13:23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
Luk 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

You see if we are admonished to "strive" then that falls absolutely inline with conveyance of understanding to unique beings with free will to choose. These verses have no value if God is going to do it for you. There is no need to provide the machine with instructions for why it works the way it does.

Is this also not "striving for less sin" in one's life? Of course it is. It's just a different understanding of the method with which we become transformed. An understanding that we are transformed by the power of God from the inside-out, rather than outside-in through knowing the law and trying to keep it.

I entirely understand your position. You believe God is going to transform your freely chosen sinfull desires (which are in opposition to his) for you because you believe you don't possess the power to do this on your own.

You might think this an easy way out, but a grace-based theology is actually harder. For in it, if God is transforming us, than that is something to be scared of -- especially if we try to continue sinning.

So you believe it is harder to sit on the sidelines as God transformes you than for you to actively take part in the process? This will be a very tough understanding for you to convey to me as rational and allows you to remain with free choice. you see if God were to just swoop in everytime you were going to screw up then he has not transformed you. He has only transformed your outward appearance to others. The bottom line is that each time he would have to act for you then it is because your own free choice would have chosen that which opposed him. This rationale would enable satan and all the angels that fell to be saved since God could just transform their wills. All they would have to do is believe that Christ is the son of God and if God was willing he could change them.

If we give our lives to Christ, and continue resisting God to continue in our sin, don't you know your life is now Christ's? You've forfeited it, and as blackened as you might be, Christ has taken it. Just expect a lot of pain and heartache as He steers you in the right direction. He'll keep poking and prodding you, drilling into your teeth, and refining you into pure gold."

Now here you speak as though you are on the same page with me. Here you speak as one who expects to be an active participant in the transformation when you speak of steering or what I call guiding. The problem is you cannot hold both positions. You cannot be an active participant and also not active. If God is doing the transforming then you are not. If it is not your intent to provide contradictory understandings then you will need to clarify how one can participate and at the same time not.

You see, I believe when we give our life to Christ from our hearts, that a transaction actually takes place. We give our lives to Christ, and Christ takes them. He doesn't let us go at the first sign of our next sin. We belong to Him now, and so He's going to transform us, not simply give up on us and cast us back to Satan.

See here again you point to us actively participating in the transformation process since you infer that by our free will we choose to sin and Christ keeps on working on us to not sin. How are we transformed if we continue to sin? How does one sin if they are transformed? How does one become transformed if they still have free will and choose to sin rather than not?

We came to Christ because we know we fail. Christ is the healer. Healing often takes time. But at the revealing of Christ the proof of our faith will be seen. Not because we produced good works, but because the Holy Spirit operated on us like a dentist and produced good in us.

We can certainly come to Christ and ask for help to do the fathers will, this is the job of the Holy Spirit. It is supposed to dwell within us to help guide us into all Holiness.It is to guide a free willed being into making the right choices according to Gods will, not to force your will to properly reflect God. Only that which is freely given has value to God. At any point in your position where you imply that God will control your choices then in fact God would not be getting the one thing he values as Love. Love is only true when given freely. If God does it for you then effectively he is giving something to himself and it is not coming from you.

[Gman]

You can certainly believe that you don't have to actively follow Gods will believing that he will do it for you. This certainly is a commonly held belief for many christian sects but when I see the scriptures below it doesn't fit;

Luk 13:23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
Luk 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

You see if we are admonished to "strive" then that falls absolutely inline with conveyance of understanding to unique beings with free will to choose. These verses have no value if God is going to do it for you. There is no need to provide the machine with instructions for why it works the way it does.

Yes.. In fact it would seem that Christ is the augmentation of the law. As He says "anyone." Which I think would mean anyone... If anything we are held to a higher standard.. Even just for looking or being angry...

Matthew 5:21-22 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca," is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Matthew 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

[Kurieuo]

The one thing that keeps my understanding consistently siding with the POV that we should try to become more like God is the fact that in numerous places within the NT text, people are admonished to turn from sinning and since sinning is the breaking of a commandment of God then it means there are laws provided as guidelines for us to observe.
Now here is the rub (so to say) against those who assert that striving for a less sinfull state is irrelevant. If doing such a thing is truely irrelevant then why was anything written to admonish believers to do it. If there was no longer any need to try and change our old fleshly ways then why teach it in so many places within the NT?

Actually, both sides are in agreement that we are to become more God-like.

I wish to clarify a point of understanding here. I am not making an assertion that "we are to become more God-like". It is important to understand that my position is that we are to become more "like" God. This may seem trivial but, to me it is an important point in communicating intent. From my understanding satan wants to be God-like to the point of replacing God himself so when I see things worded that way it seems to have a different meaning than you may intend to be conveying.

Well, I'm certainly no Mormon, so that's fine by me. At least we can agree on something, so it seems.

The difference comes in whether we have the power to transform ourselves and live up to the Law. Or whether this is something God brings about in us via the work of the Holy Spirit which was given to us when Christ ascended.
Let's pray, "Please God, give me the wisdom to know that which I can do, and give over to you that which I cannot."

Yes here is a good foundational point to consider and indeed (Lord help me understand your intent).

This is where free will comes into play. You see when God formed man we were given power. We were given at that point in existence the power to reflect God since it is impossible for anything to reflect Gods image properly without some empowerment from him to begin with. Christ says we are gods and scripture cannot be broken. So we already have the power to reflect God in a limited way if we choose to. For evidence to back that concept I give you Elijah and Job.
Now the problem that arises in this discussion is whether we as independant beings (as we were designed) are having our will controlled by God or whether our will (as designed) would always remain free. The current push I get from the opposed positions on this forum is that our will becomes controlled.... we lose the free choice ability and so far no one has presented a realistic rationale for how being controlled and freely choosing can both be true at the same time. Of course you can give it another go if you feel that such is the case.

When God formed man (and woman) what power were we given? What's this "power to reflect God" that you're speaking of?

We were created in God's image, but I see nowhere anything that says God gave us the power to reflect God's image 100%.

Rather, I believe all of humanity are created in God's image. We're spiritual beings, have a moral conscience God placed within us, we're free to make decisions and be creative, transform our lives and the natural world we're in.

Why is it God says not murder another human being in the Law? Because they're create in God's image. Not because their being created in God's image means they're embued with some "power" to be perfect.

In fact, if we are able to be perfect, then there was no need for Christ. You've undone the foundational presupposition on which the Gospel as we know it is based.

Scripture is clear we fail with the Law. It says if you even break one law, you've broken it all (James 2:10). I cannot keep it all. That's not giving into sin. That's a fact of reality demonstrated over and over again in Scripture, in life and what I experience, and is plainly said in Scripture of us. So "God, I give over to you that which I cannot do. Please help me to become more like you."

Indeed if you break even one law you are a failure at being a reflection of God thus a complete failure in every way but,.... are you failing because you know what is right and can't control your body? or do you know what is right and knowingly keep breaking it?

There is key concept given in the NT from Paul about this. Rom 7:7 ...I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
This command was founded on a spiritual concept which is in direct contradiction to what our flesh may desire. Our animal instincts are essentially our fleshy desires manifesting in our minds and we can choose to follow that desire or we can follow the spiritual intent of the command by God. Coveting will always and forever remain a sin before God because it describes something that is in opposition to a property of his very being. This command by God to Israel was a testament of some extremely important understandings about the nature of God himself. He gives understanding to beings with free will to help them make the right choice but, he never makes their choices for them. Even the "helper" or HS is described as a guide indwelling with us in our body. A guide or a helper is not a controller. A guide or helper or comforter is there to provide things for a free willed being to make better choices.

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The Holy Spirit is a guide to a free willed being. If as some here assert that God does the changing then we have no need to be taught or any need for remembrance thus these verses hold no value to our understanding. What sense would it make for me to teach my children to look both ways at a crossing if in fact I was going to put something within them that makes sure they do it my way anyway? God does not teach us for no reason. To be taught entirely implies the exchange of concepts between two unique intellectual entities and the reciever is gaining from the greater. So ultimately why is God wasting ink in the conveyance of understanding if in the end we are incapable of following by free will anyway?

And I'm not precisely sure what you're taking an exception to? If you are simply arguing that we are not passive robots in God's changing us, then you can stop. I don't disagree.

If you re-read the whole of my previous post than you'll see we are very active in the process. We are the ones that still go through the hardship as God changes us to be more like Him. We are the ones motivated to change out of love, not obligation. For where there is obligation, no love can be demonstrated. If God was obligated to send Christ, then such was not freely done out of love. If we're obligated to obey God, then when we obey such does not demonstrate we freely love God. Rather, on my own view properly understood, my view upholds our freedom much more than a works-driven position.

And guess what? Now I can just focus on life's problems and showing the hopefully, with God's help, showing the same love and grace to others that was demonstrated to us through Christ. I don't focus on becoming self-righteous, but self-giving. This is just one main difference between a works-based theology and grace-based.

You can certainly believe that you don't have to actively follow Gods will believing that he will do it for you. This certainly is a commonly held belief for many christian sects but when I see the scriptures below it doesn't fit;

Luk 13:23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
Luk 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

You see if we are admonished to "strive" then that falls absolutely inline with conveyance of understanding to unique beings with free will to choose. These verses have no value if God is going to do it for you. There is no need to provide the machine with instructions for why it works the way it does.

And who is that "gate"? Who is the way, the truth and the life? The only "Way" is Christ.

Early Christian followers we known as "Followers of the Way". As for my beliefs being akin to some "sect" what I believe is very much Orthodox.

It seems the legalism you extol is already challenging whether I am truely Christian. You and Gman can call it just "loving works" all you want, but the stripes are becoming more obvious that the soteriological conclusion of at least your view, is a denial of one being truely Christian if they do not obey. And the fact Gman doesn't qualify your words, but pats them, means he is very much also aligned.

So you can both try to enter on your works, along side that of Ghandi and other great moral teachers of the world. I'll pay tribute to Christ and place my hope in what He did for me. Because if Christ isn't enough, then none of us will be saved from God's wrath.

Is this also not "striving for less sin" in one's life? Of course it is. It's just a different understanding of the method with which we become transformed. An understanding that we are transformed by the power of God from the inside-out, rather than outside-in through knowing the law and trying to keep it.

I entirely understand your position. You believe God is going to transform your freely chosen sinfull desires (which are in opposition to his) for you because you believe you don't possess the power to do this on your own.

No, it seems you really don't understand my position in your response here. This and the remainder of the response in your post is really hitting a strawman and so quite mute.

You understand a 5-point Calvinism perhaps, but maybe you're so Arminian that anything to the right looks like an extreme form of Reformed doctrine.

To be clear, I do not believe in our total depravity or inability to do anything good unless God does it for us. You have me wrongly pinned here, since that is what is seems you're debating.

Rather, I belive we are quite active in the sanctifying process but so too is God. Yet, God is first active, just like while we were sinners God demonstrated His love in dying for us. And then it'd be true to say I belive from the moment our heart changes, a spiritual change is born and our bodies are subjucated to God and our spirit.

If you really want to understand my position, then understand I see a tight-knit loop in our sanctification process once we come to Christ. You cut the loop, you might cut it in the spot where emphasis is placed on our perserverence and character (even the Law), while another cuts the loop at the gracious love of God being poured out in our hearts that brings about change. But, both are not opposed to each other. They just need to be joined together again. And there you'll find my position on this matter.

The following Scripture sums up this loop nicely:

• 1Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. 3And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
  
  6For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

[RickD]

Kurieuo wrote:
It seems the legalism you extol is already challenging whether I am truely Christian. You and Gman can call it just "loving works" all you want, but the stripes are becoming more obvious that the soteriological conclusion of at least your view, is a denial of one being truely Christian if they do not obey. And the fact Gman doesn't qualify your words, but pats them, means he is very much also aligned.

Kurieuo, now you are finally seeing the frustration I've been experiencing throughout all of these "law" threads.
Welcome to the "I feel like choking my dog out of frustration" club.

[Gman]

It seems the legalism you extol is already challenging whether I am truely Christian. You and Gman can call it just "loving works" all you want, but the stripes are becoming more obvious that the soteriological conclusion of at least your view, is a denial of one being truely Christian if they do not obey. And the fact Gman doesn't qualify your words, but pats them, means he is very much also aligned.

So you can both try to enter on your works, along side that of Ghandi and other great moral teachers of the world. I'll pay tribute to Christ and place my hope in what He did for me. Because if Christ isn't enough, then none of us will be saved from God's wrath.

K, I don't think anyone here is challenging your Christianity. I hope you don't think I am. G-d is going to be the ultimate judge on that I believe.. I think what is a stake here is writing off huge sections of the Bible to a grace that has no definition. If we say there is no sin as defined in the Bible then how can we say there is grace? Grace from what? And if there is sin as described in the Bible then what is it and should we be doing that anymore?

I would think not...

[Kurieuo]

It seems the legalism you extol is already challenging whether I am truely Christian. You and Gman can call it just "loving works" all you want, but the stripes are becoming more obvious that the soteriological conclusion of at least your view, is a denial of one being truely Christian if they do not obey. And the fact Gman doesn't qualify your words, but pats them, means he is very much also aligned.

So you can both try to enter on your works, along side that of Ghandi and other great moral teachers of the world. I'll pay tribute to Christ and place my hope in what He did for me. Because if Christ isn't enough, then none of us will be saved from God's wrath.

K, I don't think anyone here is challenging your Christianity. I hope you don't think I am. G-d is going to be the ultimate judge on that I believe.. I think what is a stake here is writing off huge sections of the Bible to a grace that has no definition. If we say there is no sin as defined in the Bible then how can we say there is grace? Grace from what? And if there is sin as described in the Bible then what is it and should we be doing that anymore?

I would think not...

Hi G, I don't think you are directly challenging my Christianity.

But neither do I believe you're as extreme in your view as KBCid who writes of one aslo needing works to remain saved. But, I'm sure nonetheless you have raised your eyebrows or had side thoughts about us who disagree with you on the Law. Perhaps we are just sailing past each other all the time in communication... I don't know. But I don't feel things said are being received or heard.

Noone, at least not I, have said there is no sin. What is sin? God is Righteousness. Therefore anything against God is ultimately sin. Breaking the rules and regulations in the Mosaic Law is only sin, because God set them in place. It's purpose was a covenant between God and Israel. God would choose Israel to dwell among and protect, and His people would remain loyal to God by keeping the commandments. God would be their God, and they would be His people. However, the Law only showed over and over again that Israel (and humanity as humanities representatives) to be set against God, and so the Law became rather condemning.

Paul explains that the Law is spiritual and it is due that which is not spiritual (our flesh) that we are weak and stumble. Though we love God in spirit, we're attached to our bodies of sin, with which we struggle. However, "sin" no longer has any relevancy thanks to Christ. We are free from sin, not because we can now keep the Law, but because we (those in Christ) are no longer under the Law. If those who are in Christ are no longer under the Law, then why act as though Sin still has a hold on us? This is what drives us (well, some of us like RickD and me I suppose) to change. Because we're free from sin, we desire to behave so -- that is afterall why we desired to come to Christ, right?

So we should never be burdened by Sin again, for Christ either sets us free or He doesn't. If I feel burdened by my sin, beyond simple disappointment that I once again "miss the mark", then I am not free from Sin. I am in bondage to Sin, and Sin is therefore my master. If Sin is my master, then Christ isn't, and I stand condemned by my sin. I speak like this, because as I'm sure you know, it is the kind of language Paul uses. Yet, if in spirit I accept Christ -- placing my faith and hope in Him -- then I've asked Christ to be my master. Now although I sin, weakened as I am in the flesh, Christ is not going to let me go. He'll remain faithful and just to me promising to continually wipe away my sin so I am presentable as spotless before God.

I've said much of this in my previous posts, but again go to this extent to explain. Because I just don't see how someone who understands what I write can say "huge sections of the Bible are being written off" or that I'm saying there is "no sin". I do not believe such things, nor would I ever say such things. My perception of it ultimately boils down to this...

The Law was fulfilled by Christ, but still remains there for those who choose to be judged by it on their own. We can now choose our cup to drink: Christ or the Law.

Drink Christ, and the Law is fulfilled and you are free. How else is it we can be saved? Being free, it is then natural for us to desire to please God. We do so out of love and because we want to be free from our old nature now we've put on the new. But our failure to remain perfect has no bearing on our relationship with God.

Drink the Law, and you'll by judged by it. And unless you keep the Law 100%, you'll be condemned by it and suffer God's righteous wrath.

If we need to drink Christ to be free from Sin, and from then on drink the Law to remain free from sin -- the moment we break the Law we are now under sin and so stand condemned. What then... if after coming to Christ I die without being asking for and accepting His forgiveness again. Is our salvation so fickle? No, at least I don't believe it is. Once we drink Christ, then we are free from sin and remain free. Wanting to please God is something we just want to do out of love, not because we have to out of some obligation.

[KBCid]

This is where free will comes into play. You see when God formed man we were given power. We were given at that point in existence the power to reflect God since it is impossible for anything to reflect Gods image properly without some empowerment from him to begin with. Christ says we are gods and scripture cannot be broken. So we already have the power to reflect God in a limited way if we choose to. For evidence to back that concept I give you Elijah and Job.
Now the problem that arises in this discussion is whether we as independant beings (as we were designed) are having our will controlled by God or whether our will (as designed) would always remain free. The current push I get from the opposed positions on this forum is that our will becomes controlled.... we lose the free choice ability and so far no one has presented a realistic rationale for how being controlled and freely choosing can both be true at the same time. Of course you can give it another go if you feel that such is the case.

When God formed man (and woman) what power were we given? What's this "power to reflect God" that you're speaking of? We were created in God's image, but I see nowhere anything that says God gave us the power to reflect God's image 100%.

You should know this answer. and no God did not give us the power to reflect him 100% because then we would be God. We are images of the original and an image is never the original. Notice that I stated specifically "So we already have the power to reflect God in a limited way if we choose to". A limited way means exactly and precisely that we are limited in our powers. God the father is not limited. Thus we can never attain to be God. However, in answer to your question about power you should review Genesis. Note that all life formed on the earth before man was created after their kind. They were not created in the image of God. They were created according to a design that God made. Then after those creations it was time for God to create man and;

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

We were created in the image of God and he gave us power over everything that had been created on the earth. It is written plain as day. We were given dominion over lesser beings than ourselves. This is a reflection of God since God has dominion over lesser beings as well. It is also written that we are gods. gods have power over that which is less than themselves. We are essentially in charge of an earthly microcosm that is intended to reflect the spiritual macrocosm that God has created.

Rather, I believe all of humanity are created in God's image. We're spiritual beings, have a moral conscience God placed within us, we're free to make decisions and be creative, transform our lives and the natural world we're in.

We indeed were created in his image and when we chose by free will to stop reflecting that image we fell. However we all have the power to freely choose to return to reflecting him. at no time was man ever stripped of this power. Man simply had no indwelling spirit to instruct him in all the truth. We have thus been relegated to simply having Gods word instructing us from outside ourselves through the written format.

Why is it God says not murder another human being in the Law? Because they're create in God's image. Not because their being created in God's image means they're embued with some "power" to be perfect.

At no point did I say that we were commanded not to murder because man is imbued with power. Those words never left my fingers. We are not to murder because God doesn't murder. A murderer does not reflect Love and God is love. A murderer is anti God and anti Christ because the action is not a reflection of their image. This spiritual understanding is in direct conflict with our fleshly desires or instincts. When Cain killed Abel he performed an action that did not reflect God. Cain freely chose to follow his animal instinct to eliminate the competition for what he desired.

In fact, if we are able to be perfect, then there was no need for Christ. You've undone the foundational presupposition on which the Gospel as we know it is based..

Note that I also never said we had the power to be 100% perfect. We have the power to strive for perfection but it will require the indwelling HS to guide us into all holiness. Without the indwelling spirit we are not capable of choosing good 100% of the time. This is the reason for Christ's actions. He was the first to have the full Godhead as an indwelling guide and we who wish to follow him and desire to be perfect can now also have this spirit to guide us, but..... Having the indwelling Holy Spirit is not an excuse to stop trying. This is why the apostles admonished christians to walk in certain ways.

----

Indeed if you break even one law you are a failure at being a reflection of God thus a complete failure in every way but,.... are you failing because you know what is right and can't control your body? or do you know what is right and knowingly keep breaking it?

The Holy Spirit is a guide to a free willed being. If as some here assert that God does the changing then we have no need to be taught or any need for remembrance thus these verses hold no value to our understanding. What sense would it make for me to teach my children to look both ways at a crossing if in fact I was going to put something within them that makes sure they do it my way anyway? God does not teach us for no reason. To be taught entirely implies the exchange of concepts between two unique intellectual entities and the reciever is gaining from the greater. So ultimately why is God wasting ink in the conveyance of understanding if in the end we are incapable of following by free will anyway?

And I'm not precisely sure what you're taking an exception to? If you are simply arguing that we are not passive robots in God's changing us, then you can stop. I don't disagree.

Ok. If we are not passive then pls. define exactly what are we supposed to do in our non-passive role? and if we continuously choose not to do what we are supposed to then do we lose eternal life?

If you re-read the whole of my previous post than you'll see we are very active in the process. We are the ones that still go through the hardship as God changes us to be more like Him.

I specifically noted where we appeared to be in agreement and noted understandings that were different.
What hardships do we go through? can you describe this?
How exactly does God change you? pls. define this point

We are the ones motivated to change out of love, not obligation. For where there is obligation, no love can be demonstrated. If God was obligated to send Christ, then such was not freely done out of love. If we're obligated to obey God, then when we obey such does not demonstrate we freely love God. Rather, on my own view properly understood, my view upholds our freedom much more than a works-driven position.

Actually from what I have read there is obligation being applied in conjunction with love. This is represented by the commandments;

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

If we are not obligated to uphold those commands then why were they given? These two commands define for us the kind of love God desires his people to exhibit as they reflect his image and if as you have asserted that we are not passive then we must be expected to do our best to uphold the specified desires of God by our own free choice.

You can certainly believe that you don't have to actively follow Gods will believing that he will do it for you. This certainly is a commonly held belief for many christian sects but when I see the scriptures below it doesn't fit;
Luk 13:23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
Luk 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
You see if we are admonished to "strive" then that falls absolutely inline with conveyance of understanding to unique beings with free will to choose. These verses have no value if God is going to do it for you. There is no need to provide the machine with instructions for why it works the way it does.

And who is that "gate"? Who is the way, the truth and the life? The only "Way" is Christ.

Ahh we all know that answer intimately.
The missing point here is the rest of the scripture; Luk 13:24 "for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able."
Who are these people? How exactly can one desire to enter in and not be able? If all that is required is simply believing in Christ then how can anyone fail?

Early Christian followers we known as "Followers of the Way". As for my beliefs being akin to some "sect" what I believe is very much Orthodox.

Sect is not being used by me as a negative point. It is simply the easiest way to convey the variations in foundational beliefs among a great variety of people who all hold a belief in God and Christ. I have had others describe themselves as orthodox but upon closer inspection there was foundational beliefs even between them that didn't match. If we look at the word;

orthodox
1. of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
2. of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.
3. customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.
4. sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, especially theological or religious doctrine.
5. conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orthodox

You will see that orthodox can be applied in many ways depending on when in history you wish to apply it. The catholic religion defined their orthodoxy very early in history and then there were many other changes that evolved into new orthodox positions. So if you want to express meaning to me on this subject I will need further information that defines what you see as orthodox.

It seems the legalism you extol is already challenging whether I am truely Christian. You and Gman can call it just "loving works" all you want, but the stripes are becoming more obvious that the soteriological conclusion of at least your view, is a denial of one being truely Christian if they do not obey. And the fact Gman doesn't qualify your words, but pats them, means he is very much also aligned.

The legalism you percieve is not something I extol as a belief. It is what comes as an understanding from my own reading of the scripture. It is not my job to judge what you believe. I want to know how you reached the understanding you believe in. Each of us can freely read Gods word and pray that he opens our understanding to them. From what I read we are expected to do more than simply hold a belief in Christ. I have referenced these verses as I have been expressing what I understand and if you feel my understanding is incorrect then you can explain the reason / rationale for the verses I have referenced.

So you can both try to enter on your works, along side that of Ghandi and other great moral teachers of the world. I'll pay tribute to Christ and place my hope in what He did for me. Because if Christ isn't enough, then none of us will be saved from God's wrath.

Neither myself nor G have asserted that you can gain eternal life by works and I can confidently assert that because I have stated such myself in previous posts and I have read all of G's posts and he has stated the same thing. I beg of you to take the time to read my past postings and become familiar with some of my understandings.

Is this also not "striving for less sin" in one's life? Of course it is. It's just a different understanding of the method with which we become transformed. An understanding that we are transformed by the power of God from the inside-out, rather than outside-in through knowing the law and trying to keep it.

I entirely understand your position. You believe God is going to transform your freely chosen sinfull desires (which are in opposition to his) for you because you believe you don't possess the power to do this on your own.

No, it seems you really don't understand my position in your response here. This and the remainder of the response in your post is really hitting a strawman and so quite mute.

Ok then I'm sorry for not correctly percieving what you are trying to convey. Can you reword my sentence into a more correct reflection of what you want me to understand?

You understand a 5-point Calvinism perhaps, but maybe you're so Arminian that maybe anything to the right looks like extreme some Reformed doctrine.

I cannot either agree or deny since I don't recognise either position. I would have to study them to know for sure.

To be clear, I do not believe in our total depravity or inability to do anything good unless God does it for us. You have me wrongly pinned here, since that is what is seems you're debating.

Alright I accept that I'm percieving you incorrectly so as I asked above can you define what we are expected to do? and how it affects our free gift of eternal life?

Rather, I belive we are quite active in the sanctifying process but so too is God. Yet, God is first active, just like while we were sinners God demonstrated His love in dying for us. And then it'd be true to say I belive from the moment our heart changes, a spiritual change is born and our bodies are subjucated to God and our spirit.

God is certainly first active in drawing people to Christ.
Couriously I note you said "while we were sinners" do you feel you have stopped sinning?
I notice you feel that both our body and spirit are subjucated. This is where your position changes to one where we are not in control. Look carefully at the definition of subjucated;
1. To bring under control
2. To make subservient; enslave.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subjugated

It is difficult for me to correctly understand what your position is when you assert in one place that we are non-passive and yet in another place you assert that we don't have any control. Both positions cannot be true at the same time.

If you really want to understand my position, then understand I see a tight-knit loop in our sanctification process once we come to Christ. You cut the loop, you might cut it in the spot where emphasis is placed on our perserverence and character (even the Law), while another cuts the loop at the gracious love of God being poured out in our hearts that brings about change. But, both are not opposed to each other. They just need to be joined together again. And there you'll find my position on this matter
The following Scripture sums up this loop nicely:

• 1Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. 3And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
  6For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Can you define what is being perservered?
I will also ask what is a "proven character"

[Gman]

Hi G, I don't think you are directly challenging my Christianity.

But neither do I believe you're as extreme in your view as KBCid who writes of one aslo needing works to remain saved. But, I'm sure nonetheless you have raised your eyebrows or had side thoughts about us who disagree with you on the Law. Perhaps we are just sailing past each other all the time in communication... I don't know. But I don't feel things said are being received or heard.

In a nutshell... To be clear I think we have all had our ideas about the "law". I think we as Christians have believed and have always been taught that the Tanach or Torah or OT ways were done away with and were nailed on the cross by Christ or that those things were only addressed to the Jews or Israel.. So yes this is revolutionary in many ways... That is, going back to the old ways to get to the new ways. Why? Can we honestly say that we are different from let's say how an atheists lives their life from our own? As an example just look at the divorce rates or domestic violence from a Christan vs an atheist.. They are really not that far apart. I would argue that we have inherited a fundamental problem. A lack of leadership and direction in G-d's word according to His commandments.

I'll expound on this idea later..

Noone, at least not I, have said there is no sin. What is sin? God is Righteousness. Therefore anything against God is ultimately sin. Breaking the rules and regulations in the Mosaic Law is only sin, because God set them in place. It's purpose was a covenant between God and Israel. God would choose Israel to dwell among and protect, and His people would remain loyal to God by keeping the commandments. God would be their God, and they would be His people. However, the Law only showed over and over again that Israel (and humanity as humanities representatives) to be set against God, and so the Law became rather condemning.

Paul explains that the Law is spiritual and it is due that which is not spiritual (our flesh) that we are weak and stumble. Though we love God in spirit, we're attached to our bodies of sin, with which we struggle. However, "sin" no longer has any relevancy thanks to Christ. We are free from sin, not because we can now keep the Law, but because we (those in Christ) are no longer under the Law. If those who are in Christ are no longer under the Law, then why act as though Sin still has a hold on us? This is what drives us (well, some of us like RickD and me I suppose) to change. Because we're free from sin, we desire to behave so -- that is afterall why we desired to come to Christ, right?

No... We see that we are sinful creations when we look at G-d's word and see the perfection of it that only Christ can achieve, but that doesn't mean that those instructions are now somehow void or irrelevant to us today... As an example look what Paul says in the book of Romans. If we are free from sin, then why is Paul telling us to abstain from sin and DO the law?

Romans 2:13, “for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.”

Romans 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.

Romans 6:13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness.

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!

So we should never be burdened by Sin again, for Christ either sets us free or He doesn't. If I feel burdened by my sin, beyond simple disappointment that I once again "miss the mark", then I am not free from Sin. I am in bondage to Sin, and Sin is therefore my master. If Sin is my master, then Christ isn't, and I stand condemned by my sin. I speak like this, because as I'm sure you know, it is the kind of language Paul uses. Yet, if in spirit I accept Christ -- placing my faith and hope in Him -- then I've asked Christ to be my master. Now although I sin, weakened as I am in the flesh, Christ is not going to let me go. He'll remain faithful and just to me promising to continually wipe away my sin so I am presentable as spotless before God.

Ok that's the problem.. That we feel condemned by seeing our sin..We should never condemn ourselves or others. Rather it seems that G-d would like to see us renew our minds and encourage ourselves in instruction in righteousness according to His will. But not to justify ourselves.. So that we all continually live in harmony with Him and our neighbor and do what is right.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Romans 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

Again according to Paul, we can still sin even AFTER we believe Romans 6:12, Romans 6:13, Romans 6:15...

I've said much of this in my previous posts, but again go to this extent to explain. Because I just don't see how someone who understands what I write can say "huge sections of the Bible are being written off" or that I'm saying there is "no sin". I do not believe such things, nor would I ever say such things. My perception of it ultimately boils down to this...

The Law was fulfilled by Christ, but still remains there for those who choose to be judged by it on their own. We can now choose our cup to drink: Christ or the Law.

Ok.. Then you have a problem here... Because Christ is the law and gave the laws in the OT.. James 4:12. Christ is the walking Torah or law John 1:1.

Drink Christ, and the Law is fulfilled and you are free. How else is it we can be saved? Being free, it is then natural for us to desire to please God. We do so out of love and because we want to be free from our old nature now we've put on the new. But our failure to remain perfect has no bearing on our relationship with God.

Drink the Law, and you'll by judged by it. And unless you keep the Law 100%, you'll be condemned by it and suffer God's righteous wrath.

If we need to drink Christ to be free from Sin, and from then on drink the Law to remain free from sin -- the moment we break the Law we are now under sin and so stand condemned. What then... if after coming to Christ I die without being asking for and accepting His forgiveness again. Is our salvation so fickle? No, at least I don't believe it is. Once we drink Christ, then we are free from sin and remain free. Wanting to please God is something we just want to do out of love, not because we have to out of some obligation.

Yes... That is the problem.. Looking at G-d's commandments and feel that He is condemning you. However, instead of looking at it as some legalistic doctrine, why can't we look at it as being good? Now look how the book of Timothy put's it.

1 Timothy 1:8 We know that the Torah is good, provided one uses it in the way the Torah itself intends.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 and recalling too how from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which can give you the wisdom that leads to deliverance through trusting in Yeshua the Messiah. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is valuable for teaching the truth, convicting of sin, correcting faults and training in right living; 17 thus anyone who belongs to God may be fully equipped for every good work.

Or in Romans...

Romans 7:12, “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.”