Are we still required to follow Mosaic law?

[neo-x]

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.

And He died so that we don't have to fulfill the law. Christ fulfilled the law, he was not the law. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Hello! In whatever sense you are trying to make God=Law metaphor as literal as possible, you are just making one huge theological blunder here.

I don't get you G. On one hand you hold that Christ fulfilled the law, saved us all, and we are not saved by following the law. On the other hand you keep on saying the law as being still in effect (only those commands you think apply to you today) and we are to follow it for it was never abolished (all of it, since you would agree if the law was never abolished it is in effect in its entirety). This logic is internally inconsistent.

And I do not know what is it that you hold, if a person like me does not follow the law? But I do think it will be something along the lines of disobedience etc. may be more.

however if someone is born again believer and still do not follow the law, what does he lose? If according to you such a believer is condemned to hell or loose salvation then we disagree. However if not, then I do not know what is it that really matters here.

You continue to say that grace's definition is the law. How could it be? Expound on it.
Stoning someone for collecting food on a Saturday, in a theocracy, is supposed to be loving? Burning witches is loving? stoning prostitutes is loving? what kind of definition of love is that?

At times Christ completely went against the law to prove to people that the law was not the master, and it was not perfect. The law deals with body not with spirit. How can something of the flesh supersede the spirit?

The law is only good for those who can fulfill 100% it and since no one can, it becomes a source of curse and punishment, no matter how holy the law is, to a sinner, it is certifiable death.

I am assuming that within a theocracy and priesthood, you would admit that the entire law must be followed?

[Kurieuo]

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;

It seems from your quoted post above in bold, that you were insinuating God gave us a power to be morally perfect.

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.

If this is all you meant then why is it relevant to this discussion? Why make mention of Elijah and Job as your examples of God's power -- they seem like less than ideal examples unless you were actually implying that "God's power" given to us is the ability to be morally good and upright.

Don't want to pin you down, but I don't see relevance to your mentioning of "God's power" to this discussion if all you meant is God set humanity up as head of His creation. So fine, let's move on.

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.

I didn't say you said we were commanded not to murder because man is imbued with power (although it is confusing why you'd introduce our power as head of God's creation to this discussion).

I'm saying if God's image is destroyed in us, then we should be free to murder each other. For the reason God gives as to why we should not kill another human, is because they're created in God's image. (Gen 9:6)

If each of us, morally upright or not, are still made in God's image, then keeping the Law has nothing to do with the Imago Dei within us. Let me be clear, that logically according to Scripture, ALL humans are made in God's image. Therefore, sinner and non-sinner alike, we are each created in God's image in virtue of just being human.

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.

Understanding our limitations and handing over to Christ what is now rightfully His is no admission that one would or should stop trying to better themselves. I don't see the logic. Could you perhaps lay out it as a syllogistic argument?

For example, if Christ fulfilled the Law so that those who place their faith in Christ are no longer bound by it, then this means we as Christians should stop trying to follow God. I fail to see how this is sound? It doesn't follow. Rather, I argue that it actually means we as Christians would want to follow and please God.

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?

Scripture via Paul says we are weak in the flesh. Our spirits desire to do good, but we keep doing that which we don't want to do. It is a constant struggle while we live here. Yet, we are sanctified the moment we give our lives to Christ (spiritually), and continue being sanctified until the moment we die (physically).

Having been declared righteous, why should we continue is sin as though we're not? I don't see how anyone who places their faith in Christ, loving God and understanding the forgiveness that was freely given, could even contemplate purposefully wanting to trample under foot over and over again (i.e., abuse) Christ's sacrificial gift. Hebrews 10:29 refers to this as insulting the "spirit of Grace".

Such a person does not love God, they're simply trying to play games with God to their advantage. One's faith in such a case I believe is corrupt and fake, and they'll be the ones who might say to God on judgment day, "But I prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name", to which God will respond, "Depart from me for I never knew you." This is not because they just continued sinning, but rather they thought they could play God a fool in their hearts. Their hearts never truly desired or loved God.

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?

1st question answer: Love God.

2nd question answer: If we truly love God, then God will bring about change within us. Only the heart is required, and God'll help us with the rest.

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

Answer: It would be unique to the person and sins committed. Consider a Christian who continues in some adulterous affair after coming to Christ. Natural consequences include being found out, loosing the respect of others, loosing house and wealth, loosing kids and causing much pain to them. The adulterous affair comes to an end in tragic consequences. God may have played a direct part in make the "penalties" unfold, rather then letting the person continue to live their lie.

The person is then able to make amends with those they hurt and God. They will no doubt learn an awful lot through the pain of the experience. But, God can see the heart even if it might look black to us. It is why God is judge. And Christ will certainly not forsake someone who has given their life to Him even if such a person is stupid and weak.

God changes us through the Holy Spirit who works to bring about change in our lives. Often, God's guiding us and changing us is barely noticeable, except in retrospect when we examine what we've been through and we're we are actually at. But He is forever active. I can see much evidence in my own life of God's providence. Also, there was a major personal crisis I had end of 2011, but God carefully directed and brought change to me and my wife.

Often with sin, there are underlying issues. It isn't as straight-forward as you or Gman might perceive to not do A or not do B. God can clearly see the thorns and thistles in our lives, our upbringing, experiences, events and physiology which shapes who we are. And being the master healer He is, He carefully takes them out one by one revealing our wounds, allowing us to be healed.

It is God who heals us and transforms us. We may not even be willing participants, other than we know in our hearts that we do love God. Having given our lives to God, I have full confidence and faith in God's ability to unearth my sins, reveal my wounds and bring about healing and change in my life for the better.

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.

Is "love" really something that can really be commanded, or is "love" a response of the heart?

Don't you see here Christ is even emphasizing that God doesn't desire us to perform this or that ritual according to the Law, but rather it is our hearts God desires?

Loving God isn't really something obligatory for "love" doesn't have an obligatory quality to it. Rather, loving God and others is something done from our heart. God desires to love us, and for us to love Him back. He can't command love from us. For true love to exist, it requires God allowing us the freedom to deny and hate Him.

So given this, my response is we are to pay heed that the crux of the Law is about loving God and others. But love is not something that can be commanded. Rather, Christ is saying, "focus on loving God and others, and let me deal with the Law." (as we now understand Christ came to fulfill the requirements of the Law so we could be forgiven and set free from sin)

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?

As mentioned earlier in this post, these are people trying to game God and play Him the fool. I'm also inclined to believe it includes those who believe they are saved by being good and trying to keep the Law.

This is one reason I take this issue so seriously. Love following the Law all you want. I take no issue with that. But if you then add in works with one's faith and hope in Christ to be saved from God's righteous judgement, then you will be judged according to your works rather than pass from judgement thanks to Christ's work.

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.

Hopefully I have helped to provide you with a better understanding of my beliefs.

Regarding "more than simply hold a belief in Christ," the Greek term often translated in English as "believe" is pistuo which can carry a richer meaning of "believe", "trust" and "commit." Even the demons believe as you know. Mere belief will not do, I agree with you there. Rather it is a heart response God desires. He wants us to love Him, as He first demonstrated His love to through Christ. He wants us to understand our predicament and put out faith in Christ so we don't perish. He wants us to freely give our lives He gave us back to Him. That to me, more adequately covers pistuo in Christ.

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.

Double-talk leads to confusion. I have read enough to see a tendency to preach the Law and works, and then "leap backward" when directly answering in relation to one's being saved, only to then leap forward again and start arguing the importance of works to one's true belief.

In my reading these posts, I also see that it isn't just me frustrated and confused by this double-talk but also others like RickD and neo-x.

Sorry if you believe I am not understanding you, but I can only read your words. For example, weren't you quoting Scripture where God rejects those who believed in Him as though such was evidence of their failure to maintain works. Just because you add Christ into the picture, doesn't mean works aren't involved.

Consider the verse "faith without works is dead." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure you'd interpret that verse to mean unless we actively perform works then that our faith in Christ isn't real. And therefore persons who do not actively follow God's law are lost. I'd be interested to hear how you would honestly interpret this verse?

Now, if we are required to keep works after coming to Christ, then double-talk aside, our works are required for us to be saved.

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.

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?

No, just quoting Scripture: "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

Do you think Paul thought we had stopped sinning because of the way he phrased this?

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.

I think you're misunderstanding. Consider my following updated words:

"And then it'd be true to say I believe from the moment our heart changes, a spiritual change is born and our bodies are [brought into line by] God and our spirit."

I believe we want to bring our bodies under control out of love for God, rather than simply an obligated obedience. I also believe we are often unable to control our fleshly desires, and so God works with us (as I described above) to force our hand and faithfully bring change within us.

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"

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning, but, Paul's perseverance was of a physical hardship. Proven character is the substance of Paul's perseverance through hardship.

Our own persevering might be of a different kind, but we often admire those who have been through hardship and come out the other end a better person. Character is demonstrated through hardship. Even through simply enduring hardship much positive change can happen in who we become.

[KBCid]

It seems from your quoted post above in bold, that you were insinuating God gave us a power to be morally perfect.

He indeed gave us the power to choose good from bad that is limited only by our knowlege of what good and bad is. This is why he defined for all what the principles of good and bad are. The decalogue and the two main principles that they were created from define what God means by good and bad and it is entirely within our power which he gave us to choose the good from the bad.
Here is an example of how this works;
God says murder is bad and that mankind should not do it.
Now since you already know his position on the subject do you feel it is beyond your ability to choose not to murder? or do you feel confidant that you can freely choose not to murder consistently? I have no problem in making a free willed choice to follow this principle. I can make it through every single day and know that I will consistently choose not to murder. I was endowed / empowered by my creator to be able to freely choose to apply the principles he has defined. Of course I always have the choice to not follow his principles, I could walk out tomorrow and by my own free will choose to go start mowing people down because it is equally within my God given power to do such a thing if I freely choose to. We are all little "g" gods within the physical realm.

Now when you say moraly perfect there is a lot of substance to consider in that statement but the bottom line on that subject is whether we know what is moraly right in every case it would need to be applied. Moral perfection is a learned position and not an inherent quality for any being who comes into existence. No newly born being inherently has the informational content to define right and wrong in every applicable place.
So to answer your question as straightforward as I can based on my understanding of the scriptures. Yes God gave us the power from the beginning to be capable of becoming as moraly perfect as we have information to apply it with.
Part of the problem when people converse on the topic of moral perfection is that it is usually considered to be a single absolute state. however, the truth according to scripture is that our ability to know and choose the good and bad for every possible situation is not an inherent part of our being and as such we can't attain a state of absolute morality until we have the level of information that could provide us with the proper answer for every situation possible. So the best way to understand this is that it is within our power to attain to the highest level of moral perfection based on 'our' informational understanding.
In the end I can say without reserve that only God is or can be moraly perfect because he knows everthing. He will never falter on any decision of morality. We on the otherhand will probably always exist within a state of moral perfection that is inferior to Gods because its boundaries are the limits of our own understanding. This is why we need the indweling Holy Spirit... The Holy Spirit is the gift of Gods presence to help us attain to the higher levels of moral perfection by being a direct conduit between us and God who will provide us with the proper information to make the right choices. He will not make your choices for you. You will always retain free choice but, his indwelling presence will always be there to advise and teach us just as it is written;

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The understanding I have is that the relationship we have with our Creator is and always will be as it was designed to be... a two way street. We are his children as long as we continue to follow his commands of our own free will "OR" intend to follow his commands. This is an important point to understand here. Intent is one of the things God recognizes. I have read a number of passages that show Gods understanding on this point and in every case he has had mercy on mans informational deficiency when it comes to choosing between right and wrong.
The flip side of the coin however is that if you have been given a direct command and you knowingly disobey it then he can and has removed some of those people from existence. How long God chooses to put up with children who knowingly disobey is always an unknown to us but it seems safe to say there will come a point where mercy ends.

1Pe 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
1Pe 4:18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

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.

If this is all you meant then why is it relevant to this discussion? Why make mention of Elijah and Job as your examples of God's power -- they seem like less than ideal examples unless you were actually implying that "God's power" given to us is the ability to be morally good and upright.

It is relevant because it backs my assertion that our empowerment to choose good or evil was defined from the beginning and it is relevant to both Elijah and Job since they proved that man can excel at choosing good.

Don't want to pin you down, but I don't see relevance to your mentioning of "God's power" to this discussion if all you meant is God set humanity up as head of His creation. So fine, let's move on.

The relevance is that we at all times have the power to reflect God from the inside out according to the information he gave us. We have the power to choose not to murder or covet or steal etc. because we have knowlege from his word that these things are evil. God is not going to force or control us to do other than what we are freely choosing to do. So if you know that murder is bad because the tutor provided by Gods commands informed you that it was bad and you freely choose to murder anyway then you are not Gods child. You have to freely choose to follow Gods laws in order to show him true love.

I didn't say you said we were commanded not to murder because man is imbued with power (although it is confusing why you'd introduce our power as head of God's creation to this discussion).

Because the God given power to choose good over evil is the part that we have to apply to the knowlege of good and evil that God has supplied us. God defines right and wrong and we are supposed to apply it. This is our part in the sanctification process. We learn as we apply the information he supplies.
God says don't murder and then we are supposed to follow it because he has defined that this is a method of loving others as he does. Christ said don't hate your brother in your mind because it is the equivalent of murder and it is our duty to choose to follow it out of love for God and our neighbor. We are expected to choose to obey the moral laws as written in the old testament since they emanated from the two main conceptual laws that every law hangs on. In every way Gods moral laws stand as a guide to holy conduct that we are expected to apply to the best of our understanding.

I'm saying if God's image is destroyed in us, then we should be free to murder each other. For the reason God gives as to why we should not kill another human, is because they're created in God's image. Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
If each of us, morally upright or not, are still made in God's image, then keeping the Law has nothing to do with the Imago Dei within us. Let me be clear, that logically according to Scripture, ALL humans are made in God's image. Therefore, sinner and non-sinner alike, we are each created in God's image in virtue of just being human.

Ok I agree that man was created in the image of God and it perfectly descibes our first estate but, by our free will we chose to go against his will and effectively ceased to reflect his image and this first state of being was removed from us until the only acceptable sacrifice occured to allow us to reinstate what was lost. When God says that we shouldn't murder because we were created in his image this is as true as the fact that he is not a muderer and that murder is anti God. We show God respect and love by following the intent of his commands.
I would have to disagree with your understanding that just being a human is essentially Gods image since God is only spirit and we are flesh and spirit. If you take careful note in the verses about the image of God it states plainly that man was created / origniated in his image. One could just as easily state that man was created for the purpose of being Gods image and as such their existence being originated by God should not be revoked by anyone other than God. Essentially thou shalt not remove life since you didn't create that life

Understanding our limitations and handing over to Christ what is now rightfully His is no admission that one would or should stop trying to better themselves. I don't see the logic. Could you perhaps lay out it as a syllogistic argument?

What is our limitations?
Offering ourselves to Christ is indeed not an admission that we can stop trying to be better. The question in play on this subject is whether we are obligated to do what we know is right because God gave us some knowlege for how to attain to a holier state by following his laws. The current forum position that has been conveyed to me is that we are not obligated to follow these laws because or they were done away with or that they were for the Jews only. So we are not obligated to follow them and our salvation has no bearing on whether we try to follow them or not.

For example, if Christ fulfilled the Law so that those who place their faith in Christ are no longer bound by it, then this means we as Christians should stop trying to follow God. I fail to see how this is sound? It doesn't follow. Rather, I argue that it actually means we as Christians would want to follow and please God.

[/quote]

Indeed sir both G and I are putting forth this same sentiment. The law is there for those who are breaking it. It is there to convince people of their ungodliness by defining what it means to be ungodly and it is a tutor to instruct us in the basics of how we should live out of love for God.
So ultimately I am asserting my understanding that all the laws that dealt with defining how to exist with both God and man are still a sin to break... by anyone... saved or not because at the point where you break them knowingly then you are in fact under the curse of those laws again.
God said thou shalt not kill, if you say you have given yourself to Christ and go out and murder then in fact you have not given yourself to Christ and are not a child of God or the seed of Abraham. In essence lawbreakers are under the penalties of the law, and the children of God are not, simply because they freely choose not to break the law and thus cannot be held to pay its required penalties for breaking it.
This understanding includes the possibility that believers can fall away of their own free will by intentionally sinning and thus fall from grace.

This short reply should give you some insight into my understanding of the subject and allow for some further comment on what I have replied to from your last post. At this time however I cannot answer the rest of your post because of a limit in my free time but I will continue when I have another chance to get to it.

[Kurieuo]

Thanks KBCid for the restraint and manner you displayed in your last post.

I understand this issue can be a sore one for anyone on either side, but appreciate you've tried to respond to my questions and clarify yourself.

What I originally took for ignoring what was being said, I'm beginning to think perhaps could be a misunderstanding of words.

Just wondering, whether English is your first language? Please don't take that wrong, you write well, but I'm just noticing what I say is sometimes understood wrong. Just means I'll try to be more clear with my own words when discussing.

[Gman]

And He died so that we don't have to fulfill the law. Christ fulfilled the law, he was not the law. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Hello! In whatever sense you are trying to make God=Law metaphor as literal as possible, you are just making one huge theological blunder here.

According to Christ, He did not come to destroy the law...

Matthew 5:17-19, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 5:48, “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

Jesus Christ was G-d... Therefore all the Laws given on Mt. Sinai and elsewhere in the Tanach or OT were given by Jesus Christ Himself.. There is only one lawgiver.. Not two according to James 4:12.

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.”

I don't get you G. On one hand you hold that Christ fulfilled the law, saved us all, and we are not saved by following the law. On the other hand you keep on saying the law as being still in effect (only those commands you think apply to you today) and we are to follow it for it was never abolished (all of it, since you would agree if the law was never abolished it is in effect in its entirety). This logic is internally inconsistent.

And I do not know what is it that you hold, if a person like me does not follow the law? But I do think it will be something along the lines of disobedience etc. may be more.

however if someone is born again believer and still do not follow the law, what does he lose? If according to you such a believer is condemned to hell or loose salvation then we disagree. However if not, then I do not know what is it that really matters here.

Again, I'm not saying that we follow the law to attain salvation.. That isn't the point here.. We follow it because we are righteous..

You continue to say that grace's definition is the law. How could it be? Expound on it.
Stoning someone for collecting food on a Saturday, in a theocracy, is supposed to be loving? Burning witches is loving? stoning prostitutes is loving? what kind of definition of love is that?

Yes I've addressed stoning before, so I'll say this again.. Technically speaking if we are following G-d's commandments we can't stone others under accordance of the Law.. Why? Because stoning, when followed out correctly, does not apply outside the land or without the ruling Sanhedrin (setup by G-d) according to the Torah. Deuteronomy 16:18-20, Deuteronomy 17:2, 8-13. Furthermore it can be argued that Christ saved from the penalty of sin by becoming a sin for us and dieing (or stoned) in our place as recorded in Galatians 3:13.

At times Christ completely went against the law to prove to people that the law was not the master, and it was not perfect. The law deals with body not with spirit. How can something of the flesh supersede the spirit?

The law is only good for those who can fulfill 100% it and since no one can, it becomes a source of curse and punishment, no matter how holy the law is, to a sinner, it is certifiable death.

I am assuming that within a theocracy and priesthood, you would admit that the entire law must be followed?

No.. Not actually. Christ never went against His laws.. He was against the Pharisee's Talmud (the Jewish Oral laws) but not G-d's commandments themselves. He was also against those who turned G-d's ways into a mental gymnastics of legalism.. But never the law itself.

Romans 3:31, “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.”

[Wolfgang]

I could not get this site for several days, but now I can. Maybe something was wrong with my computer.

Anyway, recently jlay tried to use Colossians 2:16 on me as Biblical evidence that Old Testament law keeping was no longer required. Read the following, then come to your own conclusion about what that verse really says.


Colossians 2:16,17: "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." --- New King James Version

The context or subject content here is not about Biblically forbidden food or the Mosaic festival days or the Sabbath days themselves, but a warning by Paul to the Colossians to ignore criticism by a local group of ascetic heretics within the church condemning the gentile Christians in Colosse for physically enjoying the feast meals on the Sabbath and holy festival days. These verses actually confirm that the law keeping gentile Colossians were observing the Saturday Sabbath and the Mosaic festival days, because the new Christian church had taught them to obey those laws. If the Colossians had not been observing these days, the heretics would have had no basis for their objections to the eating and drinking aspects, the feasting part, of the holy days and the Saturday Sabbath. The Colossian Christians were primarily gentile. Yet Paul in his letter to the Colossians never said or even hinted that obeying the Sabbath and holy day laws was no longer necessary.

Many of the residents of Colosse adhered to a pagan philosophy of self denial and abstinence from pleasure in an attempt to achieve perfection. They also thought that anyone who was religious should behave as they did. Even many of the new members of the Christian church in Colosse brought their pagan philosophies with them, adversely influencing other Christians. As a result of obeying Biblical laws such as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, The Feast of Tabernacles, etc., the converted Colossians were learning how to enjoy life as God intended, but the ascetics began to look down on them and condemn them. In verse 16 Paul told the church members to essentially ignore what the non-Christians thought about their enjoyment of eating good food, drinking wine, and pleasurably celebrating the Sabbath and the festival days.

The original Greek word for "food" is brosis, Strong's number 1035, which has as its first definition "the act of eating." That definition places emphasis on eating in general, not on any specific kind of food such as the forbidden foods. The Greek word for "drink" is posis, Strong's 4213. Posis is defined as or suggests "the act of drinking and that which is drunk." So brosis and posis both emphasize the act of eating or drinking, and posis places little importance on what is drunk. The very fact that "drink" is in verse 16 is an immediate tip that judgmental criticism was being directed at something other than the Biblically forbidden foods since none of the food laws prohibit what one can drink. The Scriptures elsewhere, though, do forbid drinking blood according to Genesis 9:4 and Acts 15:20. Therefore the Colossian Christians were not drinking blood. Blood, also, of course, never even was an accepted drink in civilized societies. "Drink" was probably referring to popular wines or other good tasting drinks.

The Greek word for "regarding" is meros, Strong's 3313. The primary definition of meros is "a part, portion." Meros in the New Testament is defined as "part" 24 times, "portion" 3 times, "coast" 3 times, "behalf" 2 times, "respect" 2 times, and has miscellaneous definitions 9 other times. Therefore Paul was advising the Colossians to not let others judge them concerning only a part or portion of the festivals, new moons, and sabbaths. The emphasis was only on some part (apparently the aesthetic consumption of tasty feast meals) of those special days, not on the entirety of those days.

The next step is to Biblically verify that it was the pagan influenced ascetics, not righteous Christian believers, who were most likely doing the judging in Colossians 2:16. The following NKJV verses within the second chapter of Colossians give us good clues.

Colossians 2:8: "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to THE TRADITION OF MEN, according to THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE WORLD, and not according to Christ." The forbidden foods, Mosaic festival days, and sabbaths never were part of the traditions of men or the basic principles of the world.

Colossians 2:18: "Let no one cheat you of your reward, TAKING DELIGHT IN false humility and WORSHIP OF ANGELS, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." The people judging the Colossians in verse 16 were people that worshipped angels, so they could not possibly have been righteous Christians or righteous Jews because the Bible nowhere allows Christians or Jews to worship angels.

Colossians 2:20,21,22,23: "Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why as though living in the world, DO YOU SUBJECT YOURSELVES TO REGULATIONS--- 21 'DO NOT TOUCH, DO NOT TASTE, DO NOT HANDLE,' 22 which all concern things which perish with the using---ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENTS AND DOCTRINES OF MEN? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in SELF IMPOSED RELIGION, false humility, AND NEGLECT OF THE BODY, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh." The words in red and the man made, self denying regulations prohibiting certain kinds of touching, tasting, and handling very strongly suggest that excessive asceticism was a major part of the beliefs of those heretical Christians doing the judging. The words "according to the commandments and doctrines of men" clearly do not refer to the Mosaic dietary, festival, and Sabbath laws because those laws are divine, not man made.

The last part of verse 17: "...... but the substance is of Christ" is not as accurate or literal as the Greek. In the first place, the word "is" has been artificially added. The Greek for "substance" is soma, Strong's 4983 which means "the body" or "the body as a whole." The Greek for "of Christ" is Christos, Strong's 5547 which means Jesus Christ. Verses 16,17: "So let no one judge you ...... but the body (or church) of Christ." is probably a much better translation. Paul is advising the Colossians to be concerned about being judged by only the Christian Church, that is, its righteous members, not by people inside or outside the church with unBiblical, heretical, man made philosophies.

I keep reading on this religious debate site that Jesus "fulfilled" the law as in Matthew 5:17. Really? Has anybody taken 5 minutes to check the definition of the Greek for fulfill, pleroo? The first, primary, numero uno definition of pleroo is simply to "add something to something else," which is exactly what Jesus did do, by improving or MAGNIFYING the law as predicted accurately by Isaiah in Isaiah 42:21. ( Don't look at women with lust, don't hate others, etc.)

The ancient Colossian Christians apparently sincerely believed that Jesus did not fulfill the law in a way that allowed Christians to skip obeying the law, because Colossians 2:16 indicated the Colossian Christians were obeying the law, which is what brought on judgmental criticism by the unrighteous ascetics.

The above was not copied from someone else's website, but rather from my own research, study, notes, etc.

[Gman]

Wolfee.. Just for the record.. Are you implying that we keep G-d's laws to get salvation? Just a short answer please...

[Wolfgang]

Gman, I am not really sure what words to use to answer your question. By the behavior of the righteous Colossians being unfairly criticized by others, were they themselves obeying the law? I fully acknowledge that according to the Bible it is grace that really saves us, not law keeping. The distance you seem to want to put between law keeping and salvation may be answered best by just looking at Matthew 7:23. I did not put Matthew 7:23 in the Bible. It was there before I was on the earth. I guess my short, quick answer is to look at Matthew 7:23 and honestly, humbly acknowledge what it says, literally.

[Gman]

Gman, I am not really sure what words to use to answer your question. By the behavior of the righteous Colossians being unfairly criticized by others, were they themselves obeying the law? I fully acknowledge that according to the Bible it is grace that really saves us, not law keeping. The distance you seem to want to put between law keeping and salvation may be answered best by just looking at Matthew 7:23. I did not put Matthew 7:23 in the Bible. It was there before I was on the earth. I guess my short, quick answer is to look at Matthew 7:23 and honestly, humbly acknowledge what it says, literally.

Yes.. Very good point. I agree that we should be careful with G-d's laws. I believe we would want to follow them if we say we love Him at least.

[RickD]

KBC wrote:
This understanding includes the possibility that believers can fall away of their own free will by intentionally sinning and thus fall from grace.

KBC, that's interesting. Do you know what the bible says regarding falling from grace?

Let's see in Galatians 5:4:

You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Those who have fallen from grace, have done so because they were trying to be justified by the law. Not from intentionally sinning.

KBC wrote:
The understanding I have is that the relationship we have with our Creator is and always will be as it was designed to be... a two way street. We are his children as long as we continue to follow his commands of our own free will "OR" intend to follow his commands.

That's a pretty tough way to live as a believer. Always living with the burden of "what did I mess up today, that may cause me to lose my salvation".

Living by the spirit, and by faith in what Christ has done, allows a believer to live as one already approved by God. Not as one constantly under the burden of striving for God's approval.

What parent would tell his child that he was his child only as long as he does what he's told, or as long as he at least, intends to do what he's told? My son is my child no matter what he does. Once he's my child, he can't stop being my child. The same is true with a believer and God. A believer is a new creation. Believe on Christ and have eternal life. Once one believes on Christ, he has eternal life. If one could lose that eternal life, was it really eternal?

[Kurieuo]

Maybe the question to be put forward (to Gman, KCBid, Wolfgang) is whether you believe one can loose their salvation by breaking the law?

To clarify this question, I think it important to distinguish two moral laws here:

• 1) The Law as given to Moses and Israel, and
  2) moral values God created within us (such that we intuitively understand murder is wrong, or that "love" is good).

A sincere heart response results in a change of character -- a desire to uphold the good values God implanted inside us, even if we fail to do so. On the other hand, to keep the Mosaic Law first requires a knowledge of it. It requires much more and the reasons behind such laws may not be readily obvious to all.

So a follow-on question (to Gman, KCBid and Wolfgang), is whether one can loose their salvation by not trying to learn about and keep the Mosaic Law?

Fair enough, you may believe one is saved through faith in Christ, but questions about whether one remains in Christ are now on the table.

[Wolfgang]

Maybe the best person to answer that question is Paul himself. He indicated that yes, most definitely, he could lose his salvation according to 1 Corinthians 9:27: "But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified." --- New King James Version

Paul admits he himself could fail to be saved! The Greek word for "disqualified" is adokimos, Strong's 96, defined as unapproved, rejected, worthless, castaway, and reprobate. 2 Corinthians 13:5: "..... Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?---unless indeed you are disqualified." --- NKJV The very same Greek word adokimos also appears in 2 Corinthians 13:5 as the original Greek word for "disqualified," very strongly implying that Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:27 was admitting that he could lose his salvation by no longer having "Jesus Christ in him" if his sins were serious and prolonged enough to "disqualify" him.

[Gman]

Maybe the question to be put forward (to Gman, KCBid, Wolfgang) is whether you believe one can loose their salvation by breaking the law?

I would say that G-d is the ultimate judge of salvation.. However it could be argued that one who rapes, pillages, murders, or steals from others was saved to begin with.

To clarify this question, I think it important to distinguish two moral laws here:

• 1) The Law as given to Moses and Israel, and
  2) moral values God created within us (such that we intuitively understand murder is wrong, or that "love" is good).

A sincere heart response results in a change of character -- a desire to uphold the good values God implanted inside us, even if we fail to do so. On the other hand, to keep the Mosaic Law first requires a knowledge of it. It requires much more and the reasons behind such laws may not be readily obvious to all.

I would say no to this... There are not two different covenants given to two different peoples. You could argue that certain practices given to Israelis like animal sacrifices or the temple services are currently void but not permanently void. And sacrifice is still being done today through Christ Himself.

So a follow-on question (to Gman, KCBid and Wolfgang), is whether one can loose their salvation by not trying to learn about and keep the Mosaic Law?

Fair enough, you may believe one is saved through faith is Christ, but questions about whether one remains in Christ are now on the table.

I'll put this again.. Righteousness is imputed on the basis of faith and obedience to G-d. James makes it clear that faith without obedience is empty faith, so you can’t simply say it’s a matter of what you believe. Faith and obedience have to be united. 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. When G-d looks at us and sees righteousness, it is because of our faith. Even the example of Abraham in the binding of Isaac, if you really consider it, that fact that G-d declared him righteous is not from the act of offering Isaac, since he didn’t actually complete the task, but the willingness to offer Isaac on the basis of G-d’s command.

[Kurieuo]

If righteousness is imputed on the basis of faith and obedience to G-d, then the question that comes to me is: "Who can be saved?"

[Kurieuo]

• 1) The Law as given to Moses and Israel, and
  2) moral values God created within us (such that we intuitively understand murder is wrong, or that "love" is good).

A sincere heart response results in a change of character -- a desire to uphold the good values God implanted inside us, even if we fail to do so. On the other hand, to keep the Mosaic Law first requires a knowledge of it. It requires much more and the reasons behind such laws may not be readily obvious to all.

I would say no to this... There are not two different covenants given to two different peoples. You could argue that certain practices given to Israelis like animal sacrifices or the temple services are currently void but not permanently void. And sacrifice is still being done today through Christ Himself.

Wasn't making some distinction between convenants here, but just remove the theology for a moment.

Clearly, there are non-Christians and people within other nations who do what is right. God has given us a moral conscience. He has implanted some standard of right and wrong within us. And if we keep it, then we bear witness to the law God implanted in us. Yet, the Torah has to be read to be understood. It is not something God implants within us. It needs to be revealed to us.

So even if there aren't two covenants (though you know I disagree), then it's still the case one can understand the law God implanted within them without understanding the Law given to Moses.