Are we still required to follow Mosaic law?

[RickD]

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?"

If righteousness is imputed on the basis of faith plus obedience, then we would have to live our lives never sure of our salvation. Always striving for God's approval, hoping, praying, stressing, and wondering if we've done enough. Or if we've been obedient enough. To me, that's not freedom in Christ.

[Gman]

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?"

The offer is open to anyone I believe.. It has nothing to do with ones status or genetics, etc.. If we say we believe in Him then the product of our faith (our works) should hopefully reflect that.. But technically no one can really do all the thing's in G-d's commandments. That's why we need His grace.. But that doesn't mean we just toss it all away either. That's all I'm saying. We follow Him because He is an awesome God.. And His commandments are righteousness.

[Gman]

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.

Sounds like you are referring to Romans 2..

Romans 2:12-16 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

[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?"

If righteousness is imputed on the basis of faith plus obedience, then we would have to live our lives never sure of our salvation. Always striving for God's approval, hoping, praying, stressing, and wondering if we've done enough. Or if we've been obedient enough. To me, that's not freedom in Christ.

I don't know. Many Christians who'd believe such still somehow find comfort.

Take Catholicism -- perhaps they're right in having priests who can intercede with God on our behalf so we can be forgiven of any ongoing disobedience.

People take comfort in that. Not sure I could though. Byblos do you have a list of which sins are venial versus those that are mortal?

[RickD]

Kurieuo, you just had to play that Catholic card. I can't believe you went there. Of all the no good, low down, dirty...

[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?"

The offer is open to anyone I believe.. It has nothing to do with ones status or genetics, etc.. If we say we believe in Him then the product of our faith (our works) should hopefully reflect that.. But technically no one can really do all the thing's in G-d's commandments. That's why we need His grace.. But that doesn't mean we just toss it all away either. That's all I'm saying. We follow Him because He is an awesome God.. And His commandments are righteousness.

Yeah, but... seriously understand what you said. That is, take those words of James as seriously meaning "righteousness is only imputed on the basis of faith and obedience."

To be honest, James is troubling to me. Along with many others that appear to focus on the importance of works. It requires a bit of reading into it to make it sit right with my position. Certainly, only a foolish grace-driven Christian would ignore the emphasis often placed on works in Scripture and steering away from sin.

Don't get me wrong. It doesn't scare me because I might be wrong. It scares me because if your interpretation is right then I see I'm damned. But not just that. I think everyone is damned because I doubt there is anyone on Earth (besides Christ) who can obey the Law 100% as God intended, whether prior to or after becoming Christian.

Furthermore, sancification is not a required process - we are simply sanctified when we come to Christ and that's it. Or perhaps only at death if we've been able to demonstrate our faith and obedience.

You admit "no one can really do all the thing's in G-d's commandments." That's why we need His grace. But, then... what is our "faith"? Is our "faith" required or not... and if "faith and obedience" are required together for Christ's righteousness to be imputed, and we keep disobeying through failing to do all the thing's in G-d's commandments... where does that leave us?

I'll tell you where I see it leaves me. Dead in my sin. I'll be suffering God's wrath when I die.

[Kurieuo]

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.

Sounds like you are referring to Romans 2..

Romans 2:12-16 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Yep, that is certainly the passage I had in mind.

[Gman]

You admit "no one can really do all the thing's in G-d's commandments." That's why we need His grace. But, then... what is our "faith"? Is our "faith" required or not... and if "faith and obedience" are required together for Christ's righteousness to be imputed, and we keep disobeying through failing to do all the thing's in G-d's commandments... where does that leave us?

I'll tell you where I see it leaves me. Dead in my sin. I'll be suffering God's wrath when I die.

Now you are sounding like Romans 7...

Romans 7:14-25
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

But if you see towards the end he states, thanks be to G-d who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord. So there is your answer.. But yes, it's a struggle...

You aren't the only one..

[Kurieuo]

So then, at the end of the day, God's grace sustains us although we might and do disobey. Therefore, is it fair for me to conclude that faith with obedience isn't required to be saved afterall?

I'm not advocating that we therefore go and willfully sin and break every commandment... but at the end of the day our disobedience doesn't stop Christ's righteousness being imputed?

[Byblos]

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?"

If righteousness is imputed on the basis of faith plus obedience, then we would have to live our lives never sure of our salvation. Always striving for God's approval, hoping, praying, stressing, and wondering if we've done enough. Or if we've been obedient enough. To me, that's not freedom in Christ.

I don't know. Many Christians who'd believe such still somehow find comfort.

Take Catholicism -- perhaps they're right in having priests who can intercede with God on our behalf so we can be forgiven of any ongoing disobedience.

People take comfort in that. Not sure I could though. Byblos do you have a list of which sins are venial versus those that are mortal?

It's really not a matter of producing a list or drawing a red line that one can cross back and forth where on one side there's salvation and on the other there isn't. It's not like that at all. For me it's very basic, simple. Once a person is baptized into Christ (and please let's not get into the water baptism thing again, you know what I mean, belief in Christ in and of itself is dying of the old and the rebirth of the new), one crosses forever from being under the law (and therefore judged by the law) to being in Christ (and therefore a child of God and rightful heir to the inheritance). There is no turning back; what there is is the forfeiture of the inheritance itself (eternal life). How does one forfeit their inheritance? By continuously sinning and repenting? An emphatic NO. One forfeits their inheritance by a willful, conscious decision to renounce their heir-ship. God is faithful; God is also fair. Without free will, love is meaningless. Without the freedom to reject the inheritance, it's an eternal prison sentence no matter how you cut it.

[jlay]

This is exactly why much of Protestantism is an utter waste. What Byb speaks of is better than what Calvinism or Armianism offer. They'd be better off to become RCC, IMO.
Calvinism is security w/out assurance and Armianism is assurance w/out security. http://cleargospel.org/topics.php?t_id=1&c_id=8
If the Law is contingent, in any way (required, or evidence) then we are not free from it's penalty and faith in Christ is not enough.

Did Jesus really say, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:24)
Maybe we need a footnote. He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, (and then keeps the mosaic law, and doesn't waiver in their faith, or renounce that they once had faith) hath everlasting life.....

[Wolfgang]

"Who can be saved?" is a great question. Since we can assume that God is far more than quite decent, of course, it would seem that an 8 month old child who dies prematurely at 8 months of age will have a fair chance at salvation some time again in the future. Similarly, if a Christian congregation in a remote area of Borneo or Burma has only the King James Bible to study, with no access to the internet, no concordances, no Bible lexicons, no other Bible study tools, no literature from the Jews, no other literature to help them understand the Bible better and to obey it better, then I do not think that congregation is lost or has permanently lost its salvation even though that congregation has been taught by some minister to incorrectly obey many Biblical laws. That congregation may not be in the first resurrection, though. Actually I do not really know for sure, I am only speculating and using logic. Amazingly, ignorance is not an acceptable excuse to break divine laws, according to the Mosaic laws, and certain New Testament verses. (U.S. traffic laws are the same, you cannot plead ignorance in traffic court, especially for the more serious offenses, most of the time.) The Book of Revelation in one of its verses says, "this is the first resurrection," very strongly implying there will be a second resurrection. The Book of Corinthians describes a resurrection, the first one, in which saved Christians (the dead ones) will rise from their graves in a new, literally REBORN spiritual, now immortal body. The second resurrection, occurring after the Christian millennium, will apparently be the one where the 8 month old child and perhaps the Borneo/Burma Christian congregation will appear. Just think, the baby will be allowed to grow into full adulthood according to an Old Testament prophecy and the congregation will live again, AND HAVE ACCESS TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT OCCURRED DURING THE MILLENNIUM WITH JESUS TEACHING DURING THAT THOUSAND YEARS. Anyone in the second resurrection will have all religious questions answered and completely resolved. They will have no excuse to misunderstand what the Bible says and instructs. Satan, at the same time, though, will be released one more time to deceive, so that may trap some Christians.

The now classic question made famous, I think, after the Watergate scandal, may apply to present day Christians, "What did you know, and when did you know it?" How they answer that question may help decide if they wind up in the first or second resurrection, (speculating), according to some people.

[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?"

If righteousness is imputed on the basis of faith plus obedience, then we would have to live our lives never sure of our salvation. Always striving for God's approval, hoping, praying, stressing, and wondering if we've done enough. Or if we've been obedient enough. To me, that's not freedom in Christ.

I don't know. Many Christians who'd believe such still somehow find comfort.

Take Catholicism -- perhaps they're right in having priests who can intercede with God on our behalf so we can be forgiven of any ongoing disobedience.

People take comfort in that. Not sure I could though. Byblos do you have a list of which sins are venial versus those that are mortal?

It's really not a matter of producing a list or drawing a red line that one can cross back and forth where on one side there's salvation and on the other there isn't. It's not like that at all. For me it's very basic, simple. Once a person is baptized into Christ (and please let's not get into the water baptism thing again, you know what I mean, belief in Christ in and of itself is dying of the old and the rebirth of the new), one crosses forever from being under the law (and therefore judged by the law) to being in Christ (and therefore a child of God and rightful heir to the inheritance). There is no turning back; what there is is the forfeiture of the inheritance itself (eternal life). How does one forfeit their inheritance? By continuously sinning and repenting? An emphatic NO. One forfeits their inheritance by a willful, conscious decision to renounce their heir-ship. God is faithful; God is also fair. Without free will, love is meaningless. Without the freedom to reject the inheritance, it's an eternal prison sentence no matter how you cut it.

You might recall that's not far off where I fall as evidenced in a discussion (Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone) I had with Jac about 5 years ago now . I also don't think this means we can't possibly be assured and secured in our faith as we know whether we love or hate Christ/God. Just the nature of time and us dwelling in it, means we are different today than who are were 10 years ago, and will no doubt be different again the day we die. We are quite dynamic in who we are until the day we die. But that's for a different discussion...

Btw, I also asked my mother-in-law (a devout Catholic) on mortal sin and what it means. Her understanding is that once one comes to Christ they're saved and can be forgiven, although there might be "special circumstances" when God doesn't forgive some who willfully commit mortal sins like murder or the like thereafter. God's the judge for her as He knows all. Which seems reasonable.

When asked about the Catholic stance, she said some will write that severe sins are not pardonable, while others they are. So is it fair to say this is something also debated within Catholicism itself?

[Kurieuo]

This is exactly why much of Protestantism is an utter waste. What Byb speaks of is better than what Calvinism or Armianism offer. They'd be better off to become RCC, IMO.
Calvinism is security w/out assurance and Armianism is assurance w/out security. http://cleargospel.org/topics.php?t_id=1&c_id=8
If the Law is contingent, in any way (required, or evidence) then we are not free from it's penalty and faith in Christ is not enough.

I didn't know you were Catholic jlay?

I consider myself Protestant, but I'm neither fully Calvinist or Arminian so I guess that makes... a Protestant Catholic... or confused

Did Jesus really say, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:24)
Maybe we need a footnote. He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, (and then keeps the mosaic law, and doesn't waiver in their faith, or renounce that they once had faith) hath everlasting life.....

I know you're just using sarcasm, but in all fairness it is often wrong to read one verse in isolation. So perhaps a commentary giving the context and pointing to other revelant verses in Scripture would be more appropriate than a footnote?

This is a serious issue that deserves discussion. Afterall if we need to work at maintaining our salvation, than that is more than simply believing or even having a love and appreciate of Christ and God.

[Byblos]

Btw, I also asked my mother-in-law (a devout Catholic) on mortal sin and what it means. Her understanding is that once one comes to Christ they're saved and can be forgiven, although there might be "special circumstances" when God doesn't forgive some who willfully commit mortal sins like murder or the like thereafter. God's the judge for her as He knows all. Which seems reasonable.

When asked about the Catholic stance, she said some will write that severe sins are not pardonable, while others they are. So is it fair to say this is something also debated within Catholicism itself?

I hate to tell you this but your mother-in-law is wrong. There is no such thing as an unforgivable sin. The unforgivable sin is to willfully and completely reject the inheritance and to die in that state.