The Law

[Gman]

Regarding G's salvation.

Ok.. So now you have the power to judge my salvation?? Why are you doing this?

I think Jac said it best. We watched G go through this process on the forum. The Bible says that even the elect can be deceived. And, yes we must humbly admit that each of us could be deceived.
I can safely say that the Gospel is not, 'trust Christ, plus convert to Judaism.' I don't think this is how G came to faith, as we saw at first an interest in Hebrew tradition develop into something else. And this occured long after he had trusted Christ.
Gman condemns the Free Grace message why?
1) Because he believes it promotes living in sin. This much he has made clear.
2) Because of the sin in his own life he was attracted to the Torah following practice. He just testified to this.

No.. You don't understand what I'm saying... At all. What I'm saying is that if you destroy G-d's commandments you are destroying G-d's grace. Why? Because it is G-d's commandments that CONVICT us of sin that LEAD us to Christ which in turn PROVIDES us HIS GRACE... Without the definition of sin (as recorded in G-d's Bible), we have no definition of grace, plain and simple...

That is why Paul stated the following..

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

Romans 6:1-2, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?”

Romans 7:7, What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

Ok think of it like this... Do we obey all the laws on the freeway? Of course we don't... Ever had a rolling stop at a stop sign? Congratulations, you have just broken the law... So does that mean that we tear down all the stop sign now?? Of course not.. It's the same thing with G-d's commandments. Do we follow them all the time? Of course not, but we don't toss them away either.. Once we understand that they bring freedom, as all laws do, then we follow them in faith..

This tells me quite a bit. Either someone presented Free Grace in a distorted way, or G came to learn it that way for himself. Either way, that is not consistent with the Free Grace message I have come to learn and preach. If sinful living were OK, then Paul would not have had to write the majority of his letters which dealt with behavioral matters. Despite explaining this over and over, G continues to make these accusations, which simply are NOT true.
And here is the danger. Each of sees our behaviors that do not line up with Holy or Righteous. I think we can all agree in this respect. This can and should trouble the believer. Sadly, this is an area where doubt and confusion creep in. And we have an enemy that seeks to steal, kill and destroy.
If we are made Holy, does the enemy want us to live in a knowledge of this reality? No. He wants us to doubt who we are "In Christ." A believer is only effective when he is walking in the spirit. This isn't some mystical experience. This is putting off the old man, and putting on the new. Paul says, we are new creatures IN CHRIST. The old is gone. Yet, the reality is that we are still in the same physical bodies, which are the remnants of the dead man, or the flesh. This dead body still has the same memories, and stimulations as before. But we absolutely do have a treasure in this earthen vessel. The disconnect is simply that we don't trust this to be the case. We doubt that we are new, holy, righteous, blessed with every spiritual blessing, and seated in heavenly places. What we often do is fail to put off the old man, as well as put on the new man. How does this happen? Through faith. It is all about how we THINK. "Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh." (Romans 13:14)
Am I surprised by Gman's turning to this? No. G looked at his behavior and knew something was not lining up. And like most of us, he likely began to doubt who He was, IN CHRIST. And religion found a foothold. I think we can all agree that he is well endoctrinated into this movement. And it seems that there is little we can do through discussion and debate. However, if G did trust in Christ alone, then He absolutely is saved, and we can pray that God will move in his heart.

And here is the danger?

Can't you see how this "free grace" theology has destroyed many many lives? To teach that the commandments of G-d are legalism and that since Christ is Holy we have no responsibly to be holy? What kind of faith are we expounding here? Based on what? Just look sometime at the divorce rates of Christians.. Pornography, drugs, rape and murder are commonplace in Christian families as well.. We are no better than our atheist neighbor next door.. We have no right to judge them.

"For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen. (Eph. 3:14-21)

Thanks.. I think you are directing that at me.. And please pray that I FOLLOW G-d's commandments in love too...Because that is what they can be if we follow them in His Holy Spirit..

[Kurieuo]

Thanks everyone, glad to see my question was given some thought.

So the majority of us (except maybe Jac and Jlay who question whether Gman ever did understand the Gospel to truly put his faith in Christ ), don't necessarily question Gman's salvation any more than say each other?

The irony I was seeing is that "Grace" itself seems to be turning into a form of legalism. That is, if Gman errs into now adding the Law to what is already done by God's grace through faith in Christ, those of us who embrace grace come down like a tonne of bricks on such legalist heretics. In so doing our "grace" kind of starts looking quite legalistic itself. This is what prompted my question as to whether some question whether Gman is still saved. Trying to understand why those of us who so strong advocate "grace" were becoming soo impassioned against Gman.

So Gman thinks the Law is loving, wasn't nailed to the cross so much as our list of sins... ok. Gman, you want to abstain from "eating meat" because your conscience tells you otherwise, then love and keep the Law in the manner you feel is right. You're theological understanding is very different to my own, but... these issues have been around since Christianity's beginning -- it's one that even Paul shamed Peter over.

Just be careful not to turn into a Pharisee or hypocrite -- keep being real and honest and still extend grace to others. How you can do this? I don't know. This is a serious theological issue with ramifications across various doctrines and even how one behaves and treats others.

Let me be clear that I don't question Gman's being saved. Even if he did end up with an entirely distorted view that one must have faith in Christ AND keep the Law to be saved -- I think such is misplaced fervour that won't undo God's grace that has already been received. Perhaps it can be turned into an idol, perhaps Gman has turned the Law into an idol. But God is after the heart, and I don't question Gman on that.

I personally see Gman stops short of adding "the Law" to be saved assuming that it ought to follow after coming to Christ. Gman touches the edges here and there in flirting with the Law and salvation, which again causes the sparks to turn into flames in discussions of Law vs. Grace. I can't see how even accepting the Law in the sanctification process doesn't lead to absolute uncertainty regarding one's salvation.

I mean, if it necessarily follows conversion -- well I often seem at times worse than I was in the past. How do I know I'm really saved unless I see myself going in the right direction and getting better and better? Should I keep a diary and be carefully watching myself? I think if one thinks like that, that they fail to really understand God's grace even if their desire for God is to be commended.

Furthermore, it does lead to a judgemental and legalistic attitude. I grew up with Christians who thought like this. And you place a foot wrong -- o-oh -- how unspiritual are you? Expect God to withdraw Himself from you. That bad thing that just happened to you, well it was because you swore earlier in the day or the like. Law becomes the master, and freedom to be sincere, truthful and honest in our relationships with others, ourselves and God plays second-fiddle. It's not that the Law itself is legalistic -- it's that the Law when put to work places us in a bind that we can't prevail against because it is soo damn holy. Christ set us free once and for all.

Perhaps this is why so many of us who accept grace so strongly are reacting to Gman? When we see the cage that we were freed from being placed before us again it makes us see red...

[Jac3510]

K, it's not legalism to say that combining the Law with the gospel is no gospel at all anymore than it is to say that combining works and the gospel is no gospel at all (in fact, I would say they are the same thing). Beyond that, if G wants to keep the law, then fine. He isn't under it, but he can choose to keep it. He's simply a brother of weaker conscience, and I wouldn't judge him for that. G would do well not to judge those of us who are brothers of stronger conscience and recognize and admit that we who do not live by the Law, who break it every day, do not sin in doing so, because living by the Law is simply not required in any sense of the Christian. What I would, and do, strongly react to is when he tries to put other people under the Law--when he says that the Law is still in effect, and that Christians ought to keep it. At that point, he is putting people in bondage and is making Christ useless to them.

Again, it's just the Galatian heresy. I'll say it again: I don't judge his personal salvation. If he's ever trusted Christ (and I tend to think he did before), then he is as saved as me and there is NOTHING he can do to lose that salvation, not even fall into a false gospel. If he hasn't, then there's no amount of Law keeping in the name of Christ will do anything to bring him one step closer to salvation. So if he wants to keep the Law, then fine. What he isn't to do is to tell people that the Law is still in effect and that Christians ought to keep it, that if they are saved then the Holy Spirit will lead them to keep it, etc. What he isn't to do is to say that ANY works -- including the works of the law -- are involved in ANY aspect of salvation, up to and including our daily Christian life (which we usually call sanctification). The Christian life is completely by grace--it is begun by grace, lived by grace, and completed by grace--and that grace is appropriated solely and only through faith in Christ. The moment you add the first work of the Law, be it the Mosaic or the moral, to the condition of faith, you have compromised the gospel and are no longer living under it. The moment you tell others that anything other than simple trust in Christ has anything to do with the Christian life, you have started preaching a false gospel, and that is and has always been where my concern with him is.

Finally, remember that while believing the gospel is what saves us, "saves" is a much broader term than just "gets us to heaven." The gospel is what saves us every day, and just as Paul says in Gal 3:1-5, just as we received the Holy Spirit through faith in the gospel, so too we are perfected by faith in the gospel--that is, just as the Christian life was begun by faith it is lived by faith. The gospel of Jesus Christ--not the Law--is what we live by.

Neo said it best. The gospel is anti-law. That's not legalism. That's a truth claim, and all truth claims are exclusive by their nature. As Paul says, if it is by grace it is not by works, and if it is by works then it is not by grace. If you say that's legalism, then you charge Paul with legalism; and if you recognize that is not legalism, then your recognize that salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is not legalistic either.

[Gman]

Thanks everyone, glad to see my question was given some thought.

So the majority of us (except maybe Jac and Jlay who question whether Gman ever did understand the Gospel to truly put his faith in Christ ), don't necessarily question Gman's salvation any more than say each other?

The irony I was seeing is that "Grace" itself seems to be turning into a form of legalism. That is, if Gman errs into now adding the Law to what is already done by God's grace through faith in Christ, those of us who embrace grace come down like a tonne of bricks on such legalist heretics. In so doing our "grace" kind of starts looking quite legalistic itself. This is what prompted my question as to whether some question whether Gman is still saved. Trying to understand why those of us who so strong advocate "grace" were becoming soo impassioned against Gman.

Of course when someone say's "grace" they haven't given up on on the concept of authority.. So even if you don't see G-d's commandments as instruction for your lives, you will simply create your own laws and direction and call it "free grace." In others words, you simply fill in the blanks with your own meanings.. And call it.. Well.. Christ's law.

So Gman thinks the Law is loving, wasn't nailed to the cross so much as our list of sins... ok. Gman, you want to abstain from "eating meat" because your conscience tells you otherwise, then love and keep the Law in the manner you feel is right. You're theological understanding is very different to my own, but... these issues have been around since Christianity's beginning -- it's one that even Paul shamed Peter over.

When you see the love behind the commandment's you will want to obey.. But keep in mind that many of them CAN'T be fulfilled.. Like the temple services, the Levitical priesthood services, capitol punishment, etc... And many that are left have been superseded by Christ such as the sacrificial system or instead of an Aaronic high priest, the high priest is one after the order of Melchizedek. That is, Christ..

Just be careful not to turn into a Pharisee or hypocrite -- keep being real and honest and still extend grace to others. How you can do this? I don't know. This is a serious theological issue with ramifications across various doctrines and even how one behaves and treats others.

Let me be clear that I don't question Gman's being saved. Even if he did end up with an entirely distorted view that one must have faith in Christ AND keep the Law to be saved -- I think such is misplaced fervour that won't undo God's grace that has already been received. Perhaps it can be turned into an idol, perhaps Gman has turned the Law into an idol. But God is after the heart, and I don't question Gman on that.

I need to correct you on something here K. I have never said that you have to have faith in Christ AND keep the commandments of G-d in order to be saved... Never.. I'm only saying that our obedience to G-d's laws reveals what TYPE of faith we have.. Obedience and good works are the EVIDENCE of faith.. It is NOT required for faith or salvation.. Do you see the difference?

I personally see Gman stops short of adding "the Law" to be saved assuming that it ought to follow after coming to Christ. Gman touches the edges here and there in flirting with the Law and salvation, which again causes the sparks to turn into flames in discussions of Law vs. Grace. I can't see how even accepting the Law in the sanctification process doesn't lead to absolute uncertainty regarding one's salvation.

Again, I would say that the sanctification process is also a product of faith, not that we have to be sanctified to achieve faith or salvation. For this we must turn to scripture..

2 Corinthians 6:17-18, “Therefore ‘Come out from among them And be separate,’ says the Lord. ‘Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters,’ Says the LORD Almighty.”

2 Corinthians 7:1, “Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”

2 Corinthians 7:10, “For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.”

I mean, if it necessarily follows conversion -- well I often seem at times worse than I was in the past. How do I know I'm really saved unless I see myself going in the right direction and getting better and better? Should I keep a diary and be carefully watching myself? I think if one thinks like that, that they fail to really understand God's grace even if their desire for God is to be commended.

Furthermore, it does lead to a judgemental and legalistic attitude. I grew up with Christians who thought like this. And you place a foot wrong -- o-oh -- how unspiritual are you? Expect God to withdraw Himself from you. That bad thing that just happened to you, well it was because you swore earlier in the day or the like. Law becomes the master, and freedom to be sincere, truthful and honest in our relationships with others, ourselves and God plays second-fiddle. It's not that the Law itself is legalistic -- it's that the Law when put to work places us in a bind that we can't prevail against because it is soo damn holy. Christ set us free once and for all.

Perhaps this is why so many of us who accept grace so strongly are reacting to Gman? When we see the cage that we were freed from being placed before us again it makes us see red...

I'm not saying that every time we sin, something bad will happen to you.. G-d does provide grace.. But we also need to test ourselves as well like the scripture says..

2 Corinthians 13:5-6, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you —unless, of course, you fail the test? 6 And I trust that you will discover that we have not failed the test.

Galatians 6:3-5 If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. 4 Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, 5 for each one should carry their own load.

If we can't see the sin in our own lives.. We could really start hurting others..

[Kurieuo]

Just be careful not to turn into a Pharisee or hypocrite -- keep being real and honest and still extend grace to others. How you can do this? I don't know. This is a serious theological issue with ramifications across various doctrines and even how one behaves and treats others.

Let me be clear that I don't question Gman's being saved. Even if he did end up with an entirely distorted view that one must have faith in Christ AND keep the Law to be saved -- I think such is misplaced fervour that won't undo God's grace that has already been received. Perhaps it can be turned into an idol, perhaps Gman has turned the Law into an idol. But God is after the heart, and I don't question Gman on that.

I need to correct you on something here K. I have never said that you have to have faith in Christ AND keep the commandments of G-d in order to be saved... Never.. I'm only saying that our obedience to G-d's laws reveals what TYPE of faith we have.. Obedience and good works are the EVIDENCE of faith.. It is NOT required for faith or salvation.. Do you see the difference?

I know you never said. What you said is pretty much what I said of you in my last post.

[neo-x]

Perhaps this is why so many of us who accept grace so strongly are reacting to Gman? When we see the cage that we were freed from being placed before us again it makes us see red...

I see it like that...if you go back to the law after being in Christ, that is you trust Christ but like to follow the law then I do not see any problem. Thats fine, I even respect that. I won't do it, I won't recommend it but I will accept it as okay.

Following the law because you think its still in enforce on all of us who are in Christ, Jew and gentile alike, is when you are making a serious error. It takes a complete different set of mentality to be in grace. It really does. You must have noticed, I did when I understood grace...I begin to look at people differently. I stopped quantifying sin and measuring people by that. I stopped looking at how good or bad behaviors they carried which were forbidden in the law. I stopped being judgmental (based on works) in my own understanding. I realized that the person who is the worst, is saved only by grace not by how many commands he kept. And it may seem like an ordinary point now, because we all know it, back then I thought that those who follow the law are MUCH better than those who do not. And somehow that also got equated in my mind as being the more you follow the more you are loved by God. And surprisingly the more I followed the law, even being in Christ, the more afraid I became because I was always told, God has forgiven your past sins but if you sin now, God will not forgive you. You will be punished. There is no margin for saints to be sinners. You must improve.

This is a total different thinking pattern.

When you follow the law, like my family did and me too, you have a very different mindset. It is not malicious of course but it is totally different than grace. And it stops you from seeing a lot of things.

Grace is rooted in LOVE, The O.T law is rooted in JUSTICE. That is basically it. There is no way around that. G constantly says God's commandment are good and loving. But through the eyes of the law the commands are good for those who can keep them. Those who can not keep them are cursed and doomed by those same laws. That is precisely why Paul argues that the reason why death rules everyone is because ALL HAVE SINNED ACCORDING TO THE LAW. No one can keep it to the fullest.

Hence you get a statement like Duet 28 where God actually says he will personally see to it that you are destroyed because you broke his covenant.

And this is what basically astounds me, the law and grace, two covenants given to two different audiences, are still being mixed up. O.T law, was part of a covenant with the children of Israel, in which people like G have no part. Because they do not belong to that particular family and race. It is only grace by which they can even do what they do without being under the law. And yet simulating the law and Jewish culture does not make anyone a Jew, anymore than, as Chesterton put it, standing in your garage makes you a car.

The law points to Christ, Christ does not point to the law. The law was not placed so that Christ could come and LIVE UPTO IT. The law was placed so that it could be a shadow, an imitation, of the work which Christ would do. And while Jewish culture and festivities may be very much symbolic of Christ's work, focusing on them to get an extra sense of relief and beauty (I say this because walking in grace is peace and beauty) is certainly not the point of the gospel. In the end, those things only show a shadow of the glory which is in Christ. They can not substitute it. And therefore going back to the shadow profits none, other than religious exercise.

[Kurieuo]

Neo said it best. The gospel is anti-law. That's not legalism. That's a truth claim, and all truth claims are exclusive by their nature. As Paul says, if it is by grace it is not by works, and if it is by works then it is not by grace. If you say that's legalism, then you charge Paul with legalism; and if you recognize that is not legalism, then your recognize that salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is not legalistic either.

It's not that I think grace is legalism--I don't think the Law on its own is legalism either.

Legalism, at least for me, requires a personal element. Someone to say "you must", or some people to shun another if they fall out of line.

As neo-x noted, Gman was copping it by himself, almost like he was being whipped with the message of "grace". It's like "Gman, you got to accept grace without any law or your not saved." Which prompted my question.

The comments of mine were really more of an observation of some irony than statement. Although I understanding the strong nature of responses is also just the nature of debate.

[Kurieuo]

Perhaps this is why so many of us who accept grace so strongly are reacting to Gman? When we see the cage that we were freed from being placed before us again it makes us see red...

I see it like that...if you go back to the law after being in Christ, that is you trust Christ but like to follow the law then I do not see any problem. Thats fine, I even respect that. I won't do it, I won't recommend it but I will accept it as okay.

Following the law because you think its still in enforce on all of us who are in Christ, Jew and gentile alike, is when you are making a serious error. It takes a complete different set of mentality to be in grace. It really does. You must have noticed, I did when I understood grace...I begin to look at people differently. I stopped quantifying sin and measuring people by that. I stopped looking at how good or bad behaviors they carried which were forbidden in the law. I stopped being judgmental (based on works) in my own understanding. I realized that the person who is the worst, is saved only by grace not by how many commands he kept. And it may seem like an ordinary point now, because we all know it, back then I thought that those who follow the law are MUCH better than those who do not. And somehow that also got equated in my mind as being the more you follow the more you are loved by God. And surprisingly the more I followed the law, even being in Christ, the more afraid I became because I was always told, God has forgiven your past sins but if you sin now, God will not forgive you. You will be punished. There is no margin for saints to be sinners. You must improve.

This is a total different thinking pattern.

When you follow the law, like my family did and me too, you have a very different mindset. It is not malicious of course but it is totally different than grace. And it stops you from seeing a lot of things.

Grace is rooted in LOVE, The O.T law is rooted in JUSTICE. That is basically it. There is no way around that. G constantly says God's commandment are good and loving. But through the eyes of the law the commands are good for those who can keep them. Those who can not keep them are cursed and doomed by those same laws. That is precisely why Paul argues that the reason why death rules everyone is because ALL HAVE SINNED ACCORDING TO THE LAW. No one can keep it to the fullest.

Hence you get a statement like Duet 28 where God actually says he will personally see to it that you are destroyed because you broke his covenant.

And this is what basically astounds me, the law and grace, two covenants given to two different audiences, are still being mixed up. O.T law, was part of a covenant with the children of Israel, in which people like G have no part. Because they do not belong to that particular family and race. It is only grace by which they can even do what they do without being under the law. And yet simulating the law and Jewish culture does not make anyone a Jew, anymore than, as Chesterton put it, standing in your garage makes you a car.

The law points to Christ, Christ does not point to the law. The law was not placed so that Christ could come and LIVE UPTO IT. The law was placed so that it could be a shadow, an imitation, of the work which Christ would do. And while Jewish culture and festivities may be very much symbolic of Christ's work, focusing on them to get an extra sense of relief and beauty (I say this because walking in grace is peace and beauty) is certainly not the point of the gospel. In the end, those things only show a shadow of the glory which is in Christ. They can not substitute it. And therefore going back to the shadow profits none, other than religious exercise.

Thanks Neo-x, some good stuff there.

To this day I remember the first time I understood grace at about 15 years ago. It was like being born again. It was that much of a revelation I even questioned whether I were truly Christian before I understood grace.

In Romans, Paul really lays it on thick to give a sense of the helplessness from the condition we're in--all of us being sinners and noone being righteous. This is from Romans 1 right up until 3:26 where Paul changes the tune and lets us in on the secret of how we can attain righteousness.

Once you see it, understand grace which forms the basis of the New Convenant, I don't comprehend how someone can then turn back to the Law - to the Old Covenant - and Judaize themselves. It's going backward.

Being freed from the cage that trapped Israel and us via a New Covenanent in Christ, that is built upon love rather than judgement, how can I then look upon that cage that trapped humanity and call it love? It doesn't make sense. I'm certainly not arguing for Gman, but if he sees it and calls that love, then out of my grace however wrong I see it is I'll allow him that.

However, I know the same grace can't be extended back to me. In the eyes of Gman, I'm/we're a law unto ourselves and can't love God except through the Law. God's Grace to Gman seems to be our ability to love God through the Law. God's Grace to us is the Law being nailed to the cross/fulfilled with Christ so that we are made righteous apart from the Law which only brought condemnation. Two entirely different understandings.

Of course when someone say's "grace" they haven't given up on on the concept of authority.. So even if you don't see G-d's commandments as instruction for your lives, you will simply create your own laws and direction and call it "free grace." In others words, you simply fill in the blanks with your own meanings.. And call it.. Well.. Christ's law.

Sorry to keep referring to you in third person Gman.

[neo-x]

o this day I remember the first time I understood grace at about 15 years ago. It was like being born again. It was that much of a revelation I even questioned whether I were truly Christian before I understood grace.

In Romans, Paul really lays it on thick to give a sense of the helplessness from the condition we're in--all of us being sinners and noone being righteous. This is from Romans 1 right up until 3:26 where Paul changes the tune and lets us in on the secret of how we can attain righteousness.

Once you see it, understand grace which forms the basis of the New Convenant, I don't comprehend how someone can then turn back to the Law - to the Old Covenant - and Judaize themselves. It's going backward.

Being freed from the cage that trapped Israel and us via a New Covenanent in Christ, that is built upon love rather than judgement, how can I then look upon that cage that trapped humanity and call it love? It doesn't make sense. I'm certainly not arguing for Gman, but if he sees it and calls that love, then out of my grace however wrong I see it is I'll allow him that.

However, I know the same grace can't be extended back to me. In the eyes of Gman, I'm/we're a law unto ourselves and can't love God except through the Law. God's Grace to Gman seems to be our ability to love God through the Law. God's Grace to us is the Law being nailed to the cross/fulfilled with Christ so that we are made righteous apart from the Law which only brought condemnation. Two entirely different understandings.

I agree completely, K. And it makes me wonder. I mean when someone calls grace "crapology". You have to see it as something of a cult, a taboo, something extremely distasteful, to call it crap. And I wonder where have has someone can get this thought. I mean sure you can follow the law but even when I followed the law, I never dared call grace "crap". And even now I can not call the law as "crap". This is almost as embarrassing as being the butt of a filthy joke. You have to see it as totally unbiblical, a heresy to call it that. And it staggers me the G can say this without giving it a second thought. I mean what kind of teaching is that? Who can teach something like this? Why say grace is crap? Is it?

Biblically the term "free grace" and "Grace" means the same thing...GRACE IS FREE TO BEGIN WITH.

The term "grace" to them must be hateful, to say the least.

[Jac3510]

Legalism, at least for me, requires a personal element. Someone to say "you must", or some people to shun another if they fall out of line.

Then we are legalists for telling Muslims and atheists that they "must" believe in Jesus to be saved by that line of thought.

Don't go all postmodern on me, K, either in redefining words (legalsim) or with trying to make truth inclusive. We don't get to decide what the gospel is. If Paul says that anyone preaching a gospel other than what he preached was anathema, then we have to say that. And what did Paul preach? That we aren't under the law, and if we are, then grace is no longer grace.

Legalism is trying to use the law (any law) as a means of pleasing God. To say that the grace message is legalistic because it insists that the denial of grace is the denial of the gospel is about as twisted as you can get--you're just calling grace law, which is a self-contradictory objection.

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
Who can teach something like this? Why say grace is crap? Is it?

Gman who is striving to keep the law, sees "free grace" or simply grace as lawlessness. He sees those who follow free grace, as devoid of any way to know what love is, because to Gman, the law is what shows a believer how to love.

Whereas for me, the more I understand grace, the more I love others.

I also remember when I felt like I had to strive to keep God's commandments. I was miserable, judgmental, self righteous, and a hypocrite. And, on top of that, I completely failed to keep the commandments I was striving to keep. It was such a heavy burden I placed on myself. Of course other believers who I thought were failing to keep the commandments, weren't as righteous as I was. Each time I strived and failed, I felt like I was just adding more weight to myself that I couldn't carry.

[Kurieuo]

Legalism, at least for me, requires a personal element. Someone to say "you must", or some people to shun another if they fall out of line.

Then we are legalists for telling Muslims and atheists that they "must" believe in Jesus to be saved by that line of thought.

Don't go all postmodern on me, K, either in redefining words (legalsim) or with trying to make truth inclusive. We don't get to decide what the gospel is. If Paul says that anyone preaching a gospel other than what he preached was anathema, then we have to say that. And what did Paul preach? That we aren't under the law, and if we are, then grace is no longer grace.

Legalism is trying to use the law (any law) as a means of pleasing God. To say that the grace message is legalistic because it insists that the denial of grace is the denial of the gospel is about as twisted as you can get--you're just calling grace law, which is a self-contradictory objection.

LOL. Ok, my definition of "legalism" is rather confusing so happy to loose it.

Rather, more what I was getting at anyway, is that for "grace" oriented people we seemed to be drilling Gman an awful lot.

But... I've already thought through good reasons why this is the case since:
a) it's to be expected when debating opposing viewpoints anyway, and
b) where I reflect "Perhaps this is why so many of us who accept grace so strongly are reacting to Gman? When we see the cage that we were freed from being placed before us again it makes us see red..."

But, of course, it's of dire importance to those who do not believe in Christ to receive the Gospel -- the true "good news".

[RickD]

Kurieuo wrote:
b) where I reflect "Perhaps this is why so many of us who accept grace so strongly are reacting to Gman? When we see the cage that we were freed from being placed before us again it makes us see red..."

I agree, K. Is it safe to assume that all of us here on the "grace" side of this discussion, have strived to gain God's acceptance in some way at one time or another? Once God has freed me from an errant belief or doctrine that I was involved with, it sticks out like a sore thumb. It's immediately evident when I see it.

[Jac3510]

I think your (b) may be very true, K. Most grace people I know tend to get accused of being radicals, but whether its just a love of the freedom Christ brings or a dread of being "submit[ed] again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal 5:1), the point is the same: it's a terrifying thought. And since it just isn't true--we are not under the Law--then when someone says that we ought to go back to that, you can expect a strong reaction.

Can the tone be over the top at times? Perhaps, but just read Galatians. Paul was furious. His anger at the Judaizers just drips from its pages. Obviously he was writing Scripture so I'm not using is attitude to justify my own. What I am saying is that Paul as a man took the claim that we are still under bondage to the Law very seriously and he took great, great offense to it. So I'm saying before anyone goes and judging those of us who have found the beauty of grace for our vigorous defense of the gift of God (and I'm not saying you are--just speaking in general), they should look to who vigorous Paul's defense was first.

But to reiterate, your point there is a good one, and probably speaks a plain truth. Once burnt twice shy, kind of thing. I used to beg God to save me when I believed that grace was not sufficient to be a "good" Christian, pleasing to God, when I thought my obedience had anything to do with my salvation. I was terrified I wasn't "really" saved, and the more fearful I got, the more I dedicated to keeping the (moral) law--the "better" I became in terms of being a moral person (externally), but the harder I got on myself. And the great irony is that, in the end, it made me a terribly immoral person, insofar as it made me angry and spiteful and resentful and jealous and hateful and bitter and above all judgmental, which is just what Paul says it does (Gal 5:19-21). I, then, openly admit that as logically and theologically rigorous as I believe the case for the free grace of God to be against Law for the Christian, I'm hardly dispassionate about it; and my passion is definitely driven by "see[ing] the cage" as you so eloquently put it.

[Gman]

Perhaps this is why so many of us who accept grace so strongly are reacting to Gman? When we see the cage that we were freed from being placed before us again it makes us see red...

I see it like that...if you go back to the law after being in Christ, that is you trust Christ but like to follow the law then I do not see any problem. Thats fine, I even respect that. I won't do it, I won't recommend it but I will accept it as okay.

Following the law because you think its still in enforce on all of us who are in Christ, Jew and gentile alike, is when you are making a serious error. It takes a complete different set of mentality to be in grace. It really does. You must have noticed, I did when I understood grace...I begin to look at people differently. I stopped quantifying sin and measuring people by that. I stopped looking at how good or bad behaviors they carried which were forbidden in the law. I stopped being judgmental (based on works) in my own understanding. I realized that the person who is the worst, is saved only by grace not by how many commands he kept. And it may seem like an ordinary point now, because we all know it, back then I thought that those who follow the law are MUCH better than those who do not. And somehow that also got equated in my mind as being the more you follow the more you are loved by God. And surprisingly the more I followed the law, even being in Christ, the more afraid I became because I was always told, God has forgiven your past sins but if you sin now, God will not forgive you. You will be punished. There is no margin for saints to be sinners. You must improve.

No... Following G-d's commandments does NOT mean that someone is better than someone else.. Following G-d's commandments means that you put LOVE in front of your steps... Not pride. G-d's commandments are there to convict us of our sin that point us to G-d's grace......

Again.. What did Christ say about the commandments??

Luke 10:26-28 26 “What is written in the LAW?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

Christ is CLEARLY saying in this passage that G-d's commandments equals "LOVE".. NOT legalism or pride...

This is a total different thinking pattern.

When you follow the law, like my family did and me too, you have a very different mindset. It is not malicious of course but it is totally different than grace. And it stops you from seeing a lot of things.

Tell that to Paul.. He claims that His ways are Holy and Just..

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

Grace is rooted in LOVE, The O.T law is rooted in JUSTICE. That is basically it. There is no way around that. G constantly says God's commandment are good and loving. But through the eyes of the law the commands are good for those who can keep them. Those who can not keep them are cursed and doomed by those same laws. That is precisely why Paul argues that the reason why death rules everyone is because ALL HAVE SINNED ACCORDING TO THE LAW. No one can keep it to the fullest.

So according to belief, since no one can keep G-d's laws we simply flush them down the toilet.. Brilliant thinking..

Everyone already knows we can't keep G-d's commandments... No one can.. But we can still use them to identify sin in our lives and hopefully STOP sinning. G-d's laws are NOT sin.

Romans 7:7, What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

We are not doomed for trying to keep them and we have been spared by Christ from the curse that they bring since we can't follow it with all our heart.

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”

The curse that should have been directed toward us was directed toward Christ. THAT is seeing TRUE GRACE...

Hence you get a statement like Duet 28 where God actually says he will personally see to it that you are destroyed because you broke his covenant.

And this is what basically astounds me, the law and grace, two covenants given to two different audiences, are still being mixed up. O.T law, was part of a covenant with the children of Israel, in which people like G have no part. Because they do not belong to that particular family and race. It is only grace by which they can even do what they do without being under the law. And yet simulating the law and Jewish culture does not make anyone a Jew, anymore than, as Chesterton put it, standing in your garage makes you a car.

I never said we become Jews... I said that we become a part of the commonwealth of Israel... We don't replace Jews or Israel. We BOND with them as the Bible clearly states... Ephesians 2:11-13, 19, Ephesians 3:6, Romans 11:11-24, Galatians 4:26,28, Ezekiel 37:15-28.

The law points to Christ, Christ does not point to the law.

Baloney... Christ IS THE AIM OF THE LAW... Which what? Lead us to HIM...

Romans 10:4 Christ is the goal of the Law, which leads to righteousness for all who have faith in God.

And Christ said that He did NOT come to destroy His laws either..

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.”

I ask.. Has heaven and earth passed away yet? If not He is NOT completely done with His laws yet either..

What did He say about following His commandments?

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.”

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him

Christ IS the law.. He Is the WORD and He is G-d..

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

The law was not placed so that Christ could come and LIVE UPTO IT. The law was placed so that it could be a shadow, an imitation, of the work which Christ would do. And while Jewish culture and festivities may be very much symbolic of Christ's work, focusing on them to get an extra sense of relief and beauty (I say this because walking in grace is peace and beauty) is certainly not the point of the gospel. In the end, those things only show a shadow of the glory which is in Christ. They can not substitute it. And therefore going back to the shadow profits none, other than religious exercise.

??... Focusing on the Biblical festivals are not grace and beauty of Christ's redemption for us?? This is the first time I've heard this... The passover lamb was Christ, this is a beautiful expression of Christ's love for us as many of the other festivals that CHRIST created. Christ MADE ALL THE BIBLICAL FESTIVALS for us... All of them... And you say they are bondage to follow???