Evidence for God from Science

Strix wrote:nce.org/viewtopic.php?t=59&start=0

This "Gospel/Law" thread has transformed into a "Faith/Works" thread.
[/quote]

And it is the answer to the original question. If faith is what saves then knowing or keeping the law is useless. My point is that if we are saved we have no need for the law since it should manifest itself automatically.

Mastermind wrote:And it is the answer to the original question. If faith is what saves then knowing or keeping the law is useless. My point is that if we are saved we have no need for the law since it should manifest itself automatically.

We are in agreement, except that there is a "Law of Christ" [Gal. 6:2] which we have need of. Let me ask a question: How can we know we are manifesting the correct tenants of the law if we have not read the law? Is that not a need of the law for us?

You also wrote:

Christ promised to make us good by the grace of God if we have faith in Him.

Very interesting...

Mastermind wrote: It is similar to the question Jesus asked.

"Good? Why do you call me good? Good is only God in heaven."

An Arian will see that and say "Ha, Jesus is yelling at the guy for saying he's good and it proves he's not God!"

A trinitarian will say "Ha, Jesus does not deny being good and says only God is good thus proving Jesus is God!"

This is my favourite example of how two people can read the exact same thing and get completely opposite conclusions.

Now I know why you are called "Mastermind"! This is good (excuse the pun), can I use it? You seem like the type that might want to incur royalties or something...

Mastermind wrote:And it is the answer to the original question. If faith is what saves then knowing or keeping the law is useless. My point is that if we are saved we have no need for the law since it should manifest itself automatically.

Yes, yes. The law isn't for the saved. It is for the lawless. We all know this -- the Christian still needs to <B>know</B> the law, though. Unless we like for our evangelization techniques to be neutered.

The law brings about knowledge of sin. The law stirs the conscience of the unsaved. The law shows us just how far we've fallen short of the glory of God. And most importantly, the law takes away all false hope of being able to be "good enough" and attain favor with God on our own.

It is the number one most useful tool in the evangelism arsenal -- the lack of using the law in our evangelism efforts is the main reason we have so many complacent, hypocritical "Christians" filling our churches. Everyone likes a happy happy message. Nobody likes the cold, hard truth.

Does the law apply to us? No. We are not under the law. Is the law one of the most useful things we have at our disposal? Yes. It's invaluable.

Well, I thought it was only Mastermind and me reading all of this. Welcome to the party, guys. Even if we are not in agreement (yet), I am thoroughly enjoying the discourse.

So, taking it from the top.

Felgar:

This is incorrect. I'm concerned that you are advocating a "faith+works" doctrine August, and that is not Biblical.

I believe firmly in a "grace alone' doctrine, and that faith is a reward of grace, not a condition or contribution that man has to have to get grace. Faith is the work of God's grace in us. God gives us new life so that we may believe. Grace is the first and last cause of salvation. Repentance too is something we get from God, He opens our eyes to our sinfulness, and shows our need for Christ. Our first repentance is a total admission that we absolutely cannot be saved by our good works alone. Next, because regeneration enables our spiritual understanding, and implants new affections, we therefore now love God more than we love sin for the first time. This means we no longer want to live a lifestyle of unbroken sin. This, however, also means I don't believe that anyone who has once made a profession of faith, and then turned to atheism or Buddhism is saved. There are clear warnings in Scripture of those who do that:

Matthew 7:21-23 (NIV)
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [22] Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' [23] Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

There were and are spurious believers in Christ. Christians do sin, but do not live in unbroken sin, our faith is unbroken, as is our desire to obey. The belief that as long as we have faith, we don't have to turn from sin, or commit our life to Christ, is repulsive. Obeying Christs commands is never seen as optional, anywhere in Scripture, and neither is repentance. A truly reborn person will desire to believe and obey. We will often miserably fail but the Spirit which dwells in us presses us on to sanctification.

Jesus further tells us:

John 15:16 (NIV)
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit--fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

and He strenghtens us so that we cannot fail. The fruit that we are to bear are this:

Ephes. 2:10 (NIV)
For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

So instead of believing in a blanket "once saved always saved", I believe that Christ gives us the power to endure in faith and works, and will never lose a true Christian, as seen in:

Philip. 1:6 (NIV)
being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

The "faith without works" position somehow posits that when repentance is demanded, then it's a call for trust in works. This is not true, a true faith produces works because regeneration and sanctification is a work of God in us to begin with. It is those who trust in their own ability to have faith that are ultimately trusting in themselves since such a faith is produced apart from God's regenerative work.

I don't know if this significantly differs from your position?

Strix wrote:We would agree that these works do not earn us our salvation, because it is the free gift of God [Eph. 2:8-10] and we cannot boast about them. But they are a requirement, otherwise, why the admonishment to persevere [Rom. 8:25], to stand firm [Eph. 6:11], to be diligent [2 Tim. 2:15]... all of these things require work on our part so that we do not fall from grace.

And we were getting along so well, you and I. I absolutely and fundamentally reject any doctrine of salvation besides faith alone. Faith is the act of our accepting God's free gift of grace, and it ends there.

So you would not agree with OSAS either? I can see this is gonna get worse before it gets better. I think you need to read the entire thread (all 10 pages) that I posted earlier, and then we can continue a faith/works and OSAS discussion there. Just post to that thread when you're ready.

Strix,

I have been, very painfully, reading through the entire thread...

Painful, huh. What do you think, Mastermind, has it been painful?

Before I respond in detail, I'm somewhat concerned that you did not quite get my point. When the Bible talks about the Law, it does not distinguish between OT law and NT Law. There are numerous references to the law in the NT, as you point out. What I did assert though, is that the Law can be divided into 3 types, the civil, the ceremonial and the moral. I never proposed that we are subject to either the civil or ceremonial law. Those were the laws that governed Israel, and established the ceremonies and customs of their nation. Those are the ones that you keep throwing at me, and frankly, if you had struggled through the whole thread, you either completely disagree with me, or you did not quite understand what I was saying.

We are subject to God's moral law though, as given to Israel in the 10 Commandments, and later reinforced by Jesus and His disciples. Jesus clearly teaches that we are to obey this moral code, summarized in love for God and love for our fellow man. When Jesus and Paul go to battle against the law, they are battling the perversion of the ceremonial and civil law that the Pharisees were propogating, and were abrogated by the birth, life and death of Christ.

The Old Testament (Mosaical Law) and the New Testament are not the same law. We learn from the Old but we live by the New [Gal. 3:23,24].

Sure, we are not subject to the Mosaic law, but to God's eternal moral law. Paul calls it new in this letter, since it was not the law that the Galatians were used to, but the moral law that Jesus, and later Paul, implores us many times to uphold.

Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV)
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
[37] Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' [38] This is the first and greatest commandment. [39] And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' [40] All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Matthew 19:16-19 (NIV)
Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
[17] "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
[18] "Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, [19] honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

The commandments here are the same that was given to Moses in the OT, since the lawgiver is the same God. That is why I say the law is the same, and we are still bound by it. And they look remarkably similar too

Strix wrote:We would agree that these works do not earn us our salvation, because it is the free gift of God [Eph. 2:8-10] and we cannot boast about them. But they are a requirement, otherwise, why the admonishment to persevere [Rom. 8:25], to stand firm [Eph. 6:11], to be diligent [2 Tim. 2:15]... all of these things require work on our part so that we do not fall from grace.

I have an answer to this, and it is as follows:

Those aren't admonishments -- they're <B>encouragements.</B> They aren't there to say "You'll lose your grace if you don't do this." They're there because the Christian life is <B>hard</B> and we can use all the encouragement we can get. A little boost when we're down. Something to let us know that the goal we're working towards(not Salvation as that is already a done deal) is worth the price.

I have no fear of losing my salvation. I know from the parable of the vine that if I were now to sink into hedonism(or another sinful lifestyle), as a vine can fall into the mud, that God would pick me up, clean me off, and set me straight. And that if that didn't get the message through my skull, he'd then prune me(ie resort to "not pleasant" measures) -- whatever it takes to get me bearing fruit again.

The Lord has started a great work in me, and will complete it no matter what. Salvation is only the beginning.

Neither of which actually state you need works to be saved.

So what do you need then? If your answer is faith only, then it is clearly in contradiction the Scriptures here, becasue you cannot be saved by dead faith.

The part that you are missing is that we require no law to do so.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. What governs the behavior of Christians is God's special revelation, contained in the Bible, which includes His moral instructions. By grace and faith, we are empowered to follow the moral instructions. We also know that we are doing God's will by measuring ourselves against His commandments.

A saved Christian should be performing good works automatically regardless of whether they have memorised God's laws or not.

This may a bit extreme, but how does an unbeliever get to know about grace and salvation if there is no reference to the commandments? And how does that disappear when they become believers?

We learn about God from His revelations, so that is also where we learn about His will. His will includes that we obey His commandments. I agree to a certain extent that we instinctively know right from wrong, but we can never grow as Christians if we don't study God's revelation, nor can we know if we are in unbroken sin. Knowledge, at least for me, does not just fall from the sky. It takes hard work, study and long periods of repentance and prayer. If you just automatically know what to do, I'm impressed.

Christ promised to make us good by the grace of God if we have faith in Him. It's the exact equivalent of me telling you I can give you superpowers. You'd have to be either insane or right to make such a claim. Jesus made it and it worked.

I disagree. How can an unrepentant man, someone who has not received grace, have faith? Salvation is grace through faith, not grace from faith. If you need faith first, then you are putting your power as a human before the grace of God.

I absolutely and fundamentally reject any doctrine of salvation besides faith alone. Faith is the act of our accepting God's free gift of grace, and it ends there.

So you would not agree with OSAS either? I can see this is gonna get worse before it gets better. I think you need to read the entire thread (all 10 pages) that I posted earlier, and then we can continue a faith/works and OSAS discussion there. Just post to that thread when you're ready.

Jac wrote:

If I may add one more note, what you may want to be VERY, VERY, VERY careful of is how you handle this doctrine. What is the basis of salvation? It is not faith. It is GRACE. Grace saves you--it saves you THROUGH faith.

Hmmmm.

August wrote:The Moral Law, such as the 10 commandments, are the direct commands of God, and should be strictly obeyed.

I am trying to be careful with my response this time, August, because I agree with a great many things that you have written, and the fault lies with me in not articulating my position better. I believe in universal truth (it is required simply by the nature of God, as you stated), and your "types" of the Old Law are insightful. It is simply the fact that you seem to want to turn your academic "types" into Scriptural "types". In Scripture, I find that the Law and the Prophets refers to the Old Testament. I don't think we can say we should obey the 10 commandments. That gives the impression that we should obey the Old Covenant (which it is a part of). It is my understanding from Scripture that we do not obey the tenants of the 10 commandments today. We obey those same tenants because they are now a part of the Law of Christ.

These laws call us to righteousness, and into strict obedience, along with the acceptance of God's grace through faith in Jesus.

If I am understanding your post correctly, moral = universal (no matter the covenant, the moral laws are the same). Where does faith in Jesus fall - civil, ceremonial, or moral? If moral, why was it not mentioned at the giving of the 10 Commandments? Because they were under a different Law. Hebrews 8:7 - the Law is changed, fulfilled, obsolete.

When the Bible talks about the Law, it does not distinguish between OT law and NT Law.

Galatians 6:2, James 2:12


Respectfully,

Felgar wrote:And we were getting along so well, you and I.

Hey, there is nothing wrong with a couple of friends having a healthy debate!

Thanks for the guidance, and I'll see you on the other thread...

LittleShepherd wrote:I have an answer to this, and it is as follows:

Didn't want you to think I was ignoring your response... I have been instructed by our illustrious moderator to swing over to the OSAS thread
< http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 59&start=0 >, read, and then post responses there, some of which will most certainly respond to your post here.

Thanks,

It is simply the fact that you seem to want to turn your academic "types" into Scriptural "types". In Scripture, I find that the Law and the Prophets refers to the Old Testament.

So what commandments are Jesus referring to when He talks to the rich man? God gave the commandments in the OT, and since Jesus is God, He can't very well be giving other commandments in the NT. He also confirms this:

Luke 16:17 (NIV)
It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

And if we are to be honest, there are many types of Scripture, like prophesy, parable, history, law, gospel and wise sayings. Are we then to assume that there not different types of each of those? The Bible does not specifically distinguish between those types, they are deduced by studying theology. I hope this helps you understand that in order for us to properly understand, we need to distinguish between the different types of writings in the Bible. If we don't we fall into the trap of interpreting everything as literal, or everything as symbolic. And if we can agree on that, why is it then not possible to distinguish between the different types of law?

I don't think we can say we should obey the 10 commandments. That gives the impression that we should obey the Old Covenant (which it is a part of).

The Old Covenant did not contain only the 10 Commandments, it contained the whole law, which I already agreed was not binding on us. In the New Covenant however, Jesus restated 9 of the 10 commandments. You also seem to conveniently ignore the fact I mentioned previously, that since Jesus is God and God can never change His morality, the commandments necessarily have to be the same.

It is my understanding from Scripture that we do not obey the tenants of the 10 commandments today. We obey those same tenants because they are now a part of the Law of Christ.

I have a problem believing that it was purely by chance that the commandments Jesus mentioned, was the same as the original 10 commandments. Why would the moral code for Israel be different to that of the code given to Christians? God's morality can never change since God can never change. If you believe that God changes, then you believe He is not perfect either.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that there is an unchanging morality, that is an absolute, it will be the same always, everywhere, for all people? If we cannot believe in that absolute morality, can we believe in God? And that morality is consistent throughout God's special revelation, the commandments in Bible.

If I am understanding your post correctly, moral = universal (no matter the covenant, the moral laws are the same).

Yes.

Where does faith in Jesus fall - civil, ceremonial, or moral? If moral, why was it not mentioned at the giving of the 10 Commandments?

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Faith does not come from the commandments, faith comes from grace. The commandments show us the moral way to live, or when we are sliding away from sanctification.

Because they were under a different Law. Hebrews 8:7 - the Law is changed, fulfilled, obsolete.

To understand that, you need to understand the context of Hebrews. It was written to second-generation Christians, who was considering a return to Judaism. It was therefore necessary to make them understand that to achieve salvation, it was no longer necessary to uphold the Judaic law, since Jesus fulfilled that. It does not say that the moral law was fulfilled. I want to be really careful here, since I don't want to imply that by obeying the moral law can we be saved.

Hebrews 7:11 (NIV)
If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

This clearly refers to the Judaic law, as does:
Hebrews 13:9 (NIV)
Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them.

If you read through the rest of hebrews 12 and 13, many of the commandments are repeated there in the authors teaching to be holy.

Galatians 6:2 (NIV)
Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

James 2:12 (NIV)
Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom,


And what is the law of Christ, in your opinion?

Hebrews 13:8 (NIV)
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Does this not mean His moral law is the same, and therefore, the Law of Christ cannot be seperate from the law of God?

We also need to distinguish something else important here. Every time the law and the believer is mentioned, it is the believer that has changed, not the law. When you become a Christian, you change, and through the grace of God, you become dead to the punitive qualities of the law.

Disobedience of the law is sin, and for there to be sin, there must be a law:

1 John 3:4 (NIV)
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

and we know about which law the apostle speaks too:

1 John 3:22-24 (NIV)
and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. [23] And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. [24] Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

"It is particularly noteworthy that sins which contravene the law (as breaches of the Ten Commandments) are also contrary to the sound doctrine of the gospel. So the moral standards of the gospel do not differ from the moral standards of the law. We must not therefore imagine that, because we have embraced the gospel, we may now repudiate the law! To be sure, the law is impotent to save us, and we have been released from the law's condemnation, so that we are no longer 'under' it in that sense. But God has sent His Son to die for us, and now puts His Spirit within us, in order that the righteous requirements of the law may be fulfilled in us. There is no antithesis between law and gospel in the moral standards which they teach; the antithesis is in the way of salvation, since the law condemns, while the gospel justifies."

- John R.W. Stott, Guard the Truth, p. 50

August wrote:The Old Covenant did not contain only the 10 Commandments, it contained the whole law, which I already agreed was not binding on us. In the New Covenant however, Jesus restated 9 of the 10 commandments.

If Jesus had not restated the commandments, would you know to follow them? Deut. 18:18-19; John 12:48 And did He not modify some of those? Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28, 33-37 You also understand that I'm not disputing there are cross-references between the Old and New, right?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that there is an unchanging morality, that is an absolute, it will be the same always, everywhere, for all people? If we cannot believe in that absolute morality, can we believe in God? And that morality is consistent throughout God's special revelation, the commandments in Bible.

I said that I agree that there is an absolute. Universal truth does not necessarily equal Law. Here is a simple example:
God is love - Universal Truth 1 John 4:8,16
Love one another - Universal Truth in Law 1 John 4:11

Where does faith in Jesus fall - civil, ceremonial, or moral? If moral, why was it not mentioned at the giving of the 10 Commandments?

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Faith does not come from the commandments, faith comes from grace. The commandments show us the moral way to live, or when we are sliding away from sanctification.

So if the commandments show morallity, would accepting God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ not be a tenant of the moral law? And if the moral law is universal, why then was this tenant not a part of the moral law of Israel?

Incidently, "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Romans 10:17 Faith is allowed by grace, but it comes from hearing the word.

If you read through the rest of hebrews 12 and 13, many of the commandments are repeated there in the authors teaching to be holy.

I will need to chew on the rest, but could you provide me with some the moral law examples?

Thanks and I appreciate your patience,