Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:
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.

The way you and Jac are teaching grace is very very dangerous... And thus crap. Why?? Because you are destroying the foundation that grace sits on... And what is that? G-d's commandments.

G-d's grace is free.... But it is NOT a license to sin..... What did Paul say about that?

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?”

The cancerous belief system of your "free grace" is stating that since we can't follow G-d's commandments, we have to put an end to G-d's commandments.. That is very very deceptive and wrong. Why? Because it is G-d's commandments that CONVICT of sin that LEAD us to the GRACE of Christ.. That is seeing and living G-d's grace. Knowing that G-d's commandments are so pure, and seeing our sin, makes us faithful to HIM... You have it completely backwards..

Jac3510 wrote: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.

LOL.. Here we go with the judaizer conspiracy theory again... When all else fails, scare them with the old judaizer "under the law" trick..

You think that trying to keep sin out of your life is bad? Why did Christ ask us to be perfect? Was Christ a judaizer too?

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

John 8:11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Jac3510 wrote:IBut 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.

You were terrified of your "free grace"? Seriously what is there so scary about your free grace? Grace from what? You have no working definition of grace outside of G-d's commandments. What did John say about keeping the commandments?

1 John 2:3-7, “Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. Brethren, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning.”

1 John 3:3 “And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

Gman wrote:

....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.

Hmmm

AMG Complete Word Study Dictionary

Strong's 5056
τέλος
télos; gen. télous, neut. noun.

(VII) In Rom 10:4 it means either termination or goal. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes. This means that the Law as a demanded obligation has come to an end because Jesus has fulfilled its demands and imparted His righteousness to those who believe. Christ has freed believers from its tyranny. The standards of righteousness come to us now not from without by imposition, but from within by the Spirit who writes the Law upon our hearts. See Sept.: Eccl 12:13.


Robertson’s Word Pictures

Romans 10:4

The end of the law (telos nomou). Christ put a stop to the law as a means of salvation (Rom 6:14; Rom 9:31; Eph 2:15; Col 2:14) as in Luke 16:16. Christ is the goal or aim of the law (Gal 3:24). Christ is the fulfilment of the law (Mat 5:17; Rom 13:10; 1 Tim 1:5). But here (Denney) Paul’s main idea is that Christ ended the law as a method of salvation for “every one that believeth” whether Jew or Gentile. Christ wrote finis on law as a means of grace.


Peoples New Testament Commentary

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. The meaning is that the whole law pointed to Christ, and his righteousness. They were its object. Yet the Jews clung to the law, and refused to believe upon Christ, in whom the law met its fulfillment.


Vincent’s Word Studies

Romans 10:4

The end of the law (τέλος νόμου)

First in the sentence as the emphatic point of thought. Expositors differ as to the sense. 1. The aim. Either that the intent of the law was to make men righteous, which was accomplished in Christ, or that the law led to Him as a pedagogue (Gal 3:24). 2. The fulfillment, as Mat 5:17. The termination. To believers in Christ the law has no longer legislative authority to say, “Do this and live; do this or die” (Morison). The last is preferable. Paul is discussing two materially exclusive systems, the one based on doing, the other on believing. The system of faith, represented by Christ, brings to an end and excludes the system of law; and the Jews, in holding by the system of law, fail of the righteousness which is by faith. Compare Gal 2:16; Gal 3:2-14.

Note: Pedagogue means simply a Dogmatic inflexible teacher.
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:
AMG Complete Word Study Dictionary

Strong's 5056
τέλος
télos; gen. télous, neut. noun.

(VII) In Rom 10:4 it means either termination or goal. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes. This means that the Law as a demanded obligation has come to an end because Jesus has fulfilled its demands and imparted His righteousness to those who believe. Christ has freed believers from its tyranny. The standards of righteousness come to us now not from without by imposition, but from within by the Spirit who writes the Law upon our hearts. See Sept.: Eccl 12:13.

Oh there are going to be verses that twist it... Now look at it in the NIV.. That one almost had me fooled too...

Romans 10:4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

The greek word "telos" is the same word we get for telescope hence "aim." Therefore Christ is the AIM of the law not END... A big big difference..

5056 télos (a neuter noun) – properly, consummation (the end-goal, purpose), such as closure with all its results.

[This root (tel-) means "reaching the end (aim)." It is well-illustrated with the old pirate's telescope, unfolding (extending out) one stage at a time to function at full-strength (capacity effectiveness).]

Source: http://biblesuite.com/greek/5056.htm

Gman wrote:

neo-x wrote:
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.

The way you and Jac are teaching grace is very very dangerous... And thus crap. Why?? Because you are destroying the foundation that grace sits on... And what is that? G-d's commandments.

G-d's grace is free.... But it is NOT a license to sin..... What did Paul say about that?

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?”

The cancerous belief system of your "free grace" is stating that since we can't follow G-d's commandments, we have to put an end to G-d's commandments.. That is very very deceptive and wrong. Why? Because it is G-d's commandments that CONVICT of sin that LEAD us to the GRACE of Christ.. That is seeing and living G-d's grace. Knowing that G-d's commandments are so pure, and seeing our sin, makes us faithful to HIM... You have it completely backwards..

From your tone, I am not sure you are reading Jac or Jlay correctly. They are not teaching and nor do they adhere to what you claim they do - Grace as license to sin...

Also, what I can gather you are saying is that for you - sin is defined as breaking the Commandments, the Festivals, Sabbath rest, and Holy Feast Days - is this correct or not?

If so, in your eyes, keeping and doing these is the means by which you keep yourself from sinning?

How would that be any different than claiming that righteousness comes by following the law?
-
-
-

Gman wrote:

B. W. wrote:
AMG Complete Word Study Dictionary

Strong's 5056
τέλος
télos; gen. télous, neut. noun.

(VII) In Rom 10:4 it means either termination or goal. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes. This means that the Law as a demanded obligation has come to an end because Jesus has fulfilled its demands and imparted His righteousness to those who believe. Christ has freed believers from its tyranny. The standards of righteousness come to us now not from without by imposition, but from within by the Spirit who writes the Law upon our hearts. See Sept.: Eccl 12:13.

Oh there are going to be verses that twist it... Now look at it in the NIV.. That one almost had me fooled too...

Romans 10:4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

The greek word "telos" is the same word we get for telescope hence "aim." Therefore Christ is the AIM of the law not END... A big big difference..

5056 télos (a neuter noun) – properly, consummation (the end-goal, purpose), such as closure with all its results.

[This root (tel-) means "reaching the end (aim)." It is well-illustrated with the old pirate's telescope, unfolding (extending out) one stage at a time to function at full-strength (capacity effectiveness).]

Source: http://biblesuite.com/greek/5056.htm

Here is the actual Greek word order in English without the tenses added in for any clarity...

Rom 10:4, ...télos For law Christ toward righteousness to every one of that trusting

It appears to me that Vincent’s Word Studies has it right...

Or follow the word order: Goal/End for Law /// Christ toward righteousness to every one that Faithing...

Makes sense to me...

Vincent’s Word Studies

Romans 10:4

The end of the law (τέλος νόμου)

First in the sentence as the emphatic point of thought. Expositors differ as to the sense. 1. The aim. Either that the intent of the law was to make men righteous, which was accomplished in Christ, or that the law led to Him as a pedagogue (Gal 3:24). 2. The fulfillment, as Mat 5:17. The termination. To believers in Christ the law has no longer legislative authority to say, “Do this and live; do this or die” (Morison). The last is preferable. Paul is discussing two materially exclusive systems, the one based on doing, the other on believing. The system of faith, represented by Christ, brings to an end and excludes the system of law; and the Jews, in holding by the system of law, fail of the righteousness which is by faith. Compare Gal 2:16; Gal 3:2-14.

Note: Pedagogue means simply a Dogmatic inflexible teacher.

-
-
-

No worries BW. He has been distorting what we have been saying since the first pages of this thread. It doesn't matter how many times all of us point out the same thing to him, he knows what we believe better then we do. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not too concerned at thus point about anyone reading his posts and thinking free grace gives one a license to sin. His whole argument is a straw man, and that's fine.

G is committed to the Galatian heresy. That's between him and God. As I have said, I don't judge his salvation. My only concern is and has been the bondage he if putting others under. But honestly, at this point, do you really think the issues are going to become any clearer than they are already?

These guys have done a fabulous job explaining the gospel with crystal clarity. They can continue if they like. But G isn't going to stop misrepresenting our argument. Personally, I am rather content with the way things are.

Just my own thoughts for what little they are worth.

Oh, and you are right about telos, by the way.

B. W. wrote:
From your tone, I am not sure you are reading Jac or Jlay correctly. They are not teaching and nor do they adhere to what you claim they do - Grace as license to sin...

They are.. They are saying the Christ came to END G-d's commandments. Since they believe that, they are destroying what grace is set up upon. Again, we should WANT to obey His commandments if we claim we have the faith. Not to be justified, by faith... Do we obey all the laws in our country? Of course not, but that doesn't mean we toss them away either. It's the same with G-d's commandments too..

B. W. wrote:Also, what I can gather you are saying is that for you - sin is defined as breaking the Commandments, the Festivals, Sabbath rest, and Holy Feast Days - is this correct or not?

Yes.. I believe it is sin, but nothing that would keep you from His salvation... I simply believe that a person is simply "misdirected" when they don't follow G-d's commandments, but are still saved... Again this is my opinion. G-d ultimately knows..

B. W. wrote:If so, in your eyes, keeping and doing these is the means by which you keep yourself from sinning?

How would that be any different than claiming that righteousness comes by following the law?

Following the law would mean that you would obey the law.. But not out of legalism as Jac thinks.. Out of faith and devotion... To HIM.

Jac3510 wrote:No worries BW. He has been distorting what we have been saying since the first pages of this thread. It doesn't matter how many times all of us point out the same thing to him, he knows what we believe better then we do. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not too concerned at thus point about anyone reading his posts and thinking free grace gives one a license to sin. His whole argument is a straw man, and that's fine.

G is committed to the Galatian heresy. That's between him and God. As I have said, I don't judge his salvation. My only concern is and has been the bondage he if putting others under. But honestly, at this point, do you really think the issues are going to become any clearer than they are already?

These guys have done a fabulous job explaining the gospel with crystal clarity. They can continue if they like. But G isn't going to stop misrepresenting our argument. Personally, I am rather content with the way things are.

Just my own thoughts for what little they are worth.

Oh, and you are right about telos, by the way.

Jac - how would explain the Greek word order of Romans 10:4 - notice for 'eis' I placed the word 'Toward' for clarity - How would you read it in Greek?
-
-
-

Jac3510 wrote:No worries BW. He has been distorting what we have been saying since the first pages of this thread. It doesn't matter how many times all of us point out the same thing to him, he knows what we believe better then we do. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not too concerned at thus point about anyone reading his posts and thinking free grace gives one a license to sin. His whole argument is a straw man, and that's fine.

G is committed to the Galatian heresy. That's between him and God. As I have said, I don't judge his salvation. My only concern is and has been the bondage he if putting others under. But honestly, at this point, do you really think the issues are going to become any clearer than they are already?

These guys have done a fabulous job explaining the gospel with crystal clarity. They can continue if they like. But G isn't going to stop misrepresenting our argument. Personally, I am rather content with the way things are.

Just my own thoughts for what little they are worth.

Oh, and you are right about telos, by the way.

G-d's commandments themselves are NOT bondage.. If you choose to turn them into legalism and exalt yourself unto righteousness, then yes... But they themselves are NOT legalistic bondage. What did Paul say to Timothy about the laws?

1 Timothy 1:8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.

G-d's commandments, when used properly, can actually bring blessings and freedom..

James 1:25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.

And truth in righteousness...

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

In fact.. Paul in Romans 7:25 says he wants to be a SLAVE to G-d's laws....

Romans 7:25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

B. W. wrote:
Here is the actual Greek word order in English without the tenses added in for any clarity...

Rom 10:4, ...télos For law Christ toward righteousness to every one of that trusting

It appears to me that Vincent’s Word Studies has it right...

Or follow the word order: Goal/End for Law /// Christ toward righteousness to every one that Faithing...

Makes sense to me...

Vincent’s Word Studies

Romans 10:4

The end of the law (τέλος νόμου)

First in the sentence as the emphatic point of thought. Expositors differ as to the sense. 1. The aim. Either that the intent of the law was to make men righteous, which was accomplished in Christ, or that the law led to Him as a pedagogue (Gal 3:24). 2. The fulfillment, as Mat 5:17. The termination. To believers in Christ the law has no longer legislative authority to say, “Do this and live; do this or die” (Morison). The last is preferable. Paul is discussing two materially exclusive systems, the one based on doing, the other on believing. The system of faith, represented by Christ, brings to an end and excludes the system of law; and the Jews, in holding by the system of law, fail of the righteousness which is by faith. Compare Gal 2:16; Gal 3:2-14.

Note: Pedagogue means simply a Dogmatic inflexible teacher.

I disagree with the teaching... It's in direct violation of Christ's teachings.. Christ DID NOT come to destroy His Laws... But to fulfill.. Until when? Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

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.”

Has earth and heaven passed away? I wouldn't think so...

Gman wrote:

B. W. wrote:From your tone, I am not sure you are reading Jac or Jlay correctly. They are not teaching and nor do they adhere to what you claim they do - Grace as license to sin...

They are.. They are saying the Christ came to END G-d's commandments. Since they believe that, they are destroying what grace is set up upon. Again, we should WANT to obey His commandments if we claim we have the faith. Not to be justified, by faith... Do we obey all the laws in our country? Of course not, but that doesn't mean we toss them away either. It's the same with G-d's commandments too..

I don’t think so, at least in the way you are interpreting what they say. In The New Covenant – the law is written in the heart governed by God’s Grace that teaches us who believe to say no to sin… the 1 John 1:9 way

That is what they are saying… in a nutshell

Gman wrote:

B. W. wrote:Also, what I can gather you are saying is that for you - sin is defined as breaking the Commandments, the Festivals, Sabbath rest, and Holy Feast Days - is this correct or not?

Yes.. I believe it is sin, but nothing that would keep you from His salvation... I simply believe that a person is simply "misdirected" when they don't follow G-d's commandments, but are still saved... Again this is my opinion. G-d ultimately knows..

The NT clearly teaches this:

Col 2:16, 17, So don't let anyone judge you because of what you eat or drink. Don't let anyone judge you about holy days. I'm talking about special feasts and New Moons and Sabbath days. 17 They are only a shadow of the things that were going to come. But what is real is found in Christ. NIrV

You are judging, are you not, and thus do the verses just cited apply to what you are doing and saying so far on this thread?

Gman wrote:

B. W. wrote:If so, in your eyes, keeping and doing these is the means by which you keep yourself from sinning?

How would that be any different than claiming that righteousness comes by following the law?

Following the law would mean that you would obey the law.. But not out of legalism as Jac thinks.. Out of faith and devotion... To HIM.

What others are saying that you disagree with so much is pretty much what you said with this difference: The NC Law is placed in the believers Heart guides a believer to rely on Christ’s Grace alone for his/her personal righteousness, not that keeping the literal letter of the written Law on paper is what keeps one right in God’s sight. It's relying on Christ Jesus alone - that is what they are saying - how can that be wrong?

Therefore, if you serve the Lord out of love by doing the Torah standards and ways and another serves the Lord out of love by living by the gospel – is there really any difference in the degree of love shown toward God? Would God be so cruel to discount either display of love?

Recall above how you broke the rule of Col 2:16, 17 -- so --

Do you need to sacrifice a sheep for this infraction or rely of God’s sacrifice provided by Christ?

Which of the two demonstrates Loving God more?
-
-
-

Gman wrote:...I disagree with the teaching... It's in direct violation of Christ's teachings.. Christ DID NOT come to destroy His Laws... But to fulfill.. Until when? Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

He put the NC promise of his law written within the Heart of a believer so we can now live by his grace, relying solely upon him alone, and nothing else... I am rather shocked that you don't understand John 16:7

That is how Christ fulfilled (completed- capped) the Law...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:
I don’t think so, at least in the way you are interpreting what they say. In The New Covenant – the law is written in the heart governed by God’s Grace that teaches us who believe to say no to sin… the 1 John 1:9 way

That is what they are saying… in a nutshell

How would you know not to sin if you didn't have G-d's commandments in the Bible?

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."

B. W. wrote: The NT clearly teaches this:

Col 2:16, 17, So don't let anyone judge you because of what you eat or drink. Don't let anyone judge you about holy days. I'm talking about special feasts and New Moons and Sabbath days. 17 They are only a shadow of the things that were going to come. But what is real is found in Christ. NIrV

You are judging, are you not, and thus do the verses just cited apply to what you are doing and saying so far on this thread?

We have been down this road before Bryan..... In the context of Colossians 2 we can clearly see in verse 8 that false teachers had engaged the Colossians to change G-d's laws into their own deceitful doctrine and theology.

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

Therefore we can clearly see that Paul was warning the Colossians of the false teachers that would judge them in Colossians 2:16-17. The Biblical festivals and Sabbaths were certainly not human tradition. They were ordained by G-d.

Therefore don't let a false teacher judge YOU when you observe a sabbath day or festival which is the future of what to come...

B. W. wrote: What others are saying that you disagree with so much is pretty much what you said with this difference: The NC Law is placed in the believers Heart guides a believer to rely on Christ’s Grace alone for his/her personal righteousness, not that keeping the literal letter of the written Law on paper is what keeps one right in God’s sight. It's relying on Christ Jesus alone - that is what they are saying - how can that be wrong?

Therefore, if you serve the Lord out of love by doing the Torah standards and ways and another serves the Lord out of love by living by the gospel – is there really any difference in the degree of love shown toward God? Would God be so cruel to discount either display of love?

Recall above how you broke the rule of Col 2:16, 17 -- so --

Do you need to sacrifice a sheep for this infraction or rely of God’s sacrifice provided by Christ?

Which of the two demonstrates Loving God more?
-
-
-

Again... G-d's laws, whether they are written on paper, or computer, or pasted on the moon, are not legalism themselves.. They are there to convict us of sin and point us to Christ. How is obeying them a cruel way to display love?