God did away with some of His own sayings

[BenFTW]

So then does your doctrine endorse that the law needs to disappear with sin because they are the same? If I am correct in that interpretation, then the sins are made clean by the abolishing of the law rather than the law being seen as clean by the abolishing of the sin that the law reveals.

My belief is that adhering to the new covenant lifts us up so we can have a better vantage point to see the truth of the old covenant that we are no longer under. Here is a promise without condemnation in the law. "And ye shall eat old store, and bring forth the old because of the new." Leviticus 26:10 Of course the spiritual application needs to be invoked.



I agree that the law cannot make us righteous. That never was, and never will be what I believe, for we all fall short of living perfectly. Yes, and we are justified in believing in Christ Jesus. Here's where we differ. Jesus created all things, and by Him all things consist. He is literally the "Word of God." Just because He has made a way for us to be accepted by God Almighty by believing in all that He is (His name), how in the world can He make void part of Himself which shows us that He is incomplete when in fact He is complete? To me that makes no sense at all, for Christ Jesus is Spiritual, holy, just, and good, same as Paul classified the words of God that are contained in the law and everything else He ever spoke. Ya cannot throw the law away with sin. If that were true then what doesn't exist cannot be fulfilled. The law is God's, the sin is ours. They are not together. Sin works against God, and the law works against sin. We are prone to unrighteousness even after being born again, and God's words are forever righteous.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Romans 8:1

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. Galatinas 5:17

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 1 Peter 3:18

The Holy Spirit, revealed in all of God's spoken words, and flesh are polar opposites. So that which is spiritual, holy, just, and good have been resurrected with Christ. All that the Old Covenant contained is still in existence in the New Covenant even though the container of the Old has been discarded by the New. The Old covenant by itself is not complete.

No, that interpretation is incorrect. That wasn't what was being said. Law and sin are not the same, and how you got that from what I wrote I have no clue... The Law was nailed to the cross to shut up the accuser of the brethren not because it was in any way sinful or not holy, just and good.

Your point on the Law being abolished for the sake of sin becoming clean is also incorrect. Sin is filthy it just isn't attributed to us because of Jesus. It is a metaphor to say that sins of scarlet are as white as snow, though the sins are filthy they are not seen as such because they are washed in the blood of Jesus Christ (by His sacrifice). Just as with the Ark of the Covenant and the mercy seat where the blood was sprinkled... covering the sins.

The Law reveals God's character, but the exact image of God is Jesus Christ. The Law shares in the morality that Jesus has, except to say that Jesus doesn't want to stone anyone. haha Where the Law condemns, Jesus saves. He did not come into the world to condemn but save the world. Where as the Law came for the purpose of condemnation, it is the ministry of death. So to say the Law and Jesus are one is not completely accurate as their purposes are at odds. Though I will say, they do work in unity in that one leads to the other (the Law to Christ), but each are individualistic by nature of their purpose.

 

[just-me]

The Exodus account doesn't sound too bad when read in the KJV. It just sounds like they are wanting to be obedient. When you read it in the original languages however, it is easy to see that the people are boasting that they have this under control, they are well able to do anything God requires of them.

Just curious. Where is the scripture that says Israel was proud of themselves because they followed the law? They were proud of themselves for being chosen as a special people. I will say that. Seems to me, little has changed these days.

I see just the opposite form what I've read. Israel was rebellious against God's law, given to them first, recorded in Exodus 20 thru 23.

Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; Numbers 14:22

 

[BenFTW]

The Law shares in the morality that Jesus has, except to say that Jesus doesn't want to stone anyone. haha

This has me laughing, I can't stop smirking!

 

[just-me]

No, that interpretation is incorrect. That wasn't what was being said. Law and sin are not the same, and how you got that from what I wrote I have no clue... The Law was nailed to the cross to shut up the accuser of the brethren not because it was in any way sinful or not holy, just and good.

So then did you mean that both good and bad were crucified together?

Your point on the Law being abolished for the sake of sin becoming clean is also incorrect. Sin is filthy it just isn't attributed to us because of Jesus. It is a metaphor to say that sins of scarlet are as white as snow, though the sins are filthy they are not seen as such because they are washed in the blood of Jesus Christ (by His sacrifice). Just as with the Ark of the Covenant and the mercy seat where the blood was sprinkled... covering the sins.

We agree on this for sure.

The Law reveals God's character, but the exact image of God is Jesus Christ. The Law shares in the morality that Jesus has, except to say that Jesus doesn't want to stone anyone. haha Where the Law condemns, Jesus saves. He did not come into the world to condemn but save the world. Where as the Law came for the purpose of condemnation, it is the ministry of death. So to say the Law and Jesus are one is not completely accurate as their purposes are at odds. Though I will say, they do work in unity in that one leads to the other (the Law to Christ), but each are individualistic by nature of their purpose.

"except to say that Jesus doesn't want to stone anyone" doesn't make me laugh because it's a spiritual parable of killing the sin, and separating it from the person. I don't laugh, I rejoice.

All of God's words work together for the good of His children based on love and grace, just to mention 2 things of much more. This is the plan of salvation because they (law and grace of God through Christ) work in unity. God's total word given to us (not just part) are for the purpose of growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ Jesus, both Old and New.

Sometimes we concentrate more on wanting to get rid of the light that reveals sin, rather than be confronted with the fact that we are at war within ourselves because of the existing fleshly persuasion inside all of us. If we esteem all of God's word as beneficial (including the law), that doesn't mean we are forever condemned by it, or want to be under it as works without faith. Just because we believe it to be forever and currently good for spiritual food to the believer in Christ doesn't mean it's a detriment to our salvation any more that the only way to salvation.

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. Galatinas 5:17

 

[BenFTW]

So then did you mean that both good and bad were crucified together?

We agree on this for sure.


"except to say that Jesus doesn't want to stone anyone" doesn't make me laugh because it's a spiritual parable of killing the sin, and separating it from the person. I don't laugh, I rejoice.

All of God's words work together for the good of His children based on love and grace, just to mention 2 things of much more. This is the plan of salvation because they (law and grace of God through Christ) work in unity. God's total word given to us (not just part) are for the purpose of growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ Jesus, both Old and New.

Sometimes we concentrate more on wanting to get rid of the light that reveals sin, rather than be confronted with the fact that we are at war within ourselves because of the existing fleshly persuasion inside all of us. If we esteem all of God's word as beneficial (including the law), that doesn't mean we are forever condemned by it, or want to be under it as works without faith. Just because we believe it to be forever and currently good for spiritual food to the believer in Christ doesn't mean it's a detriment to our salvation any more that the only way to salvation.

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. Galatinas 5:17

"As works without faith", you say. Does this mean you wish to be under it with works that are in faith? Is observing the law, a work of faith in your eyes? I'm trying to read inbetween the lines a little here. Is that what you are getting at? I understand you say there are beneficial things to both the Law and the covenant of grace, principles to live by. Of course, no one would disagree that there are beneficial principles residing in both.

We, once again, need to go full circle here. I asked once before of the necessity of observing the Law. You say there are consequences of not doing so, naturally. My question to you then is this, is there an eternal consequence (salvation issue) to not observing the Law? I am not asking you for natural consequences of tribulation, but eternal consequences (answer it forthright).

 

[just-me]

"As works without faith", you say. Does this mean you wish to be under it with works that are in faith? Is observing the law, a work of faith in your eyes? I'm trying to read inbetween the lines a little here. Is that what you are getting at? I understand you say there are beneficial things to both the Law and the covenant of grace, principles to live by. Of course, no one would disagree that there are beneficial principles residing in both.

It is impossible (according to the word of God) to have faith and be "under the law." Just the opposite. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31

We, once again, need to go full circle here. I asked once before of the necessity of observing the Law. You say there are consequences of not doing so, naturally. My question to you then is this, is there an eternal consequence (salvation issue) to not observing the Law? I am not asking you for natural consequences of tribulation, but eternal consequences (answer it forthright).

Understood. The crux of the matter is: what is our incentive since we were first born anew? Rhetorically. If we ascribe to the false concept that certain things God has spoken are irrelevant to us as professing Christians (emphasizing "professing"), how sincere is our faith in the word of God? Again rhetorically. Faith is substantial. Believing only certain parts of God's spoken words confirms an incomplete faith in God. Where do you think that doctrine will end up? Complete faith in God's word through Christ is certainly not purposefully teaching that some of God's spoken words have been abolished. Not believing and trusting in all of it is being lost. There's no middle ground. Not understanding the spiritual concepts of all of God's words (including stoning) is a confirmation that the Holy Spirit isn't within, no matter how we verbalize that it is. Nothing in God's holy words are can be separated from others parts He has given to us. Faith comes first. Rejection is not of faith. therefore rejection is self-works without faith.

 

[Least]

Just curious. Where is the scripture that says Israel was proud of themselves because they followed the law? They were proud of themselves for being chosen as a special people. I will say that. Seems to me, little has changed these days.

I see just the opposite form what I've read. Israel was rebellious against God's law, given to them first, recorded in Exodus 20 thru 23.

Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; Numbers 14:22

I've read several interpretations, and I've never seen one that gives the impression that they were proud of keeping the law.
They were usually ashamed of their failure to keep it, and that shame only seemed to come when sin became so bad that all of Israel suffered.

Deuteronomy 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

That was the theme over and over throughout the OT, and still hasn't changed.

I also have to wonder, what about before the Law was given to Moses and to Israel. There were still laws in place that seem to be overlooked too often. If there were no standards set by God. Cain wouldn't have faced any consequences for slaying Abel.

Sometimes looking at circumstances before the Law was given to Israel can be very revealing.

BTW, There is no account in the scriptures that says that Cain agreed to live sin free.

That didn't change God's standards. He still faced the consequences of his actions.

 

[BenFTW]

It is impossible (according to the word of God) to have faith and be "under the law." Just the opposite. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31


Understood. The crux of the matter is: what is our incentive since we were first born anew? Rhetorically. If we ascribe to the false concept that certain things God has spoken are irrelevant to us as professing Christians (emphasizing "professing"), how sincere is our faith in the word of God? Again rhetorically. Faith is substantial. Believing only certain parts of God's spoken words confirms an incomplete faith in God. Where do you think that doctrine will end up? Complete faith in God's word through Christ is certainly not purposefully teaching that some of God's spoken words have been abolished. Not believing and trusting in all of it is being lost. There's no middle ground. Not understanding the spiritual concepts of all of God's words (including stoning) is a confirmation that the Holy Spirit isn't within, no matter how we verbalize that it is. Nothing in God's holy words are can be separated from others parts He has given to us. Faith comes first. Rejection is not of faith. therefore rejection is self-works without faith.

I need a yes or no. Is there an eternal consequence to not observing the Law, yes or no? Its a simple question that doesn't require an essay, or a diversion on the importance of all of God's word. We both agree all of God's word is important. We need to come to an understanding of whether or not there is a necessity of observing the Law, for eternal reasons. Again, answer it forthright. Yes, or no?

 

[BenFTW]

It is impossible (according to the word of God) to have faith and be "under the law." Just the opposite. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31


Understood. The crux of the matter is: what is our incentive since we were first born anew? Rhetorically. If we ascribe to the false concept that certain things God has spoken are irrelevant to us as professing Christians (emphasizing "professing"), how sincere is our faith in the word of God? Again rhetorically. Faith is substantial. Believing only certain parts of God's spoken words confirms an incomplete faith in God. Where do you think that doctrine will end up? Complete faith in God's word through Christ is certainly not purposefully teaching that some of God's spoken words have been abolished. Not believing and trusting in all of it is being lost. There's no middle ground. Not understanding the spiritual concepts of all of God's words (including stoning) is a confirmation that the Holy Spirit isn't within, no matter how we verbalize that it is. Nothing in God's holy words are can be separated from others parts He has given to us. Faith comes first. Rejection is not of faith. therefore rejection is self-works without faith.

The irrelevance arises out of the audience being spoken to. Not that we can't learn from what is said, but it isn't directed at us. In the example of forgive others or the Lord won't forgive you... we learn of hypocrisy. However such a commandment doesn't fall under grace. We are forgiven and therefore forgive others, not to obtain that which we already have. So here we have a commandment that was spoken by Jesus and yet doesn't apply under the new covenant. A covenant has terms you agree with and under such terms the covenant is fulfilled if you do your part. We have no part in obedience to the Law because we are not under Law. How do we break that which we are dead to? We aren't under it.

Its not that we are calling God's word irrelevant, its that certain things said do not apply to us because they are within the confines of a covenant that we are not under and therefore are not obliged to follow.

 

[just-me]

I need a yes or no. Is there an eternal consequence to not observing the Law, yes or no? Its a simple question that doesn't require an essay, or a diversion on the importance of all of God's word. We both agree all of God's word is important. We need to come to an understanding of whether or not there is a necessity of observing the Law, for eternal reasons. Again, answer it forthright. Yes, or no?

You are forcing my hand with a required direct answer of yes or no, because personal incentive is not being included in your question. However, I would say yes in answer because if all of God's spoken words are not purposefully taken to heed, the following scripture will be the consequence.

I quote;

A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person. Psalm 101:4

The law given to God's children is a substantial part of God's will. I have stressed precisely that spiritual understanding of the law is the key. Physical rhetoric of defining the law confirms carnality which proves the following truth.

[SUP]"[/SUP]Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23

Rejecting any part of God's spoken words causes the consequence of losing out on the promise given. I have no desire to talk about the carnal aspects of the law. They do not apply to my life, so I respectfully decline to entertain that thought process. Thank you.

 

[oldthennew]

Yes,
there are 'eternal consequences' for keeping the Law or not keeping the Law -
that is, this determines our position in God's coming Kingdom,
whether we be least or great, a janitor or a king.
MATT.5:19.
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.
For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees,
you will by no means enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

HEB.11:6.
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is,
and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

[just-me]

froward means perverse. Psalm 101:4 (a person's actions) showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences.

 

[BenFTW]

You are forcing my hand with a required direct answer of yes or no, because personal incentive is not being included in your question. However, I would say yes in answer because if all of God's spoken words are not purposefully taken to heed, the following scripture will be the consequence.

I quote;

A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person. Psalm 101:4

The law given to God's children is a substantial part of God's will. I have stressed precisely that spiritual understanding of the law is the key. Physical rhetoric of defining the law confirms carnality which proves the following truth.

[SUP]"[/SUP]Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23

Rejecting any part of God's spoken words causes the consequence of losing out on the promise given. I have no desire to talk about the carnal aspects of the law. They do not apply to my life, so I respectfully decline to entertain that thought process. Thank you.

Well then, , let me give you the floor. What is your personal incentive in observance to the Law, spiritually and not carnally? How does the Law apply to your life, from a spiritual and not carnal perspective? Thank you for answering clearly, that, yes, to not observe the Law has an eternal consequence.

We have finally gotten to the meat of our discussion. To anyone waiting to jump in and ask just-me questions, feel free to do so now. This isn't to say I will stop asking questions, but I think this clearly defines his perspective, in some way, for me.

Just-me thanks for entertaining my questions, and another one just came to mind. When you say observe the Law, what are you observing from the Law (if not carnally, spiritually, or maybe both)?

 

[BenFTW]

froward means perverse. Psalm 101:4 (a person's actions) showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences.

Which no true Christian would do, sort of sounds like the idea of a license to sin. Which has been addressed a thousand times that no Christian actually believes we have, as we are dead to sin.

 

[just-me]

Well then, , let me give you the floor. What is your personal incentive in observance to the Law, spiritually and not carnally? How does the Law apply to your life, from a spiritual and not carnal perspective? Thank you for answering clearly, that, yes, to not observe the Law has an eternal consequence.

We have finally gotten to the meat of our discussion. To anyone waiting to jump in and ask just-me questions, feel free to do so now. This isn't to say I will stop asking questions, but I think this clearly defines his perspective, in some way, for me.

Just-me thanks for entertaining my questions, and another one just came to mind. When you say observe the Law, what are you observing from the Law (if not carnally, spiritually, or maybe both)?

I am observing the name (character) of God and relating His perfect way to my life as I desire to grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ Jesus, as he is the epitome of His own Father who never changes because of His perfection. I also compare the world's debauchery with God's holy word, knowing that the signs of the times are very close to His coming, and I am looking forward to His iron rod. Thanks for being patient with my posts and beliefs.Our conversation ended very civilly, thanks to atwhatcost. I wish all threads could be like this even though it didn't start very well. I hope you can say the same for me, even if this thread was not specifically designed to address the law only.

To believe that if any part of God's Word is irrelevant and made void because of grace causes a doctrinal stalemate. That is opposite of what the New Testament teaches. Hebrews 6:1-3
God will permit this IF we want it, and it won't happen if we don't.

 

[BenFTW]

I am observing the name (character) of God and relating His perfect way to my life as I desire to grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ Jesus, as he is the epitome of His own Father who never changes because of His perfection. I also compare the world's debauchery with God's holy word, knowing that the signs of the times are very close to His coming, and I am looking forward to His iron rod. Thanks for being patient with my posts and beliefs.Our conversation ended very civilly, thanks to atwhatcost. I wish all threads could be like this even though it didn't start very well. I hope you can say the same for me, even if this thread was not specifically designed to address the law only.

To believe that any part of God's Word is irrelevant and made void because of grace causes doctrinal stalemate. That is opposite of what the New Testament teaches. Hebrews 6:1-3
God will permit this IF we want it, and it won't happen if we don't.

In other words, being Christ-like. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the means of doing that (being sanctified). I don't believe its through observance to the Law, but a renewing of our mind to who we are in Jesus Christ, the fruit of the Spirit, and as you said, growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ (which will reveal who we are in Him). But all is well, I get what you are saying now. You see the Law as you see Jesus, a practical guide on righteousness. You want to imitate Jesus in your daily life, that is honorable.

I just disagree on the method we do to achieve that. For me, its not a matter of doing but being. Its who you are in Christ that determines your conduct, not your actions defining who you are. The Word says "Be holy as I am holy", not become holy. Its a matter of being, a current reality. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." In other words, all actions are preceded by thought, and so what we believe about ourselves (who we are in Jesus) will effect our conduct. Which the bible defines as, "Awake to righteousness and sin not."

 

[jamie26301]

The irrelevance arises out of the audience being spoken to.

Well, comparing the Bible to "trail mix" is breeding ground for this kind of theology - EVERYTHING must be a command from God to EVERY believer.

Are you Lutheran? What you have been stating sounds very Lutheran to me.

 

[BenFTW]

Well, comparing the Bible to "trail mix" is breeding ground for this kind of theology - EVERYTHING must be a command from God to EVERY believer.

Are you Lutheran? What you have been stating sounds very Lutheran to me.

No, I disagree with their idea of the Eucharist and what is known as "True Presence" and also their stance on baptism.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

If I see two people who claim to be christian, and seek out to see what kind of life they life.

1 This man lives his life trying to obey the mosaic law. They observe the Jewish traditions, and are openly conscious of making sure they are not sinning, and living moral lives. They attend church regularly, Are huge givers to the church (they tithe and above) are avid sabbath keepers. and when you look at their lives, You can not see any part of their life which would be sinful.

2. This man lives his life serving others, He is always looking for someone to serve, he is involved in the church in community outreach, He is involved in the inner city by serving the homeless people who are torn by addiction. He helps in serving inner city youth programs. He is usually very busy on the sabbath with some sort of outreach (in fact almost every day of his life is involved in the church, serving a few men in discipleship and cell groups, and inner city or youth programs) If you look at his life. You really can not see any moreal sin issues. in fact if you put both people together, neither one would be considered a sinner.

I would follow number 2 any day of the week. I feel number 2 is more christlike, Acts more like the church and how God and the apostles told them they were to be. And he is the type of person I desire to be.

As for person number 1. I can not even say If he is saved or not. He looks like a person who loves God. but thats about all I can say about him.

 

[KennethC]

No. It was possible physically but impossible spiritually or men, but it would profit nothing to physically do it when spiritually left undone.

The impossible part is only before being born again, after being born again the bible clearly says all things are possible.

Again if you are going to focus only on the physical and leave the spiritual undone then the physical absolutely means nothing.

We just did a sermon on 1 Corinthians 3, where it speaks that nobody can build on a foundation other than that which was already laid by Jesus Christ. Apostle Paul is saying here if your teaching says different then what the Lord Jesus Christ already said then it is a false teaching.

As getting baptized or repenting of sins would mean nothing if you don't believe in Jesus coming in the flesh, died for our sins, and was risen on the third day. They would be just physical actions !!!

In faith those things have spiritual meaning, but out of faith those are just filthy rags.