-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
☝t<><
DO YOU EVEN KNOW what UNDER THE LAW means?
IT MEANS you are condemned by breaking the LAW, and have to offer a BLOOD SACRIFICE of one of your animals when you SIN.
Your definition of Legalism is distorted and thus a total untruth.
To LOVE GOD by willingly Obeying HIS COMMANDMENTS to demonstrate that you really do LOVE HIM, whether those commandments be in the O.T. or the N.T.; most certainly is pleasing to GOD, and is what a genuine born again Christian DOES. It is a NATURAL born again response to HIS demonstrating HIS love for us by dying for us on the Cross.
Someone has seriously taught you some Very Bad Theology. Was it the Watchtower Society, or some other Psuedo Christian organization?
So do you REALLY think you can ignore and break O.T. Commandments and just laugh about it, and say "Let Grace Abound"?
1 John 2:4 (ISV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP] The person who says, "I have come to know him," but doesn't continually keep his commandments is a liar. The truth is not in that person.
NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW
MEANS you are NOT CONDEMNED by the LAW when you SIN, AND
NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW
does NOT mean you are wrong for OBEYING the LAW out of LOVE FOR HIM.
DO YOU EVEN KNOW what UNDER THE LAW means?
IT MEANS you are condemned by breaking the LAW, and have to offer a BLOOD SACRIFICE of one of your animals when you SIN.
Your definition of Legalism is distorted and thus a total untruth.
To LOVE GOD by willingly Obeying HIS COMMANDMENTS to demonstrate that you really do LOVE HIM, whether those commandments be in the O.T. or the N.T.; most certainly is pleasing to GOD, and is what a genuine born again Christian DOES. It is a NATURAL born again response to HIS demonstrating HIS love for us by dying for us on the Cross.
Someone has seriously taught you some Very Bad Theology. Was it the Watchtower Society, or some other Psuedo Christian organization?
So do you REALLY think you can ignore and break O.T. Commandments and just laugh about it, and say "Let Grace Abound"?
1 John 2:4 (ISV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP] The person who says, "I have come to know him," but doesn't continually keep his commandments is a liar. The truth is not in that person.
What does it mean to be under the Law?
by Matt Slick
What does it mean to be under the law? First of all, the Law consists of the do's and don'ts of moral and civil behavior (613 total) that is revealed in the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. To be under the Law means that the Law has jurisdiction and authority over a person to judge and condemn. If such a person breaks the Law (sins, 1 John 3:4), then there is a necessary judgment and condemnation based on the Law. All law-breaking brings separation between God and the sinner (Isaiah 59:2) and results in death (Rom. 6:23). So, to be under the Law means that the person is obligated to keep that Law in all its aspects (Deut. 27:26), and if he does not the Law condemns him. The problem is that we are not able to keep the Law perfectly, and any infraction results in a necessary judgment. Therefore, no one is able to be justified by keeping the Law because no one can keep it perfectly.
The phrase "under the law" in English occurs 11 times in the NASB. 1 Cor. 9:21 refers to "under the law of Christ," so it is not speaking of being under the Old testament Law and will not be considered. That leaves ten occurances. Let's take a look at the following verses from the NASB, with a brief Greek analysis after each.
About The Author Matt Slick is the President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.
https://carm.org/what-does-it-mean-to-be-under-the-law
by Matt Slick
What does it mean to be under the law? First of all, the Law consists of the do's and don'ts of moral and civil behavior (613 total) that is revealed in the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. To be under the Law means that the Law has jurisdiction and authority over a person to judge and condemn. If such a person breaks the Law (sins, 1 John 3:4), then there is a necessary judgment and condemnation based on the Law. All law-breaking brings separation between God and the sinner (Isaiah 59:2) and results in death (Rom. 6:23). So, to be under the Law means that the person is obligated to keep that Law in all its aspects (Deut. 27:26), and if he does not the Law condemns him. The problem is that we are not able to keep the Law perfectly, and any infraction results in a necessary judgment. Therefore, no one is able to be justified by keeping the Law because no one can keep it perfectly.
The phrase "under the law" in English occurs 11 times in the NASB. 1 Cor. 9:21 refers to "under the law of Christ," so it is not speaking of being under the Old testament Law and will not be considered. That leaves ten occurances. Let's take a look at the following verses from the NASB, with a brief Greek analysis after each.
- Rom. 2:12, "For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law," (ἐν νόμῳ, en nomo, literally 'in law').
- Rom. 3:19, "Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God," (ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, en to nomo, literally 'in the law').
- 1 Cor. 9:20, "And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who areunder the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law," (ὑπὸ νόμον, hupo nomon, literally 'under law' for all 4 occurrences).
- 1 Cor. 9:21, "to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law," (ἔννομος, ennomos, literally 'within law').
- Gal. 3:23, "But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed," (ὑπὸ νόμον, hupo nomon, literally 'under law').
- Gal. 4:4, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law," (ὑπὸ νόμον, hupo nomon, literally 'under law').
- Gal. 4:5, "in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons," (ὑπὸ νόμον, hupo nomon, literally 'under law').
- Gal. 5:18, "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law," (ὑπὸ νόμον, hupo nomon, literally 'under law').
https://carm.org/what-does-it-mean-to-be-under-the-law
NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW
MEANS you are NOT CONDEMNED by the LAW when you SIN, AND
NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW
does NOT mean you are wrong for OBEYING the LAW out of LOVE FOR HIM.
What you write sounds great doesn't it?
But it means you must have a righteousness before God of obedience to the law, for sin is transgression of the law. Therefore, if sin must cease to continue in your salvation, your right standing before God is obedience to the law
Paul's core message is you do not have such a righteousness.
But it means you must have a righteousness before God of obedience to the law, for sin is transgression of the law. Therefore, if sin must cease to continue in your salvation, your right standing before God is obedience to the law
Paul's core message is you do not have such a righteousness.
S
I think the truth may be somewhere between what the two of you are saying. This is a narrative piece, not a parable, or deep spiritual teaching, or prophecy. Narrative is pretty straightforward. When Paul is asked if he is a Roman citizen and replies, "Yes, I am," it doesn't mean he once was a Roman and didn't consider himself to be one now, or he isn't a Roman but was saying that merely to get out of a flogging. It means he is a Roman presently and, thus, flogging is inappropriate in this circumstance. When he says before the Sanhedrin, "I am a Pharisee," it doesn't mean he once was a Pharisee and didn't consider himself to be one now, or he isn't a Pharisee but was saying it merely to divide the crowd. It means he is a Pharisee presently and he is in agreement with the non-Messianic Jewish Pharisees there on the issue of resurrection of the dead. If Paul did not presently identify as a Pharisee, then he lied to the Sanhedrin.
Simple illustration from my life: I was raised in help by a Catholic grandmother and once identified as Catholic (though I no longer do). If I stood in front of a group of Catholics and Protestants and said, "I am a Catholic, descended from Catholics," the first part would be a lie and the second part would be true. It would certainly pit them against each other if I cited in my defense a belief supported by Catholics and not by Protestants, but I will have done so by lying. The difference between me and Paul is that I would never say, "I am a Catholic" because I do not presently identify as one. Paul had no issue with saying this because he did presently identify as one. To claim to be one did not abrogate his faith in the Messiah, for the two are not mutually exclusive. The Scriptures demonstrate in other places that there were Pharisees (present tense) who had faith in the Messiah. It's no different from Paul continuing to identify as a Jew while having faith in the Messiah, since that is also not mutually exclusive.
Someone might resort back to the "dung" statement, and there certainly is a lot in Pharisaism. But consider Gill's Exposition: "I am a Pharisee; he was not only brought up in that sect from his youth, and lived according to it before his conversion, but he was still a Pharisee; wherefore he does not say, I "was", but I "am" a Pharisee; for whatever distinguished the Pharisee from the Sadducee, whether in principle, or in practice, and manner of living, which agreed with Christianity, the apostle still retained; as the belief of the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and a future state, and strict holiness of life and conversation." It wasn't all dung, as evidenced by the fact that he cites a commonly shared belief with the Pharisees in Acts 23. Though, his prior attempts to justify himself by Pharisaic works apart from faith in the Messiah, and any manner of belief that would have driven him to done so, were certainly dung!
Simple illustration from my life: I was raised in help by a Catholic grandmother and once identified as Catholic (though I no longer do). If I stood in front of a group of Catholics and Protestants and said, "I am a Catholic, descended from Catholics," the first part would be a lie and the second part would be true. It would certainly pit them against each other if I cited in my defense a belief supported by Catholics and not by Protestants, but I will have done so by lying. The difference between me and Paul is that I would never say, "I am a Catholic" because I do not presently identify as one. Paul had no issue with saying this because he did presently identify as one. To claim to be one did not abrogate his faith in the Messiah, for the two are not mutually exclusive. The Scriptures demonstrate in other places that there were Pharisees (present tense) who had faith in the Messiah. It's no different from Paul continuing to identify as a Jew while having faith in the Messiah, since that is also not mutually exclusive.
Someone might resort back to the "dung" statement, and there certainly is a lot in Pharisaism. But consider Gill's Exposition: "I am a Pharisee; he was not only brought up in that sect from his youth, and lived according to it before his conversion, but he was still a Pharisee; wherefore he does not say, I "was", but I "am" a Pharisee; for whatever distinguished the Pharisee from the Sadducee, whether in principle, or in practice, and manner of living, which agreed with Christianity, the apostle still retained; as the belief of the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and a future state, and strict holiness of life and conversation." It wasn't all dung, as evidenced by the fact that he cites a commonly shared belief with the Pharisees in Acts 23. Though, his prior attempts to justify himself by Pharisaic works apart from faith in the Messiah, and any manner of belief that would have driven him to done so, were certainly dung!
I agree, a born again Christian is no longer under the Law. The problem is you have a total misunderstanding of what "under the Law" means, THUS you misunderstand SEVERAL related verses. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH KEEPING THE LAW AS A WAY TO SHOW OUR LOVE FOR GOD. But rather, Under the LAW means one thinks he or she is CONDEMNED by the LAW for stumbling into sin failing to keep the Law, and personally must pay the PRICE for sin.
A truly born again Christian is No Longer Under the LAW, because, the Penalty PRICE for our sins (past, present, and future) were paid for in FULL by Jesus Christ on the Cross. HE redeemed us by paying the penalty for us. PLUS having been washed in the blood of Christ, thereby the Father sees us with with the holiness and righteousness that we inherited from Christ. That all happened the moment we genuinely believed, confessing and repenting of being a sinner, and RECEIVED HIM AS LORD, which means MASTER; all of which was empowered by the HOLY SPIRIT in us as HE poured the LOVE of GOD into our hearts. Therefore we do NOT GET TO TAKE CREDIT FOR ANY OF THAT. IT IS ALL BY HIS GRACE.
That is why your understanding of what is Legalism, is also a twisted false concept. THE TERM Legalist ONLY APPLYS to the those who think the have to earn part of their own Salvation by keeping the LAW, and has always been a false teaching, even in Old Testament times. NO MAN CAN EARN ANY PART OF HIS SALVATION, BECAUSE no man is perfect, and PERFECTION has always been the requirement of the Law. The LAW was never meant to be a way for a man to make himself righteous in the sight of GOD; buy rather the LAW was meant to point out to all men, that they CANNOT measure up to God's standards, and that they Desperately NEED a Savior.
KEEPING the Law out of LOVE for GOD, is kinda like a four year old child
trying to walk in Daddy's shoes. We don't say to them, "DON'T DO THAT!";
we smile with pride that they want to be like Daddy.
No we can never fill HIS SHOES perfectly, but I am sure our continual striving to
be like HIM, makes HIM smile and think, "Those are my Children, I saved them
before the foundation of the Earth, and now they are imitating ME, which
reflects My Character, to the unsaved of the world."
trying to walk in Daddy's shoes. We don't say to them, "DON'T DO THAT!";
we smile with pride that they want to be like Daddy.
No we can never fill HIS SHOES perfectly, but I am sure our continual striving to
be like HIM, makes HIM smile and think, "Those are my Children, I saved them
before the foundation of the Earth, and now they are imitating ME, which
reflects My Character, to the unsaved of the world."
Have you ever thought of how IDENTICAL the Faith of
Old Testament Saints and New Testament Saints really is?:
Old Testament Saints, realized and confessed they were sinners who had fallen far from
GOD's standards; and Believed God would send HIS Messiah to Save them.
New Testament Saints, realized and confessed they were sinners who had fallen far from
GOD's standards; and Believed God did send HIS Messiah to Save them.
Romans 4:3 (ESV)
[SUP]3 [/SUP] For what does the Scripture say?
“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
HENCE, the Bride of Christ is made up of both:
Old Testament Saintsand New Testament Saints
Old Testament Saints and New Testament Saints really is?:
Old Testament Saints, realized and confessed they were sinners who had fallen far from
GOD's standards; and Believed God would send HIS Messiah to Save them.
New Testament Saints, realized and confessed they were sinners who had fallen far from
GOD's standards; and Believed God did send HIS Messiah to Save them.
Romans 4:3 (ESV)
[SUP]3 [/SUP] For what does the Scripture say?
“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
HENCE, the Bride of Christ is made up of both:
Old Testament Saintsand New Testament Saints
Why? I already have several times, and you proved that you do not read them anyhow. Until you want to learn, you will not learn.
☝t<><
I still want to know what kind of CHURCH denomination you attend? This is the FOURTH TIME I have asked.
PLEASE include their Doctrinal Statement of Faith.
Could your lack of a response be telling us you do not go to Church at all?
several have, several times - like tossing pearls you might even say and maybe not be wrong !
whatever 'school' is behind it, it has some kind of grip that has hung on so far..... and no one has been
able to get through with the truth, by revelation, resurrection, scripture or just plain sense.....
the responses are always avoiding truth, avoiding true scripture meaning, and without sense....
let's ask Yahweh if He is able to help. no one else can it looks like.
whatever 'school' is behind it, it has some kind of grip that has hung on so far..... and no one has been
able to get through with the truth, by revelation, resurrection, scripture or just plain sense.....
the responses are always avoiding truth, avoiding true scripture meaning, and without sense....
let's ask Yahweh if He is able to help. no one else can it looks like.
Yahshua says plainly to avoid listening to the like of you after you have been warned 2 or 3 times.
Now it's just a matter of warning others to keep testing everything in prayer and with Scripture.
There's no personal opinion involve and no insults --- what Yahweh says to say about you is said. That's all.
for instance , why do you have an idol/ graven image as an avatar?
Now it's just a matter of warning others to keep testing everything in prayer and with Scripture.
There's no personal opinion involve and no insults --- what Yahweh says to say about you is said. That's all.
for instance , why do you have an idol/ graven image as an avatar?
mean? since you don't accept Scripture or Truth or Revelation or God's Word , but keep spamming whatever
you
picked up at whatever school you were deceived by, (as VCO and several others have repeatedly pointed out to you),
you ought to be silenced, but apparently there's no strong rule or enforceable rule against pointless and constant error in spams; so you will probably go on until Yahweh takes action, or He might just let you
go on and on and on without ever learning the Truth, letting you be deceived by your own delusions. as it is written, so it will be.
you
picked up at whatever school you were deceived by, (as VCO and several others have repeatedly pointed out to you),
you ought to be silenced, but apparently there's no strong rule or enforceable rule against pointless and constant error in spams; so you will probably go on until Yahweh takes action, or He might just let you
go on and on and on without ever learning the Truth, letting you be deceived by your own delusions. as it is written, so it will be.