Departure From Oblivion!

[atwhatcost]

I think I specified that "party" might have been a bad choice. I simply mean participants.


I think it's the understanding of many Christians that it's NOT the same contract - it has been replaced. As Baptism replaced circumcision. How do you keep a contract that has conditions for God's approval and then incorporate an unconditional love from this same God? It's a contradiction. It's not the same, from my understanding, it has been replaced. And the application/understanding of the Law is not the same. As Paul said, the Law is not sin simply because it convicts/condemns sin. It's not altogether void of purpose - however, it should be balanced because of it's very tendency to incite sin.

I get that's the understanding of many Christians. I'm saying that's a wrong understanding. It IS the same contract. The only difference is who are the ones upholding the contract. Before the two sides were God and Man. Man failed. No other choice but that contract, so God did it again. God and God -- Father and Son. Terms were finalized by blood. Literally.

And God's conditions have never been unconditional. That's a modernism. His condition was Christ on that cross. Heavy-duty, very conditional condition done for love. He is our condition. He brought us before the Father covering that condition like a mantle. God knows what's under the mantle, but the mantle is the condition, so what is under it is accepted by that condition. Like a wife is covered by the mantle of her husband, except in God's case the mantle is perfect too.

I'm not sure where I argued or even implied this, unless you're proposing an idea.

I don't really intend to enter the debate, perse. We are not discussing anything that hasn't been discussed by believing minds far more enlightened than ours - but still confused.

My take right now is that we are partners with God, in designing our life and destiny. But without God, nothing of pure motivation and love can be done, because He IS love. So the best way to improve life is to have God in your life - and I'm not saying which god or which Scriptures, or whatnot, but a higher purpose, particularly of personal nature.

The Law is not love - it is condemnation, because it doesn't praise and it doesn't edify, it only corrects and reveals sin. Plenty of people have read "Thou shalt not murder" and yet go and murder. The Law in and of itself does NOTHING to improve an individual. That's why "return to the Law" concerns some people, esp when you are leaving out of this argument Christ and forgiveness for when one breaks the Law... because they will. And ultimately, the answer many levels against the "watered down Law" is that you are excusing sin. I never knew God to give mankind the authority to judge sin, anyway, not in a manner of salvation requirements or retribution. But man sure loves to take upon himself this role.

We love because HE loved. We draw our feelings and motivations of love from Him. I'm not posing HOW that is done - through Scripture, the Spirit only, both, what religion etc. I am only saying that usually an extreme approach to anything ultimately ends in the opposite extreme pushing back. You end up creating what you pushed hard to squash out... just like the Church, she thrived and with her inspired love and purpose pushed back against hatred and grew. But that's not the same, what we are talking here.

You're not nuts. You didn't argue that. I was hoping we could agree on that. I was presenting an idea and truly asking if it works for you. If it doesn't, where did I goof? It is possible I did.

I can now argue for and against some of your new ideas, but, man! That gets convoluted, especially since I've been saying all along the law and the covenant are God. Not that he looks like a letter in a commandment or he is a commandment, or he is a bunch of words in a contract, but it sums up God's being -- his personality, who he is, what he wants, what he expects from others, and where we miss even being sort of, close to, kind of, maybe, like him. He IS that. He is the OT and the Law. Clearly, clearly we are not that.

Here's one for you. If the covenant tells us who God is, if it is his law, then isn't it also love, since God is love? I really do see perfect love in it. To do that would be to be perfect love. We fall short. (Understatement of the year! lol)

Only one single way to get there -- Jesus in us working through us. (Not so much a partnership, since one side has everything to offer and the other side has squat in exchange.)

 

[gb9]

I apologize for sounding grumpy toward you. I ask your forgiveness.
I had a bowl of chocolate-chocolate chip ice cream and I feel better now. But there is still no excuse to sound grumpy. I hang my head in shame.

The old covenant does not, as you say, overlap the new covenant. A study of the covenants shows that they are built one upon another - everything in the first (salt) covenant is included with the added provisions of the second (blood) and so on. It is as clear as anything can be that the new - or more accurately: renewed - covenant is based upon the old covenant, step-by-step, so to say what you do about it tells me you don't have that understanding. I have been reading a commentary/study about how the covenants fit together and how they work. It is very enlightening! But I see there is no point in trying to explain to you so I am calling a truce between us on this. That doesn't mean I quit contending for the faith altogether - just with you on this topic.

um, Hebrews 8 disagrees with this, so I will go with the new made the old obsolete over what you just said. and that is ment to sound grumpy because it is in black and white, and you disagree. it ticks me off when folks try to say something does not mean what it CLEARLY DOES.

 

[atwhatcost]

The thing is we do see the laws had their purpose and that purpose was to bring us to Christ, for it shows us our sinful ways that separate us from God and a need for a Savior to reconcile us to Him.

After we are brought to Christ and under grace we are no longer under those written ordinances of the law to obey. We instead walk by the Spirit and let His guidance and fruits direct how we are to walk in the faith.

We are not to still continue to serve in the oldness of the letter of the law, but in the newness of the Spirit.

We should all continue to study with the Holy Spirit leading our every steps, and in that study by the Spirit's guidance you would know that we are not held to obey all 613 Mosaic laws.

One needs to look at how the Jews actually looked at the written laws as well to understand how to properly speak on them, for the Jews did also have the 10 Commandments separated from the rest of the Mosaic laws as they are considered God's moral laws as well.

Those who place themselves under the law the scriptures say they are bound to keep the whole entire thing, and if they don't then they are guilty of all of it. The bible says we who are under grace are not under the law !!!

Do you know what this sounds like to me?

"I will not listen to the OT. I will not. I will not. I will not. And you can't make me. I will do whatever I want based on how I feel in my heart and call it God's grace. I will. I will. I will. Nanny nanny nu nu."

Please tell me why I am wrong in thinking this is what you're saying.

 

[atwhatcost]

Ok
If what you mean by "has power over his tactics" is that the law has the ability to reveal sin, then I completely agree.

The law has no power to overcome sin. In other words you will not get free from sin by keeping the law. You can never keep it perfect enough. It was never given to bring righteousness by obedience to it.

Can you point to anyone who kept the law? (Warning: Trick question. lol)

 

[just-me]

Living by every word of God does not mean we have to continue to obey every aspect of it, as what it is really saying is that we need the OT laws to understand the real need and reason why the Lord was sent in the flesh to die for us.

Without those laws we would not know and understand how we are sinners, and how those sinful ways keep us enmity to God.
They taught us our need to be reconciled to God by a Savior, and not that they have brought us to the Lord we no longer need them to show us the way.

We are now lead by the Spirit under God's grace, and no longer under the law.

If we make the Mosaic laws a necessary thing to be obedient in keeping for salvation then nobody would be saved, because no matter how much one may say it the bible makes it clear no man keeps the whole law. Saying it in that way that it must be kept and followed also means you are seeking your justification by it.

There are multiple places the 10 Commandments are upheld in the NT, but you will find no place all 613 Mosaic written ordinances are. Instead you will find how a few of them have been changed on how they are observed in the new covenant, like that of clean and unclean food. The bible in the new covenant only restricts eating of things, if you know it was offered to idols, strangled, or its blood.

Other cases we are told to eat whatever is sold or served without asking !!!

The crux of the matter is understanding the reality of the spiritual aspects of the law. If we cannot see the law beyond the physical aspects, we cannot be subject to it. I don't disagree with what you are saying however, as far as you go, but it cannot stop there "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." (Romans 8:7)

What the readers of this thread are actually getting, because that's what I'm getting (according to what you write) is “hear ye, hear ye, there are 4 books of the Bible, in general, that are detrimental to Christian's as they grow in the grace of Jesus Christ. For the most part, they are Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.” (smile)

These scriptures confirm the above
John 1:17
Romans 4:16
Romans 5:20
Romans 6:14
Romans 6:15
Galatians 2:21
Galatians 5:4

Oh, I forget for a minute that the Old Testament scrolls were all that was available while Paul was writing His Epistles.

Acts 20:32

Acts 15:19-21
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.


Verse 20 was the beginning, and verse 21 defines the growth. I mean nothing bad toward you, even though I think you have be indoctrinated with untruth.

 

[atwhatcost]

I noticed that no one answered this?? could it be that it is good question?? just-me, you got nothing??

Hey! I have a life. I really do. Might be hard to see that, but I do. So it took me a while to come back. lol

 

[just-me]

um, Hebrews 8 disagrees with this, so I will go with the new made the old obsolete over what you just said. and that is ment to sound grumpy because it is in black and white, and you disagree. it ticks me off when folks try to say something does not mean what it CLEARLY DOES.

It ticks me off too when people try to say something that scripture doesn't CLEARLY say. What is obsolete, and ready to vanish away at the time Hebrews was written? The law or the physical priesthood? Hebrews 8:13

 

[gb9]

the first covenant was REPLACED by the second. if ya'll can't see, or do want to see that, o.k. It is plain words in Hebrews 8.

 

[just-me]

the first covenant was REPLACED by the second. if ya'll can't see, or do want to see that, o.k. God bless all of you. peace out.

So in Hebrews chapters 8 and 9 is it the covenant contents that are obsolete?

 

[Shoshanah]

um, Hebrews 8 disagrees with this, so I will go with the new made the old obsolete over what you just said. and that is ment to sound grumpy because it is in black and white, and you disagree. it ticks me off when folks try to say something does not mean what it CLEARLY DOES.

"it ticks me off when folks try to say something does not mean what it CLEARLY DOES."
Me too! And you are misled. I read that same Hebrews 8 and a lot more to verify what said. All scripture must agree with itself - everybody knows a house divided against itself cannot stand let alone thrive and prosper. And I have found only one thing in scripture that was changed and that is the priesthood from Aaron to Judah and that is explained. Nowhere does it say we can ignore some of God's Word. So if you want to deny part of it, that is your business - it isn't like you haven't been told you are mistaken.

I did have a thought last night relative to this thread. We all know that man does not live on bread alone but by EVERY word of God. Now, think of some things God said...Let there be light, He spoke gravity into existence...and oxygen. Whether we want to admit it or not we live because of those words and have no choice but to live by them...unless someone has invented a way to breathe something besides oxygen, etc

 

[Shoshanah]

the first covenant was REPLACED by the second. if ya'll can't see, or do want to see that, o.k. It is plain words in Hebrews 8.

The first covenant was NOT REPLACED by the second. If You all can't see, or do not want to see that, o.k.

But you all might want to seriously consider what Matthew 7 says about people who thought they were so "right".

 

[BarlyGurl]

While Shoshanah takes a nap I will jump in here for a second. Ken, I DO RECALL you specifically mentioned how "eating certain foods" was an issue of conscience except for things strangled-that's NO GO. I am not going hunting for it... but I am comfortable that you will recall this example. HOW KEN, do YOU know that eating things strangled is no go??? Did this knowledge magically POP into your thoughts???... NO, you read it in the scripture, where was that information introduced... in the OT. Is it there for some restrictive RULE god put on us??? NOPE... what IS it there for???? WHY does God instruct us not to eat things strangled?? <I realize this is a BIG question which you might not be prepared for but it is a GOOD question>.

Previously in the thread, Shosh mentioned a simple example about how she discovered a PROOF to the truth of God's word in her GARDEN. WHERE did she mine that little nugget of truth from???? the OT.

Some of us are discussing the TRUTH of Mat.4:4 and it's application by FAITH in the life of believers. Now again, I am going to mention that you are very good at championing against OSAS... and you understand that we are to be DOERS of the word and you have used Luke 6:46 to prove your point.... yet for some reason you do not perceive....


THE BREAD ALONE... do you not recognize WHO the bread is and WHAT Jesus is saying here???

 

[KennethC]

I apologize for sounding grumpy toward you. I ask your forgiveness.
I had a bowl of chocolate-chocolate chip ice cream and I feel better now. But there is still no excuse to sound grumpy. I hang my head in shame.

The old covenant does not, as you say, overlap the new covenant. A study of the covenants shows that they are built one upon another - everything in the first (salt) covenant is included with the added provisions of the second (blood) and so on. It is as clear as anything can be that the new - or more accurately: renewed - covenant is based upon the old covenant, step-by-step, so to say what you do about it tells me you don't have that understanding. I have been reading a commentary/study about how the covenants fit together and how they work. It is very enlightening! But I see there is no point in trying to explain to you so I am calling a truce between us on this. That doesn't mean I quit contending for the faith altogether - just with you on this topic.

Tell me where, anywhere the NT says or shows the 613 Mosaic written ordinances are in effect for NT believers ???

I know of multiple scriptures that say they are not binding to us, as they are considered a yoke of bondage that we are not under. To try and keep or even say we have to keep them all as in obey to follow them is putting one under that yoke of bondage.

I understand just fine what the law was for as the scriptures clearly say that they were to bring us to Christ and were to show us our transgressions. The scriptures say being in the faith of Christ we are free from the law, we are no longer under the bond woman we are under the free woman.

The Mosaic laws are of the bond woman (old covenant), but the Grace of God by faith in Christ is the free woman (new covenant).

All I am saying is if one still places the Mosaic laws as a must obey standing they are still under the bondage of the law !!!

 

[BarlyGurl]

Barly and Shosh typing "bread alone" simutaneiously...whoop whoop! Going out to dance before the LORD!!!

 

[just-me]

We do not turn our backs on the law but it only serves it's purpose before coming to Christ, after coming to the Lord in the faith the law no longer serves a purpose for believers.

That is what we believe that the purpose of it was because of our transgressions to bring us to Christ, our need for a Savior to save us from the curse/condemnation that the law brought.

We after coming to Christ are no longer under the law, and therefore it has no place for us under grace.
As Apostle Paul says that what the law says is only for those who are under it, we who are under grace are no longer under the law therefore it says nothing to us now for we walk by the Spirit.

So what you are presenting is that the law has not purpose for the believer in Christ. Right? And then you might think as others do that Romans chapter 7 is Paul talking about his past before He was saved. Then he feels guilty for being self righteous before salvation even though he didn't feel guilty about traveling to Damascus to kill a bunch of people who were believers, unlike himself at the time, even though the law was convicting his actions that he didn't feel guilty about before he heard Jesus say that he was persecuting Him. So Paul's guilt didn't apply to killing Christians. Do I have this right?

 

[KennethC]

Do you know what this sounds like to me?

"I will not listen to the OT. I will not. I will not. I will not. And you can't make me. I will do whatever I want based on how I feel in my heart and call it God's grace. I will. I will. I will. Nanny nanny nu nu."

Please tell me why I am wrong in thinking this is what you're saying.

Because by making a statement like that would say I did not read all that you wrote, just picked one sentence out of everything said and misapplied it.

The OT is good for understanding and instruction, but nowhere does the bible say in the NT that the old covenant laws are binding to a new covenant believer in Christ. It says the law was to show us our transgressions and need for a Savior, and when that Savior came (Jesus Christ) we are no longer under that law because we are under grace.

It served its purpose to bring us to Christ and then we are told to move forward in the Spirit, not the oldness of the letter of the law.

 

[KennethC]

So what you are presenting is that the law has not purpose for the believer in Christ. Right? And then you might think as others do that Romans chapter 7 is Paul talking about his past before He was saved. Then he feels guilty for being self righteous before salvation even though he didn't feel guilty about traveling to Damascus to kill a bunch of people who were believers, unlike himself at the time, even though the law was convicting his actions that he didn't feel guilty about before he heard Jesus say that he was persecuting Him. So Paul's guilt didn't apply to killing Christians. Do I have this right?

No Apostle Paul in Romans 7 is speaking on when he first converted and how his old ways had him carnal sold under sin, he says he was still held under the law. At the end of that chapter Paul says who can save me from this way.

In Romans 8 Paul says he could no longer be carnal minded as that way leads to eternal death, and not eternal life.

Romans 7 does not support believers still have to obey the Mosaic written ordinances.........

If that was the case then what he said previously that we are not under the law would be contradictory for him to do.
One minute say not under the law, and then the next say he is held under the law contradicts. Therefore Romans 7 can not be a continuous way in which Paul continued in the faith.

 

[Shoshanah]

While Shoshanah takes a nap I will jump in here for a second. Ken, I DO RECALL you specifically mentioned how "eating certain foods" was an issue of conscience except for things strangled-that's NO GO. I am not going hunting for it... but I am comfortable that you will recall this example. HOW KEN, do YOU know that eating things strangled is no go??? Did this knowledge magically POP into your thoughts???... NO, you read it in the scripture, where was that information introduced... in the OT. Is it there for some restrictive RULE god put on us??? NOPE... what IS it there for???? WHY does God instruct us not to eat things strangled?? <I realize this is a BIG question which you might not be prepared for but it is a GOOD question>.

Previously in the thread, Shosh mentioned a simple example about how she discovered a PROOF to the truth of God's word in her GARDEN. WHERE did she mine that little nugget of truth from???? the OT.

Some of us are discussing the TRUTH of Mat.4:4 and it's application by FAITH in the life of believers. Now again, I am going to mention that you are very good at championing against OSAS... and you understand that we are to be DOERS of the word and you have used Luke 6:46 to prove your point.... yet for some reason you do not perceive....


THE BREAD ALONE... do you not recognize WHO the bread is and WHAT Jesus is saying here???

Well done BarlyGurl - thank you for filling in! A nap and a bowl of homemade chocolate-chocolate chip ice cream does wonders for me.

 

[KennethC]

um, Hebrews 8 disagrees with this, so I will go with the new made the old obsolete over what you just said. and that is ment to sound grumpy because it is in black and white, and you disagree. it ticks me off when folks try to say something does not mean what it CLEARLY DOES.

It ticks me off too when people try to say something that scripture doesn't CLEARLY say. What is obsolete, and ready to vanish away at the time Hebrews was written? The law or the physical priesthood? Hebrews 8:13

"it ticks me off when folks try to say something does not mean what it CLEARLY DOES."
Me too! And you are misled. I read that same Hebrews 8 and a lot more to verify what said. All scripture must agree with itself - everybody knows a house divided against itself cannot stand let alone thrive and prosper. And I have found only one thing in scripture that was changed and that is the priesthood from Aaron to Judah and that is explained. Nowhere does it say we can ignore some of God's Word. So if you want to deny part of it, that is your business - it isn't like you haven't been told you are mistaken.

I did have a thought last night relative to this thread. We all know that man does not live on bread alone but by EVERY word of God. Now, think of some things God said...Let there be light, He spoke gravity into existence...and oxygen. Whether we want to admit it or not we live because of those words and have no choice but to live by them...unless someone has invented a way to breathe something besides oxygen, etc

Sorry but I have to go with gb9 on this on Hebrews 8:13.............

For it is clearly talking about the covenants and making the first covenant obsolete not the priesthood.
For it clearly says by the new covenant makes the first obsolete !!!

 

[Shoshanah]

Do you know what this sounds like to me?

"I will not listen to the OT. I will not. I will not. I will not. And you can't make me. I will do whatever I want based on how I feel in my heart and call it God's grace. I will. I will. I will. Nanny nanny nu nu."

Please tell me why I am wrong in thinking this is what you're saying.

You are so entertaining!