Unravelling the Law and Justification

[RandyPNW]

Keeping the Law was not "Legalism." Legalism is trying to obtain, by means of the Law, something that requires more than what the Law alone can give. As well, it is the attempt to obtain standing with God apart from God's means of obtaining that standing. Christ and his atonement is, in fact, the exclusive means of obtaining lasting standing with God.

Paul's statement that the Law is not based on Faith (Gal 3.12) is actually a statement claiming that its form of justification was purposefully shown to be temporary and inadequate with respect to final justification. But Paul was *not* saying that the system of justification in place under the Law was invalid as a *temporary* form of justification! On the contrary, Paul sang the praises of the Law, obviously when it had been a current covenant (Rom 7.12).

So the fact the Law is no longer in service as a covenant means that trying to live by the Law is a form of Legalism today, even though it wasn't earlier. It is trying to serve God by a means that God no longer sanctions.

But living by the Law while the Law was in service was not Legalism. It was obedience to God's Word. People get confused when they read from Paul that the Law amplifies our Sin and cannot Justify us (Rom 5.20). But Paul is not decrying the value of the Law. Again, Paul sings the praises of the Law for the time it had been in effect.

What Paul was really saying is that Jews who *now* try to follow the Law, when it is no longer in service, are no longer serving God's Word *today!* The fact it is no longer a current covenant has everything to do with whether God accepts obedience to the Law today.

He obviously does not recognize obedience to the Law when it is no longer in use. The major element in this involves what God's Word is saying to us *today*. Obeying a covenant that is not currently in use is therefore "Legalism," and not serving the cause of God's living Word.

On the other hand, when the Law was in use, obedience to that Law constituted a form of faith in God's Word. It was a temporary form of justification, even though it could not be a permanent form of justification.

The condemnation of sin under the Law was designed to show precisely that, that the Law was a purely *temporary* form of Justification because the Law could not get around the fact Man was a sinner and had to be justified apart from his own works. His own works were already contaminated by sin, making justification something that only Christ, a perfect man, could bring (Heb 7.l1-28; 9.23; 10.1,11).



Antinomianism views "Faith" as somehow separate from Divine Law, and therefore separate from our own righteousness, including our own participation in his righteousness (2 Pet 1.4). But in reality, Christ cannot become our righteousness unless we, by our faith, let his Word into our heart by our choice to obey him.

And it is God's Law that we obtain final justification only by our faith in Christ's atonement, and not by our own independent works. When we respond to God's command to put our faith in Christ and in his atonement for final Justification, we are choosing to comply with God's Law and so participate in His righteousness.

It is by our choice to respond to God's Word that we allow God's Law entrance into our heart, resulting in a partnership with Him (Deut 30.11-14). In this we do not generate righteousness on our own. Rather, in complying with God's Law, we allow entrance into our heart God's Word so that we may be able to obey Him, displaying His righteousness in us.

This is not Self-Justification, but rather, obedience! Faith is not disobedience--it is the exercise of cooperation with God by depending upon Him for our righteousness. By choosing the Law of Christ we are choosing to participate in his righteousness.



To Antinomianism, "Law" is an evil word. It always means Self-Justification. But while the Law was in effect it was intended to only be a form of temporary justification. It was not Legalism, which is an attempt to obtain final Justification by any means apart from access to Christ.

Clearly, Paul was teaching that Faith must be defined ultimately as looking to Christ for final Justification. Faith in the Law before Christ was faith in a purely *temporary justification,* as a prelude to looking to Christ in the future for *final justification.*

Anything that leaves Christ out of the mix is a form of Legalism, including following the Law and its system of atonement, which is the opposite of looking to Christ and his atonement. But faith in the Law was never intended to be faith in the Law as a *permanent and final form of Justificaiton!* On the contrary, it was in fact a form of faith in the need for Christ for final Justification.



The bottom line is: the Law was not "evil" in its time. Following the Law of Moses *today* is indeed a form of Legalism because it is no longer in use. But following the Law of God today as a command to obey the word of Christ is *not* Legalism. It is simply our response, in faith, towards God's Word and in regard to Christ's atonement for our sins. In obeying the command to believe in Christ's atonement we are indeed obeying God's Law as it concerns final Justification.

But Divine Law is always operational, and can be accessed by simply responding to God's Word to our conscience. As for Justification unto Eternal Life, that only comes by our response to the Gospel of Christ, indicating that only *his* atonement must be the object of our faith for this to take place.

Anything apart from choosing to participate in the righteousness associated with *Christ's atonement* is a form of Legalism. But it is not divorced from Divine Law, which is *always* the operation of God's Word speaking to our conscience! We can follow God's Law of righteousness today. We can also follow the righteousness that depends on Christ's atonement for final Justification.

 

[BobRyan]

The new covenant in Jer 31:31-34 is exactly the same verbatim in the NT in Heb 8:6-12
1. God's Law written on the heart - so then new birth , new creation, new heart
2. Adoption into God's family
3. All believers taught of God directly
4. Real forgiveness of sins.

No wonder then in Gal 1:6-9 "there is only ONE Gospel"
Gal 3:8 that Gospel "was preached to Abraham"
Heb 4:2 "we have had the gospel preached to us - just as they also"
Matt 17 - Moses and Elijah stand with Christ in immortal bodies and glory even BEFORE the cross.
1 Peter 1 - the OT speaks of the "sufferings of Christ AND the glories to follow"

 

[RandyPNW]

The new covenant in Jer 31:31-34 is exactly the same verbatim in the NT in Heb 8:6-12
1. God's Law written on the heart - so then new birth , new creation, new heart
2. Adoption into God's family
3. All believers taught of God directly
4. Real forgiveness of sins.

No wonder then in Gal 1:6-9 "there is only ONE Gospel"
Gal 3:8 that Gospel "was preached to Abraham"
Heb 4:2 "we have had the gospel preached to us - just as they also"
Matt 17 - Moses and Elijah stand with Christ in immortal bodies and glory even BEFORE the cross.
1 Peter 1 - the OT speaks of the "sufferings of Christ AND the glories to follow"

True. But my focus is minutely on the problem Antinomians have with the connection between Faith and Law as a principle commanding willful response from Man. Faith is not at odds with our ability to respond to God's laws. By "laws" I refer to Law in the generic sense, and not in the technical sense applying only to the Law of Moses.

We are therefore able to respond to various "commands" that came from Jesus or that came from his Apostles in NT writings. There are many, many commands that Paul, Peter, James, and John all gave, among others. We are able to obey these mandates, not the least of which was Jesus mandate' that we believe in him.

And so, we can willfully commit to God's Law in the NT era, simply by choosing to accept the revelation of Christ to our heart. We simply say yes to what God tells us to do. That simple.

We must not confuse obeying Moses' Law for Final Justification with obeying Jesus' Law to believe in him. They are 2 fundamentally different concepts, and they are often confused by those who are unable to understand what Paul was saying in his letters.

 

[Paleouss]

Keeping the Law was not "Legalism."

Randy, great to read something of yours again. I hope you have been well. I, myself, have been blessed beyond measure.

I have tried to pin down what you think is contrary to what I posted in the other thread, and then pointed me to this thread. The first topic, I think, is your use of Antinomianism within this thread. I had to look that up, btw. lol. So I found that Antinomianism is...

Is a doctrine to which Christians are freed by grace from the necessity of obeying the Mosaic Law. The antinomians rejected the very notion of obedience as legalistic; to them the good life flowed from the inner working of the Holy Spirit.

I guess I need to sketch my position so you know where I stand and where to focus your efforts (I guess). Yes, I am a Protestant and not Catholic. I do believe that Paul taught that the start of the formula for right standing with God starts with grace, blood, and faith (Rom 3:24-25, 5:1, 9). I bolded 'starts with' because Paul, although he spent a lot of time and focus on where right standing starts, he always goes further in his writings. I think Paul thinks more as a 'living whole' than the logical parsed out steps he presents, but finds he needs to divide the steps to focuses on what the Jewish culture got wrong and put it in the proper order.

Paul is very consistent in his letters to go on to the next step of the equation after ‘becoming’ (salvation) in right standing before the eyes of God. And that ‘becoming’ was started with grace, blood, and faith (Rom 3:24, 5:1, 5:9). So what is the next step of the living whole, that follows from ‘becoming’ in right standing in the eyes of God by grace, blood, and faith according to Paul? In Paul’s vernacular this is expressed as, “therefore…we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4), and also present oneself “to God as being alive from the dead” (Rom 6:13), and one should also present one’s “members as slaves of righteousness for holiness” (Rom 6:19) which is one’s “reasonable service” (Rom 12:1).

Paul tells us that there is a “reasonable service” (Rome 12:1) that all that believe should “walk in” (Rom 6:4). In Romans chapter 6, Paul writes that we are not called and set apart that we might continue in sinful deeds (Rom 6:1-2). Paul, like all of the NT, is teaching that by grace, blood, and faith we are “made alive by the Spirit” (1Pet 3:18, 1Cor 15:22, Col 2:13, Eph 2:1). However, “those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works” (Tit 3:8) for we were “created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph 2:10b) and we “should walk in them” (Eph 2:10c). I think Paul is teaching a complete formula for right standing with God that the Jewish culture had misordered.

Regarding the topic of Antinomianism. As I understand it, which is limited, Antinomianism is the belief that ANY OBEDIENCE is legalistic. In this claim, I do not agree with Antinomiasim. The Scripture tells us in Genesis that Abraham was not only in right standing with God because he “believed” (Gen 15:6), this was the beginning of right standing. But was also “blessed” (Gen 22:18) because he obeyed God’s voice. James writes, “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works” (Jam 2:22). The "works" that James focuses on is further down the formula than the "works" that Paul is so famous for focusing on, which is at the beginning of the formula.

I totally agree that the Scripture tells the NT believer, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments"(John 14:15 ESV), "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments" (1John 5:3-4 ESV), "Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus (Mat 19:17-19 ESV). I realize, of course, that there is a debate regarding which "commandments" is meant.

However, in my view, being "under the law" is not the same as learning from your tutor, Gal 3:24, Therefore the law was our tutor [to bring us] to Christ, that we might be justified by faith". When we "walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4), we use our knowledge from the tutor, which is the law, and the leading of the Holy Spirit to guide our actions. Those actions include obedience to what God desires of us.

So there you go.


Peace be to you my brother

 

[Clare73]

Keeping the Law was not "Legalism." Legalism is trying to obtain, by means of the Law, something that requires more than what the Law alone can give. As well, it is the attempt to obtain standing with God apart from God's means of obtaining that standing. Christ and his atonement is, in fact, the exclusive means of obtaining lasting standing with God.

Paul's statement that the Law is not based on Faith (Gal 3.12) is actually a statement claiming that its form of justification was purposefully shown to be temporary and inadequate with respect to final justification. But Paul was *not* saying that the system of justification in place under the Law was invalid as a *temporary* form of justification!

There was no system of justification ever in place under the law.
Justification has always been by faith in the promise (Ge 15:5, seed, Jesus Christ) since Abraham (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:2-3).

On the contrary, Paul sang the praises of the Law, obviously when it had been a current covenant (Rom 7.12).

Keeping in mind that since Abraham, justification has always been only by faith (in the promise, Seed, Jesus Christ, Ge 15:5) and never by law keeping (Ro 4:2-3).

So the fact the Law is no longer in service as a covenant means that trying to live by the Law is a form of Legalism today, even though it wasn't earlier. It is trying to serve God by a means that God no longer sanctions.
But living by the Law while the Law was in service was not Legalism. It was obedience to God's Word. People get confused when they read from Paul that the Law amplifies our Sin and cannot Justify us (Rom 5.20). But Paul is not decrying the value of the Law. Again, Paul sings the praises of the Law for the time it had been in effect.
What Paul was really saying is that Jews who *now* try to follow the Law, when it is no longer in service, are no longer serving God's Word *today!* The fact it is no longer a current covenant has everything to do with whether God accepts obedience to the Law today.

However, the law never justified, nor was it given at Sinai to justify.
For since Abraham, justification has been only by faith in the promise (Ge 15:5, seed, Jesus Christ).
The law was given only to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).

What Paul was really saying is that Jews who *now* try to follow the Law, when it is no longer in service, are no longer serving God's Word *today!* The fact it is no longer a current covenant has everything to do with whether God accepts obedience to the Law today.

He obviously does not recognize obedience to the Law when it is no longer in use. The major element in this involves what God's Word is saying to us *today*. Obeying a covenant that is not currently in use is therefore "Legalism," and not serving the cause of God's living Word.
On the other hand, when the Law was in use, obedience to that Law constituted a form of faith in God's Word. It was a temporary form of justification, even though it could not be a permanent form of justification.

Actually, the law never justified, for it was not given to justify.
Only faith in the promise (Ge 15:5, seed, Jesus Christ) justified (Ro 4:5).

Condemnation of sin under the Law was designed to show precisely that, that the Law was a purely *temporary* form of Justification because the Law could not get around the fact Man was a sinner and had to be justified apart from his own works. His own works were already contaminated by sin, making justification something that only Christ, a perfect man, could bring (Heb 7.l1-28; 9.23; 10.1,11).

The law has never been a means of justification.
The law did not justify in the beginning of God's people (Ge 15:5), just as it does not justify now.
Only faith justified then, and only faith justifies now (Ro 4:5).
Righteousness has never been by law keeping of fallen man, it has always been by faith (in the promise, Ge 15:5, seed, Jesus Christ) , from the beginning of God's called-out people (Ge 15:5).

because the Law could not get around the fact Man was a sinner and had to be justified apart from his own works. His own works were already contaminated by sin, making justification something that only Christ, a perfect man, could bring (Heb 7.l1-28; 9.23; 10.1,11).

Antinomianism views "Faith" as somehow separate from Divine Law,

Saving faith is apart from that faith's necessary works (Eph 2:8-9), it is by the faith only, not by the faith's necessary works, that one is saved.

and therefore separate from our own righteousness, including our own participation in his righteousness (2 Pet 1.4). But in reality, Christ cannot become our righteousness unless we, by our faith, let his Word into our heart by our choice to obey him.

Christ is our righteousness by faith alone, apart from faith's necessary works (Eph 2:8-9).

 

[RandyPNW]

There was no system of justification ever in place under the law.

We disagree. There was never any system of *final* Justification under the Law. The Law was not "of faith," meaning that it did not offer a means of escape from the condemnation of sin. It gave a *temporary reprieve* from the condemnation of sin. It provided a temporary means of mitigating the condemnation of sin. The goal was always a *final mitigation* of sin, but while the Law was in effect it was a temporary covering for a sinful nation that was given access to God.

Did the Law offer a temporary means of mitigating sin? Of course! That's why the Law was given, to keep Israel in relationship with God, as long as they, as a nation, made a good faith effort to obey His Law. That is why God gave Israel a priesthood and a system of sacrifices, to enable them to express good faith in God's Law.

If this isn't "temporary justification," what is it? Maybe you just don't like the word "justification," because for you it *always* implies "final justification?" So substitute a different word instead of "justification?" Try "a temporary means of mitigating sin?"

Since my whole message is predicated on this point, I'll just leave it at that. To say that there was no system of forgiveness under the Law is patently absurd to me. I couldn't grasp what you hope to say to justify God's giving the Law to Israel in the 1st place?

Why would King David sing the praises of a Law that had no redeeming value?? Was the practice of the Law an exercise in futility?

The following statement implies that the Law was temporary. That it was a system of redemption/justification goes without saying.

Heb 8.3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer... 7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

 

[RandyPNW]

Randy, great to read something of yours again. I hope you have been well. I, myself, have been blessed beyond measure.

God's blessings are great. God Himself is great. But things have been a bit difficult lately. We'll just keep walking straight ahead. I'm happy things are going well for you!

I have tried to pin down what you think is contrary to what I posted in the other thread, and then pointed me to this thread. The first topic, I think, is your use of Antinomianism within this thread. I had to look that up, btw. lol. So I found that Antinomianism is...

I'm not sure the quote is correct, or maybe it was taken from something I later corrected? But in essence, Antinomianism, as I'm applying it, refers to those who believe we cannot do any good by our own choice. Somehow God is enabling us to do things by faith, as opposed to our conscious decision to obey Divine Law.

This is not the strict definition of Antinomianism, but only how I'm applying it in this context. The term actually refers to those who don't believe that we are answerable to any particular law.

I guess I need to sketch my position so you know where I stand and where to focus your efforts (I guess). Yes, I am a Protestant and not Catholic. I do believe that Paul taught that the start of the formula for right standing with God starts with grace, blood, and faith (Rom 3:24-25, 5:1, 9). I bolded 'starts with' because Paul, although he spent a lot of time and focus on where right standing starts, he always goes further in his writings. I think Paul thinks more as a 'living whole' than the logical parsed out steps he presents, but finds he needs to divide the steps to focuses on what the Jewish culture got wrong and put it in the proper order.

So in your view we "start" with God's grace, as given through Jesus. What then?

Paul is very consistent in his letters to go on to the next step of the equation after ‘becoming’ (salvation) in right standing before the eyes of God. And that ‘becoming’ was started with grace, blood, and faith (Rom 3:24, 5:1, 5:9). So what is the next step of the living whole, that follows from ‘becoming’ in right standing in the eyes of God by grace, blood, and faith according to Paul? In Paul’s vernacular this is expressed as, “therefore…we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4), and also present oneself “to God as being alive from the dead” (Rom 6:13), and one should also present one’s “members as slaves of righteousness for holiness” (Rom 6:19) which is one’s “reasonable service” (Rom 12:1).

So the next step is "walking in the life of Christ?" Certainly that is true, although I think the Christian life begins with our choice to *begin walking!*

Paul tells us that there is a “reasonable service” (Rome 12:1) that all that believe should “walk in” (Rom 6:4). In Romans chapter 6, Paul writes that we are not called and set apart that we might continue in sinful deeds (Rom 6:1-2). Paul, like all of the NT, is teaching that by grace, blood, and faith we are “made alive by the Spirit” (1Pet 3:18, 1Cor 15:22, Col 2:13, Eph 2:1). However, “those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works” (Tit 3:8) for we were “created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph 2:10b) and we “should walk in them” (Eph 2:10c). I think Paul is teaching a complete formula for right standing with God that the Jewish culture had misordered.

So finding grace, then walk, then work? I would agree with that--all the same walk in faith, right?

Regarding the topic of Antinomianism. As I understand it, which is limited, Antinomianism is the belief that ANY OBEDIENCE is legalistic. In this claim, I do not agree with Antinomiasim.

Yes, that was the point. It is really the attempt to understand Predestination logically that led to a kind of Antinomianism in Protestant thinking, in my opinion. Luther and Calvin had to reason that if we are to find grace to start with, it must begin with God and not with our choice. To them, the Law presented an impossible ideal that only Christ, within us, would want to consciously observe. As for us, we are desperately wicked, and have no interest whatsoever in following God's Law. I would disagree with this.

I just don't go to the extent that they do, thinking that people have no interest in God's Law. I believe we were created by God to be attracted to the model of His image. I believe that God does approach us 1st, since forgiveness must be initiated by him, and grace must be administered by Him.

He approaches us with a revelation of His truth. Then we accept it by our own choice. We are not forced into that choice. We were given the capacity from the start to *choose.*

The Scripture tells us in Genesis that Abraham was not only in right standing with God because he “believed” (Gen 15:6), this was the beginning of right standing. But was also “blessed” (Gen 22:18) because he obeyed God’s voice. James writes, “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works” (Jam 2:22). The "works" that James focuses on is further down the formula than the "works" that Paul is so famous for focusing on, which is at the beginning of the formula.

I totally agree that the Scripture tells the NT believer, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments"(John 14:15 ESV), "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments" (1John 5:3-4 ESV), "Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus (Mat 19:17-19 ESV). I realize, of course, that there is a debate regarding which "commandments" is meant.

However, in my view, being "under the law" is not the same as learning from your tutor, Gal 3:24, Therefore the law was our tutor [to bring us] to Christ, that we might be justified by faith". When we "walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4), we use our knowledge from the tutor, which is the law, and the leading of the Holy Spirit to guide our actions. Those actions include obedience to what God desires of us.

I don't understand your distinction between using the Law as a "tutor" either "under the Law" or "in Christianity?" Yes, they are not the same thing in the sense that the Law is being looked at from 2 distinct positions, one under the Law and one no longer under the Law. It was only under the Law that it could be a "tutor." Since we are no longer under the Law it can no longer be a "tutor!" We can, however, continue to learn from the Law from a position of grace.

So there you go.
Peace be to you my brother

As much as I can understand your views, they seem pretty solidly rooted in Scriptural truth. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Clare73]

We disagree. There was never any system of *final* Justification under the Law.

You disagree with Scripture.

Justification (righteousness) has been by faith only since Abraham (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:2-5).

 

[RandyPNW]

You disagree with Scripture.

Justification (righteousness) has been by faith only since Abraham (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:2-5).

No, I don't disagree with Scripture. Terms have to be understood in context to get the understanding right.

Gen 15.6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

This verse has nothing to do with this argument as I've described it. You don't explain how this verse fits into the argument for you?

Rom 4.2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

This passage has nothing to do with this argument as I've described it. It has nothing to do with arguing for or against the temporality of the OT Law. It says nothing about temporal justification.

These verses do not say that people cannot be temporarily justified under the Law. Under the Law the faith of Israel was *credited* to them as a temporary reprieve until Christ did the legal work, finalizing their justification.

In Paul's argument, he uses the word "works" in the sense of working apart from faith. It is the attempt at self-justification. But the Law was given to Israel not for the purpose of self-justification, or works to justify one's self, but rather, to enable them to exercise faith in God's mercy, which has now been fulfilled by the work of Christ.

Paul argued that not even Abraham, by his faith, was worthy of justifying himself. But by his faith in God's mercy, he could be justified by the mercy of God. The purpose of the Law can be understood in Jesus' statement, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice." That is, if sacrifice is not understood as a cry for mercy, and not self-justification, then it is worthless.

 

[Clare73]

No, I don't disagree with Scripture. Terms have to be understood in context to get the understanding right.

I take Scripture at its word in agreement with all Scripture.

Gen 15.6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
This verse has nothing to do with this argument as I've described it. You don't explain how this verse fits into the argument for you?
Rom 4.2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

This passage has nothing to do with this argument as I've described it. It has nothing to do with arguing for or against the temporality of the OT Law. It says nothing about temporal justification.

As all of Scripture likewise "says nothing about temporal justification."
Where do we find this "temporal justification" in Scripture?
That is a human notion, not a Biblical notion

What we find in Scripture is that from the beginning, when God called out a people of his own, Abraham was justified by faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:2-3).
The law changed none of that, for the law was not given to justify (make righteous), it was given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).
From the beginning of God's people, only faith in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16) justified (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:2-4).

 

[RandyPNW]

I take Scripture at its word in agreement with all Scripture.

Ah, but it's *your word* as to how you interpret those words! Am I to take *your word* for what *you think* the words mean? No! Enough of the false claims to go "only by Scripture." Most of us would agree with that anyway. So let's just concentrate on what our arguments are for determining what those words mean?

As all of Scripture likewise "says nothing about temporal justification."
Where do we find this "temporal justification" in Scripture?
That is a human notion, not a Biblical notion

I gave it to you, and you don't exercise your reasoning faculties. From post #6 directly to you:

(quote)
The following statement implies that the Law was temporary. That it was a system of redemption/justification goes without saying.

Heb 8.3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer... 7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
(unquote)

What use is it to discuss things with you when you simply choose to ignore the arguments and continue where you left off, making claims as if there existed no rebuttal?

What we find in Scripture is that from the beginning, when God called out a people of his own, Abraham was justified by faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:2-3).
The law changed none of that, for the law was not given to justify (make righteous), it was given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).
From the beginning of God's people, only faith in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16) justified (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:2-4).

I answered this one too. From post #9:

Rom 4.2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

This passage has nothing to do with this argument as I've described it. It has nothing to do with arguing for or against the temporality of the OT Law. It says nothing about temporal justification.

These verses do not say that people cannot be temporarily justified under the Law. Under the Law the faith of Israel was *credited* to them as a temporary reprieve until Christ did the legal work, finalizing their justification.

In Paul's argument, he uses the word "works" in the sense of working apart from faith. It is the attempt at self-justification. But the Law was given to Israel not for the purpose of self-justification, or works to justify one's self, but rather, to enable them to exercise faith in God's mercy, which has now been fulfilled by the work of Christ.

Paul argued that not even Abraham, by his faith, was worthy of justifying himself. But by his faith in God's mercy, he could be justified by the mercy of God. The purpose of the Law can be understood in Jesus' statement, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice." That is, if sacrifice is not understood as a cry for mercy, and not self-justification, then it is worthless.

Once again, Abraham's faith made his own works of faith inadequate and temporary, apart from the future works of Christ. That meant his present works were not rejected--just inadequate. His offering of his son Isaac was acceptable, but not capable of obtaining resurrection from the dead.

It was an expression of faith that God Himself would provide in His works resurrection from the dead. That is, Abraham's works were as temporary as the works of the Law, and both were acceptable to God, though not for Eternal Life. That required the work of Christ.

 

[Clare73]

Ah, but it's *your word* as to how you interpret those words! Am I to take *your word* for what *you think* the words mean? No!

I don't define NT words. . .the Greek dictionary does that.

Enough of the false claims to go "only by Scripture." Most of us would agree with that anyway. So let's just concentrate on what our arguments are for determining what those words mean?

I gave it to you, and you don't exercise your reasoning faculties. From post #6 directly to you:

The following statement implies that the Law was temporary. That it was a system of redemption/justification goes without saying.

And therein is the problem.

That is a personal assumption by you nowhere presented in Scripture.

Justification is righteousness, and no one was righteous through law-keeping (Ro 3:20).

Heb 8.3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer... 7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
(unquote)
What use is it to discuss things with you when you simply choose to ignore the arguments and continue where you left off, making claims as if there existed no rebuttal?
I answered this one too. From post #9:
Rom 4.2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

This passage has nothing to do with this argument as I've described it. It has nothing to do with arguing for or against the temporality of the OT Law. It says nothing about temporal justification.

Nothing anywhere in Scripture says anything about "temporal justification." There is no such thing in Scripture.
That is a figment of one's imagination.

These verses do not say that people cannot be temporarily justified under the Law. Under the Law the faith of Israel was *credited* to them as a temporary reprieve until Christ did the legal work, finalizing their justification.

Where do we find "faith credited" in the law?
The law was not about faith, the law was about works.

In Paul's argument, he uses the word "works" in the sense of working apart from faith.

He does no such thing.
He uses "works" as the works of faith.
He distinguishes between the faith and that faith's works, teaching that only the faith, and not faith's necessary works, both saves and justifies (Eph 2:8-9).

It is the attempt at self-justification. But the Law was given to Israel not for the purpose of self-justification, or works to justify one's self, but rather, to enable them to exercise faith in God's mercy, which has now been fulfilled by the work of Christ.

The law was given to Israel to reveal (to become conscious of) sin (Ro 3:20).
Yours is a man-woven feeble and powerless theology, woven from Biblically-uninformed human reasoning, and nowhere presented in Scripture.

Paul argued that not even Abraham, by his faith, was worthy of justifying himself. But by his faith in God's mercy,

NO. . .by his faith in God's promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16).

he could be justified by the mercy of God. The purpose of the Law can be understood in Jesus' statement, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice." That is, if sacrifice is not understood as a cry for mercy, and not self-justification, then it is worthless.

That is not a NT understanding, that is man stringing together his own theology.
The NT teaching is that the law was given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).

Once again, Abraham's faith made his own works of faith inadequate and temporary, apart from the future works of Christ.

Abraham's works had no saving merit whatsoever, either apart from, nor in accord with, the future works of Christ.
You do not understand the NT gospel, where justification (Ro 3:20-22) and salvation from God's wrath (Ro 5:9) are exclusive of any and all work of man, and are only by man's faith in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:8-9, Ro 3:28) and his atoning work.

 

[Paleouss]

God's blessings are great. God Himself is great. But things have been a bit difficult lately. We'll just keep walking straight ahead.

Good morning RandyPNW. It has been a while since you posted this. I have been busy. I pray you have been lifted up by God during your difficult times.

You had originally wrote

Keeping the Law was not "Legalism." Legalism is trying to obtain, by means of the Law, something that requires more than what the Law alone can give.

I would agree with this. Your post was no doubt inspired by my use of the term "legalism" in the other thread. If this is the case, then I thought I would detail how I wanted to use the term legalism.

I would like to make a distinction that I think is important. There is what (1) God intended the Law to be and there is (2) how those under it, follow[ed] it. I will expand upon (2) later in this post.

As well, it is the attempt to obtain standing with God apart from God's means of obtaining that standing. Christ and his atonement is, in fact, the exclusive means of obtaining lasting standing with God.

I agree

Paul's statement that the Law is not based on Faith (Gal 3.12) is actually a statement claiming that its form of justification was purposefully shown to be temporary and inadequate with respect to final justification. But Paul was *not* saying that the system of justification in place under the Law was invalid as a *temporary* form of justification! On the contrary, Paul sang the praises of the Law, obviously when it had been a current covenant (Rom 7.12).

Here is where we might differ in our interpertation. First, I'd like to agree with one part of the above, that is, when you wrote, "But Paul was *not* saying that the system of justification in place under the Law was invalid as a *temporary* form of justification!". I agree with this (in what I understand of it), that is, Paul is not saying that the Law (leaving the term Law undefined at the moment) was not temporary. It was temporary. And also, following the law (per say) is not legalism.

However, I think there can be two perspectives here. As I wrote above, there is what (1) God intended the Law to be and there is (2) how those under it, follow[ed] it. I think this distinction can be best seen in Romans first, then I'll move to Galatians.

In his letter to the Romans, Paul tells his readers that his prayer to God is for Israel to “be saved” (Rom 10:1). Paul clearly is speaking to and about the Jewish people in general, for he speaks of "Israel" as a whole. In the very next verse Paul lays out how the Jewish people were “ignorant” (Rom 10:2a) of God’s righteousness. To be ignorant is to lack knowledge about something, and in this case, it was the lack of knowledge of how to be in right standing with God. He goes on to say that the Jewish people “established their own” (Rom 10:2b) criteria for justification, i.e., right standing with God, and thereby failed to submit to the “righteousness of God” (Rom 10:2c). So clearly in Romans 10, Paul says that many of the Jews "established their own" formula. Which falls squarely into my distinction of the (2) how those under it, follow[ed] it. According to Paul, they "established their own" way.

So where did the Jewish people of Paul’s day get right standing with God wrong? Apparently many of the Jewish people lived by a formula that looked something like this...

works --> satisfying the Law -->right standing with God

This formula, above, is what I was referring to as legalism in the other post. In this formula, right standing with God was thought to be initially accomplished through the Law and the Law was satisfied by works toward keeping the Law. But Paul had told his readers earlier in his letter to the Romans that this is not the case at all, that is, it is incorrect to think that the formula for justification starts with works toward satisfying the Law. And Paul speaks directly to this point in Romans chapter 3.

(Rom 3:28 NKJ)
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Now I would first like to say that what I am presenting is how many of the Jewish people got the formula for right standing with God misordered. A misordered formula is what I am establishing. This isn't an argument for Faith alone vs faith with works.

It seems to me that Paul is telling the Jewish people that the Scriptures had never taught that the formula begins with works toward being justified through the Law. Right standing, according to Paul, did not start with works. We find this consistent assertion throughout Paul’s writings. In Romans 1:17 he had written, “the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith’”. In Galatians Paul also writes, “no one is justified by the law in the sight of God” (Gal 3:11a) and goes so far as to say it should be “evident” (Gal 3:11b). But the Jewish people had been living by works and not faith, but as Paul points out, “The just shall live by faith” (Rom 1:17, Hab 2:4, Gal 3:11, Heb 10:38). Paul tells the Jewish people that the revelation of Christ, the promise, should be the end of their misconception of works toward “the law for righteousness” (Rom 10:4) for anyone who believes.

Paul tells his readers in Romans 3:24-25 that justification does not come by works toward satisfying the Law (the incorrect formula) but starts “by His grace”, by His “blood” (Rom 5:9), and by our “faith” (Rom 5:1). So what formula is Paul forwarding? It seems to me that Paul is forwarding a formula of...

grace/blood/faith ← right standing → Spirit working (plus) Active faith → good works

In another post to you I mentioned that I thought Paul frequently focuses on works that are misorded-toward-the-front of the formula while James focuses on works toward-the-back of the forumla.

So now to Galatians.

So when in Galatians 3:8 Paul says, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed". Paul, in my reading, is laying down an arguement against the misordered formula some of the Jewish people (in this case the Judaizers) had "established" incorrectly (Rom 10:2b). A misordered formula that I called legalism. Paul's argument being that the promise of faith, which is like a covenant, came before "the Law" in history through a promise to Abraham.

So if faith, as Paul's argument goes, comes before works toward the law in history through a promise to Abraham, then right standing starts with and is initially accomplished through faith first and alone first. That is, we see through the correct formula that works does not lead to initial right standing but it is grace/blood/faith. And yes, "we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4), and also present oneself “to God as being alive from the dead” (Rom 6:13), and one should also present one’s “members as slaves of righteousness for holiness” (Rom 6:19) which is one’s “reasonable service” (Rom 12:1) for “those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works” (Tit 3:8) for we were “created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph 2:10b) and we “should walk in them” (Eph 2:10c).

Peace be with you my brother!

 

[RandyPNW]

Good morning RandyPNW. It has been a while since you posted this. I have been busy. I pray you have been lifted up by God during your difficult times.

Thank you. God does as He pleases, and I'm good with anything He chooses to do. I may not always like it, but I serve Him. We'll all be good if we determine, with finality, to obey God's word to our heart.

Good morning RandyPNW. It has been a while since you posted this. I have been busy. I pray you have been lifted up by God during your difficult times.

You had originally wrote

I would agree with this. Your post was no doubt inspired by my use of the term "legalism" in the other thread. If this is the case, then I thought I would detail how I wanted to use the term legalism.

I would like to make a distinction that I think is important. There is what (1) God intended the Law to be and there is (2) how those under it, follow[ed] it. I will expand upon (2) later in this post.

I believe the distinction you're trying to make, with respect to my view, is not being clearly drawn? I say this because I can't actually tell where you're actually in disagreement with me? Perhaps you don't fully understand my statements or my position?

I will try once again--just briefly, to see where you might disagree with my stated beliefs. I believe the Law was a system based on faith, but not based on "Faith" as Paul was describing it. "Faith," for Paul was a codeword for Justification by Faith. But "faith," with a small "f" referred to adherence to the word of God well before Christian redemption had even taken place.

So the Law operated by "faith" with a little "f," enabling Israel to please God and to receive limited means of atonement, eg animal sacrifices, so that sin was temporarily mitigated until Christian Justification could take place in history. But it was the Chiristian Justification in history that actually brought Salvation by faith, whereas obedience with a little "f" could never have brought Eternal Life--that was only a temporary relationship with God in hope that Christ would come and do his work in history.

Israel was not called to obey the Law as a form of "Legalism," obviously. It was obedience with a small "f." It pleased God and it kept Israel in temporary relationship with God until Christ could come. Living by faith pleased God--it just could not buy Eternal Life and final Justification.

Legalism is something that happened when Israel went "south" as a nation, and stopped obeying the Law by faith with a little "f." Whenever Israel did this, the nation was in a state of backsliding, which is exactly where Israel was in the time of Christ. Israel had abandoned living by faith and thus were ill-prepared, as a nation, to accept Christian Justification. They sought Justification by the Law and by its impotent animal sacrifices.

Peace be with you my brother!

Thanks, "peace" comes by our faith (with a little "f")I in Christ's Final atonement! Our "faith," with Christ as its object, beccomes "Faith" with a big "F." And this is the "Faith" Paul explained was the opposite of Legalism.

Prior to Christ's coming, there could be no faith in Christ's atonement because he had not come yet. So "legalism," in the OT, was Israel's insistence in putting their faith in objects that did not bring even temporary justification. They viewed animal sacrifices as a form of Final Justification, rather than purely a cry for God's mercy.

They put false "faith" in animal sacrifices as a form of idolatry and sacramentalism, as if they were the means of final Justification, instead of accepting them as a form of temporary mitigation for sin. So in the OT, legalism existed somewhat differently than if Christ had already come and they had rejected Christian Justification.

But it was the same sin. They put their "faith" in objects that they used as idols to replace God as the true object of their faith.

 

[fhansen]

Keeping the Law was not "Legalism." Legalism is trying to obtain, by means of the Law, something that requires more than what the Law alone can give. As well, it is the attempt to obtain standing with God apart from God's means of obtaining that standing. Christ and his atonement is, in fact, the exclusive means of obtaining lasting standing with God.

Paul's statement that the Law is not based on Faith (Gal 3.12) is actually a statement claiming that its form of justification was purposefully shown to be temporary and inadequate with respect to final justification. But Paul was *not* saying that the system of justification in place under the Law was invalid as a *temporary* form of justification! On the contrary, Paul sang the praises of the Law, obviously when it had been a current covenant (Rom 7.12).

So the fact the Law is no longer in service as a covenant means that trying to live by the Law is a form of Legalism today, even though it wasn't earlier. It is trying to serve God by a means that God no longer sanctions.

But living by the Law while the Law was in service was not Legalism. It was obedience to God's Word. People get confused when they read from Paul that the Law amplifies our Sin and cannot Justify us (Rom 5.20). But Paul is not decrying the value of the Law. Again, Paul sings the praises of the Law for the time it had been in effect.

What Paul was really saying is that Jews who *now* try to follow the Law, when it is no longer in service, are no longer serving God's Word *today!* The fact it is no longer a current covenant has everything to do with whether God accepts obedience to the Law today.

He obviously does not recognize obedience to the Law when it is no longer in use. The major element in this involves what God's Word is saying to us *today*. Obeying a covenant that is not currently in use is therefore "Legalism," and not serving the cause of God's living Word.

On the other hand, when the Law was in use, obedience to that Law constituted a form of faith in God's Word. It was a temporary form of justification, even though it could not be a permanent form of justification.

The condemnation of sin under the Law was designed to show precisely that, that the Law was a purely *temporary* form of Justification because the Law could not get around the fact Man was a sinner and had to be justified apart from his own works. His own works were already contaminated by sin, making justification something that only Christ, a perfect man, could bring (Heb 7.l1-28; 9.23; 10.1,11).



Antinomianism views "Faith" as somehow separate from Divine Law, and therefore separate from our own righteousness, including our own participation in his righteousness (2 Pet 1.4). But in reality, Christ cannot become our righteousness unless we, by our faith, let his Word into our heart by our choice to obey him.

And it is God's Law that we obtain final justification only by our faith in Christ's atonement, and not by our own independent works. When we respond to God's command to put our faith in Christ and in his atonement for final Justification, we are choosing to comply with God's Law and so participate in His righteousness.

It is by our choice to respond to God's Word that we allow God's Law entrance into our heart, resulting in a partnership with Him (Deut 30.11-14). In this we do not generate righteousness on our own. Rather, in complying with God's Law, we allow entrance into our heart God's Word so that we may be able to obey Him, displaying His righteousness in us.

This is not Self-Justification, but rather, obedience! Faith is not disobedience--it is the exercise of cooperation with God by depending upon Him for our righteousness. By choosing the Law of Christ we are choosing to participate in his righteousness.



To Antinomianism, "Law" is an evil word. It always means Self-Justification. But while the Law was in effect it was intended to only be a form of temporary justification. It was not Legalism, which is an attempt to obtain final Justification by any means apart from access to Christ.

Clearly, Paul was teaching that Faith must be defined ultimately as looking to Christ for final Justification. Faith in the Law before Christ was faith in a purely *temporary justification,* as a prelude to looking to Christ in the future for *final justification.*

Anything that leaves Christ out of the mix is a form of Legalism, including following the Law and its system of atonement, which is the opposite of looking to Christ and his atonement. But faith in the Law was never intended to be faith in the Law as a *permanent and final form of Justificaiton!* On the contrary, it was in fact a form of faith in the need for Christ for final Justification.



The bottom line is: the Law was not "evil" in its time. Following the Law of Moses *today* is indeed a form of Legalism because it is no longer in use. But following the Law of God today as a command to obey the word of Christ is *not* Legalism. It is simply our response, in faith, towards God's Word and in regard to Christ's atonement for our sins. In obeying the command to believe in Christ's atonement we are indeed obeying God's Law as it concerns final Justification.

But Divine Law is always operational, and can be accessed by simply responding to God's Word to our conscience. As for Justification unto Eternal Life, that only comes by our response to the Gospel of Christ, indicating that only *his* atonement must be the object of our faith for this to take place.

Anything apart from choosing to participate in the righteousness associated with *Christ's atonement* is a form of Legalism. But it is not divorced from Divine Law, which is *always* the operation of God's Word speaking to our conscience! We can follow God's Law of righteousness today. We can also follow the righteousness that depends on Christ's atonement for final Justification.

The law is holy, spiritual, and good according to Rom 7 but, by the law, no one can ever be justified. The law can only tell us what righteousness "looks like" but cannot accomplish it in us. Only God can do that with the righteousness that the law attests to but which is apart from the law (Rom 3). The law's true purpose is revealed in Christ; it can only serve as a teacher, convicting us of sin, showing us that we fail at obedience on our own, apart from God.

True righteousness can only happen when one is in union or fellowship with God, a relationship which is established by faith. Jesus reveals to us and gives us the grace to believe in a God truly worth believing in as well as hoping in and, most importantly, loving. That relationship and those resulting virtues are what man's justice or righteousness consists of as he becomes a new creation, having been reconciled by Christ with the God whom man was alienated from at the Fall.

“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. Jer 31:33

 

[RandyPNW]

The law is holy, spiritual, and good according to Rom 7 but, by the law, no one can ever be justified.

I will reiterate what I've been trying to say, before we get too far along. Paul spoke of Justification with a big "J." That is, he was speaking of the kind of justification that leads to Salvation.

A man can justify the fact he is a righteous man by simply living a lawful life. But that doesn't mean he thereby obtains Salvation, or Eternal Life. Eternal Life comes only as a gift from God, and not by anything Man can earn on his own.

That being said, the Law had a form by which righteous men could justify themselves as saints, by taking hold of God's temporary means of atonement. They could be temporarily redeemed, as it were, through the agency of the Temple Law. They could remain in good standing with God by keeping the Law, and find mercy, even if Eternal Life had yet to be provided for them by the work of Christ.

The law can only tell us what righteousness "looks like" but cannot accomplish it in us.

No, the Law itself provided Israel with true righteousness. When Paul spoke of Righteousness with a capital "R," he was speaking of the righteousness of Christ that leads to Eternal life, which is now given to his saints.

But righteousness truly existed under the Law, though it showed itself to be inadequate with respect to obtaining Eternal Life. That is why I say the Law provided all these things--righteousness and justification, only in the temporary sense. The Law, and its Temple Sacrifices were a means of temporarily mitigating sin so that Israel could continue in good covenant relationship with God until their Salvation was complete.

Only God can do that with the righteousness that the law attests to but which is apart from the law (Rom 3). The law's true purpose is revealed in Christ; it can only serve as a teacher, convicting us of sin, showing us that we fail at obedience on our own, apart from God.

True righteousness can only happen when one is in union or fellowship with God, a relationship which is established by faith.

When Paul spoke of our Union with Christ, he spoke of Union with a capital "U." That is, the Law provided a true union with God for Israel, but it was not an eternal union. It was temporary until Christ provided for a lasting union. Now Christ can indwell us for all eternity, whereas under the Law it was a true union yet to be finalized legally.

Jesus reveals to us and gives us the grace to believe in a God truly worth believing in as well as hoping in and, most importantly, loving. That relationship and those resulting virtues are what man's justice or righteousness consists of as he becomes a new creation, having been reconciled by Christ with the God whom man was alienated from at the Fall.

“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. Jer 31:33

God had already put His Law in the minds of Israel in OT times. But over time, Israel lost their vision of God as a people. Relatively few still had that vision.

God's promise was that He would restore Israel. And He did restore Israel even in OT times. But ultimately, His promise is to restore Israel never to fall again.

That is the promise of Eternal Life. And when that comes, God's Law will be etched perfectly on our minds for all eternity.

 

[fhansen]

Israel pretty much strayed constantly. And both Jesus and Paul revealed that mere observance of the law counted for nothing anyway, certainly not authentic righteousness.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.” Matt 23:27-28

“If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.” Phil 3:4-9

But I understand your point. The law, speaking specifically of the Decalogue which Jesus and Paul supported, is still obligatory under the new covenant as the ancient churches continued to maintain. But the new covenant provides the means to actually fulfill it rather than, as some insist, provides a reprieve from the obligation to fulfill it.

I'm just saying that I don't think we need to separate justification or union into some kind of higher and lesser forms. There's one way to justification and that is union with God. And there's one way to union with God and that is faith. And yet that union is complete only as we come to also hope in, and, most importantly, love Him. To the extent that we're "perfected in love" the law is fulfilled; there's no other way, in fact. Jesus, as never before, reveals the full true face of God, a God truly worth believing in, hoping in, and loving.

 

[Grip Docility]

We disagree. There was never any system of *final* Justification under the Law. The Law was not "of faith," meaning that it did not offer a means of escape from the condemnation of sin. It gave a *temporary reprieve* from the condemnation of sin. It provided a temporary means of mitigating the condemnation of sin. The goal was always a *final mitigation* of sin, but while the Law was in effect it was a temporary covering for a sinful nation that was given access to God.

Did the Law offer a temporary means of mitigating sin? Of course! That's why the Law was given, to keep Israel in relationship with God, as long as they, as a nation, made a good faith effort to obey His Law. That is why God gave Israel a priesthood and a system of sacrifices, to enable them to express good faith in God's Law.

If this isn't "temporary justification," what is it? Maybe you just don't like the word "justification," because for you it *always* implies "final justification?" So substitute a different word instead of "justification?" Try "a temporary means of mitigating sin?"

Since my whole message is predicated on this point, I'll just leave it at that. To say that there was no system of forgiveness under the Law is patently absurd to me. I couldn't grasp what you hope to say to justify God's giving the Law to Israel in the 1st place?

Why would King David sing the praises of a Law that had no redeeming value?? Was the practice of the Law an exercise in futility?

The following statement implies that the Law was temporary. That it was a system of redemption/justification goes without saying.

Heb 8.3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer... 7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

Genuine question... Why did the Blood of Bulls and Goats never accomplish the purpose? Why is the Stone Law actually associated with bad things in Hebrews 2:14? Why does Paul say this, here; 2 Corinthians 3:7

I genuinely ask you, if we follow 1 Corinthians 15:56 and Hebrews 2:14 through... all the way to; Galatians 3:19 ... What is the insinuation?

 

[Grip Docility]

Keeping the Law was not "Legalism." Legalism is trying to obtain, by means of the Law, something that requires more than what the Law alone can give. As well, it is the attempt to obtain standing with God apart from God's means of obtaining that standing. Christ and his atonement is, in fact, the exclusive means of obtaining lasting standing with God.

Paul's statement that the Law is not based on Faith (Gal 3.12) is actually a statement claiming that its form of justification was purposefully shown to be temporary and inadequate with respect to final justification. But Paul was *not* saying that the system of justification in place under the Law was invalid as a *temporary* form of justification! On the contrary, Paul sang the praises of the Law, obviously when it had been a current covenant (Rom 7.12).

So the fact the Law is no longer in service as a covenant means that trying to live by the Law is a form of Legalism today, even though it wasn't earlier. It is trying to serve God by a means that God no longer sanctions.

But living by the Law while the Law was in service was not Legalism. It was obedience to God's Word. People get confused when they read from Paul that the Law amplifies our Sin and cannot Justify us (Rom 5.20). But Paul is not decrying the value of the Law. Again, Paul sings the praises of the Law for the time it had been in effect.

What Paul was really saying is that Jews who *now* try to follow the Law, when it is no longer in service, are no longer serving God's Word *today!* The fact it is no longer a current covenant has everything to do with whether God accepts obedience to the Law today.

He obviously does not recognize obedience to the Law when it is no longer in use. The major element in this involves what God's Word is saying to us *today*. Obeying a covenant that is not currently in use is therefore "Legalism," and not serving the cause of God's living Word.

On the other hand, when the Law was in use, obedience to that Law constituted a form of faith in God's Word. It was a temporary form of justification, even though it could not be a permanent form of justification.

The condemnation of sin under the Law was designed to show precisely that, that the Law was a purely *temporary* form of Justification because the Law could not get around the fact Man was a sinner and had to be justified apart from his own works. His own works were already contaminated by sin, making justification something that only Christ, a perfect man, could bring (Heb 7.l1-28; 9.23; 10.1,11).



Antinomianism views "Faith" as somehow separate from Divine Law, and therefore separate from our own righteousness, including our own participation in his righteousness (2 Pet 1.4). But in reality, Christ cannot become our righteousness unless we, by our faith, let his Word into our heart by our choice to obey him.

And it is God's Law that we obtain final justification only by our faith in Christ's atonement, and not by our own independent works. When we respond to God's command to put our faith in Christ and in his atonement for final Justification, we are choosing to comply with God's Law and so participate in His righteousness.

It is by our choice to respond to God's Word that we allow God's Law entrance into our heart, resulting in a partnership with Him (Deut 30.11-14). In this we do not generate righteousness on our own. Rather, in complying with God's Law, we allow entrance into our heart God's Word so that we may be able to obey Him, displaying His righteousness in us.

This is not Self-Justification, but rather, obedience! Faith is not disobedience--it is the exercise of cooperation with God by depending upon Him for our righteousness. By choosing the Law of Christ we are choosing to participate in his righteousness.



To Antinomianism, "Law" is an evil word. It always means Self-Justification. But while the Law was in effect it was intended to only be a form of temporary justification. It was not Legalism, which is an attempt to obtain final Justification by any means apart from access to Christ.

Clearly, Paul was teaching that Faith must be defined ultimately as looking to Christ for final Justification. Faith in the Law before Christ was faith in a purely *temporary justification,* as a prelude to looking to Christ in the future for *final justification.*

Anything that leaves Christ out of the mix is a form of Legalism, including following the Law and its system of atonement, which is the opposite of looking to Christ and his atonement. But faith in the Law was never intended to be faith in the Law as a *permanent and final form of Justificaiton!* On the contrary, it was in fact a form of faith in the need for Christ for final Justification.



The bottom line is: the Law was not "evil" in its time. Following the Law of Moses *today* is indeed a form of Legalism because it is no longer in use. But following the Law of God today as a command to obey the word of Christ is *not* Legalism. It is simply our response, in faith, towards God's Word and in regard to Christ's atonement for our sins. In obeying the command to believe in Christ's atonement we are indeed obeying God's Law as it concerns final Justification.

But Divine Law is always operational, and can be accessed by simply responding to God's Word to our conscience. As for Justification unto Eternal Life, that only comes by our response to the Gospel of Christ, indicating that only *his* atonement must be the object of our faith for this to take place.

Anything apart from choosing to participate in the righteousness associated with *Christ's atonement* is a form of Legalism. But it is not divorced from Divine Law, which is *always* the operation of God's Word speaking to our conscience! We can follow God's Law of righteousness today. We can also follow the righteousness that depends on Christ's atonement for final Justification.

Are you aware that Paul refers to another "Law"... completely different than the 613 Mitzvah and even goes so far to say that he is no longer under the 613?

 

[RandyPNW]

Israel pretty much strayed constantly.

I don't know what you base that on? Of course, looking back over a wide swath of history, and seeing repeated national failures we might say that Israel "regularly strayed." But that's not the same thing as saying Israel was a constant failure.

We might even say of ourselves that we "regularly mess up," referring to imperfect attitudes or words. But that doesn't mean we are serious mess-ups all the time!

I happen to think a nation can pretty much remain civil for extended periods of time. Why else would God give them a system by which to keep problems in check? God knew the nation would collapse over time, but His purpose was to succeed with Israel in some respects, and provided the Law in order to accomplish that.

And both Jesus and Paul revealed that mere observance of the law counted for nothing anyway, certainly not authentic righteousness.

That's a misrepresentation of what Paul was trying to get across, in my opinion. Paul was certainly not saying the Law counted for nothing in every regard, but only in the sense of trying to refer back to sacrifices under the Law after Christ had already obtained eternal atonement for us. The Law had never been intended to obtain eternal atonement. As I said, it was just a temporary system until Christ could come and provide eternal atonement--something only he could accomplish.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.” Matt 23:27-28

The Law of Moses was worthless to those who did not really have faith, but trusted in it to accomplish atonement by external means on behalf of people who were inwardly unrepentant.

“If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless. But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.” Phil 3:4-9

Paul was saying that for all of his confidence in the Law, only Christ could accomplish eternal Righteousness (with a big "R").

But I understand your point. The law, speaking specifically of the Decalogue which Jesus and Paul supported, is still obligatory under the new covenant as the ancient churches continued to maintain. But the new covenant provides the means to actually fulfill it rather than, as some insist, provides a reprieve from the obligation to fulfill it.

I don't know who you're referring to? I for one do *not* agree that Jesus and Paul supported the Decalogue as obligatory *after the period of the Law.* It was viewed as a righteousness that is fulfilled, in the eternal sense, only through Christ. By contrast, the Law of Moses and its Decalogue were not operating through Christ, but only in a preliminary sense, sanctioned by God.

I'm just saying that I don't think we need to separate justification or union into some kind of higher and lesser forms.

Why? That's just how the NT teaching handles it, as OT and NT! Temporary justification, redemption, and union were sanctioned under observance of the Law in covenant between God and Israel. But eternal Justification, Redemption, and Union were accomplished by Christ on behalf of those who covenant with him.

There's one way to justification and that is union with God.

No, there is the way through the Law, and the way through Christ. Only Christ accomplishes Justification with a capital "J." While it's true that both OT and NT covenants operated by faith in God, only after Christ came did faith operate and achieve Salvation by means of him.

And there's one way to union with God and that is faith. And yet that union is complete only as we come to also hope in, and, most importantly, love Him. To the extent that we're "perfected in love" the law is fulfilled; there's no other way, in fact. Jesus, as never before, reveals the full true face of God, a God truly worth believing in, hoping in, and loving.

It wasn't just that Jesus revealed the full face of God but that *his work of redemption was required.* Without that, faith and exercising the Decalogue may have pleased God but could never achieve final Redemption, or Eternal Life.