(4b- The inner working of the Holy Spirit) By beholding we become changed (What is called Antinomianism is not Lawlessness)

[Grip Docility]

Continued from (4a- The inner working of the Holy Spirit) By beholding we become changed (What is called Antinomianism is not Lawlessness) <- Active Link

2 Corinthians 3:18 We all, with unveiled faces, are looking as in a mirror at the glory of the Lord and are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory; this is from the Lord who is the Spirit.

There are 4 major spiritual concepts being discussed within this Pauline sentence.

1- Having an unveiled face
2- Looking in a mirror at Jesus Christ (Jesus is the very Glory of God / Effulgence or Visible Light)
3- Transformation (Conversion)
4a- The inner working of the Holy Spirit
4b- The inner working of the Holy Spirit

4b- The inner working of the Holy Spirit
​

Isaiah 64:8 Yet Lord, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we all are the work of your hands.​

​

Psalm 138:8 The Lord will fulfill his purpose for me; your steadfast love, O Lord, endures forever. Do not forsake the work of your hands.​

​

The Counselor, The Comforter, The Inner Light, The Holy Soul, The very Seal of our Salvation, The Righteousness of ONLY God, Within
​

Continued from OP part 4a, conclusion statement..

Through Jesus Christ, God set the Spiritual Foundation of His Kingdom and Jesus Christ (The Son) is the Head of this Kingdom. He is the cornerstone of the Spiritual Kingdom. He is the Head of the BODY (KINGDOM). Upon Pentecost, God literally INDWELLED Believing Humanity and reversed the Babel. The Castle of the KING, (THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST) is now ever growing more amazing, century after century. We are Temples of God. We, individually are each a brick of the Church. We are the Worshipers who are Grafted INTO the Jesus Christ, who is literally Grafted into our very SOULS in the most REAL, Literal way possible, via the Same Holy Spirit which is the Soul of God the Father and God the Son. The Holy Spirit of Christ now dwells within our very Souls.​

Now, the Architect is building HIS spiritual Kingdom with the LANGUAGE OF LOVE.​

​

OP 4A Exists for one main purpose. It is written to dispel any form of subordinating The Son or the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son. If a person misunderstands Who the Son is in doctrine, they won't be able to comprehend that attempting to be without sin like the Son in human flesh is not only impossible, but tantamount of Isaiah 14:14. There is only ONE God. The work that God the Father accomplished through God the Son was God's work and God's work, alone. When people attempt to bind Christianity back to the Ministry of Death, Chiseled in Stone, they are, per the Apostle Paul, cutting themselves and all who they convince to do so off from the Accomplished work of Jesus Christ.

The Gospel states that the Law of Sin and Death (Moses / The Ministry of Death, chiseled in Stone) condemns all of us. Hebrews states that the entire system of Law as it existed in the Old Covenant was Fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Many people don't understand that to judge others by the Stone Law, or to judge themselves by it is literally trampling the Blood of Jesus Christ which fulfilled the Law for all who will turn from works of the flesh (Human efforts good or bad) and Depend on Jesus for all of their Salvational needs.

By re-establishing the Law of Stone as ordinances that can Accuse and Damn mankind, a person is not only denying what Jesus accomplished on the Cross, but they are essentially telling Jesus that what He accomplished at Golgotha isn't good enough for them.

OP 4A further expresses that the Holy Spirit is no less the presence of God than Jesus Christ is. The Holy Spirit of Christ which saves and seals us is the literal Holy Ghost (Soul) of Jesus Christ (The Son) and His Father. This is exactly why Paul calls our body's the Temple of God. When Paul states not to join that Temple to a Prostitute, he is saying that to deny the Power of Jesus Christ's Blood and provided Holy Spirit to Save a Believing Sinner unto Glory is to join one's self to Apostasy.

The New Covenant Law is "Love thy neighbor as Thyself". Love forgives! Love actively asks people to consider the needs of others in all that they do. This is the mechanism of the Gospel that changes the entire world. It brings peace, where no peace once was. It is Love that does not discriminate or judge people. We are to forgive as we are forgiven. We do not yoke mankind with the Law of Sin and Death. That law now shows us our need for Jesus and nothing more.

Binding people to the Law of Stone is a way of suggesting that Jesus died for nothing.

So, if we are free from that Stone, which we are, what keeps us from going berserk and destroying our life and other's lives?

God literally shapes our Souls in His way and His timing. We focus on Jesus and Loving others as He first Loved us. This literally places the burden of Trust specifically on Jesus Christ and nothing or anyone else. We turn to Him and Him alone. Obedience doesn't satiate a thing. Even the Life Changing Love that God bestows upon us is not ours, but His.

The Lion of Judah is within us. No other is worthy of our Trust. We are to Trust God to do with us as He pleases in His timing, not ours. God really dwells within us sinners who confess their need of Him. Placing Faith or need in anything or anyone else is a quick way to derail God's intended work.

It's really that simple. We don't become "sinless" in this life. We await the day that we pass through the veil of Death, which we do not succumb to, but bypass judgment and go straight to Jesus, through, just as Jesus promised those of us who believe.

It's really that simple.

 

[Grip Docility]

OP Complete

 

[Josheb]

OP Complete

I have read all five ops in the series and have three questions for you:

1. Why is the matter of antinomianism included but never addressed or expounded upon further? Would you please define your terms and explain what you mean when saying "what is called antinomianism is not lawlessness," and please do so that addresses the fact the word "antinomian" literally means "lawless"? (anti = against; nomia = law) Is the term used exclusively in the doctrinal sense in which the Law is abrogated by grace through faith, or sola gatia and sola fide? If so, then please elaborate.
2. To what specific transformation or change are you referring since the saints of 2 Corinthians 3:18 are already changed, having been brought from death to life, dead in sin to dead to sin/dead in Christ, etc.?
3. Why wasn't 2 Corinthians 4 referenced in any of these ops? I trust you understand proof-texting is rarely good practice, or part of a sound exegesis or hermeneutic. A commendable job was done in the earlier ops tying verse 18 to the Mosaic precedent. Why wasn't what follows also included. There are no chapter and verse divisions in the original epistles. Vere 18 occurs as part of a larger narrative that Paul continues in chapter 3. Is there a reason for not including that content?

2 Corinthians 3:7-4:12
But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death works in us, but life in you.

For the sake of space and ease of discussion, the questions can be taken one or two at a time.

Thank you.

 

[Grip Docility]

I have read all five ops in the series and have three questions for you:

Thank you for taking the time to read the entire series! I'll do my best to answer your questions in the most succinct fashion possible.

1. Why is the matter of antinomianism included but never addressed or expounded upon further? Would you please define your terms and explain what you mean when saying "what is called antinomianism is not lawlessness," and please do so that addresses the fact the word "antinomian" literally means "lawless"? (anti = against; nomia = law) Is the term used exclusively in the doctrinal sense in which the Law is abrogated by grace through faith, or sola gatia and sola fide? If so, then please elaborate.

Instead of answering from my perspective, I'll attempt to give questions that if answered, may answer your well worded question.

1 The Ministry of Death, Chiseled in Stone empowered who according to 1 Corinthians 15:55,56 and Hebrews 2:14?
2 What is the Anti-Type for the Slave Woman and her Son mentioned in Galatians 4?
3 Did Jesus Christ specify that He gave a "New" Law?
4 According to James 2, how many of the Laws of Moses are we guilty of if we transgress 1?
5 According to Deuteronomy 4:2 - Deuteronomy 31:26, which Laws can be removed from the Law of Moses?

1. To what specific transformation or change are you referring since the saints of 2 Corinthians 3:18 are already changed, having been brought from death to life, dead in sin to dead to sin/dead in Christ, etc.?

What do you believe to be the clay that is in the Potter's hands?
Who is the Potter, in your opinion?

1. Why wasn't 2 Corinthians 4 referenced in any of these ops? I trust you understand proof-texting is rarely good practice, or part of a sound exegesis or hermeneutic. A commendable job was done in the earlier ops tying verse 18 to the Mosaic precedent. Why wasn't what follows also included. There are no chapter and verse divisions in the original epistles. Vere 18 occurs as part of a larger narrative that Paul continues in chapter 3. Is there a reason for not including that content?

2 Corinthians 3:7-4:12
But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death works in us, but life in you.

For the sake of space and ease of discussion, the questions can be taken one or two at a time.

Thank you.

Thank you so very much for adding scripture to the OP! You are welcome to post any and all of scripture underneath any of the OP's that I have written!

All Love in Jesus Christ to you, sibling in Him.

 

[Josheb]

Thank you for taking the time to read the entire series! I'll do my best to answer your questions in the most succinct fashion possible.

Instead of answering from my perspective, I'll attempt to give questions that if answered, may answer your well worded question.

1 The Ministry of Death, Chiseled in Stone empowered who according to 1 Corinthians 15:55,56 and Hebrews 2:14?

Hmmm... answering a question with a question . I'll give it a try.

There is no "ministry of death" in 1 Corinthians 15 or Hebrews 2. The phrase "ministry of death" is found in 2 Corinthians 3.

2 Corinthians 3:4-11
Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.

In this passage the "ministry of death," is a reference to the Law given through Moses and it is not said to empower anyone according to 1 Corinthians 15:55-56. 1 Corinthians 15:55-56 states the power of sin is the Law. In Hebrews 2:14 the there is no mention of empowerment, either; only that Jesus might destroy the one who has the power of death, which is the devil (or accuser, slanderer).

It therefore appears you've taken a concept called the "ministry of death," which is a reference to the Law of Moses (more specifically the Decalogue) and spliced that together with the devil (the Law being the power of sin and the devil having the power of death) to suggest someone is empowered by the Law in an op-relevant way. And then all of that is somehow supposed to answer the question asked.....

Why is the matter of antinomianism included but never addressed or expounded upon further? Would you please define your terms and explain what you mean when saying "what is called antinomianism is not lawlessness," and please do so that addresses the fact the word "antinomian" literally means "lawless"? (anti = against; nomia = law) Is the term used exclusively in the doctrinal sense in which the Law is abrogated by grace through faith, or sola gatia and sola fide? If so, then please elaborate.​

I am not seeing how the answer to the question you've asked answers my question. Answering the other questions prove the same results.

2 What is the Anti-Type for the Slave Woman and her Son mentioned in Galatians 4?

Hagar, the slave woman, stands anti-typally as someone outside the covenant of promise. As such she has nothing to do with the Law or Christ. The Law was part of the promises later asserted in the covenant God initiated with Abraham and his seed (which is Christ. The only connection is Hagar's condition as a "bondwoman," a servant whose debt had been purchased, placing her in indentured service until her debt had been paid (or she chose to stay in service after payment of the debt). Sarah, alternatively, is said to be a "freewoman" but this should not be construed to mean she was hamartiologically free. All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory and she, just as much as anyone else is in need of redeeming. As far as the "ministry of death" goes both women existed at a time prior to the "letters engraved in stone" or the "ministry of death," had been provided. As Paul put it in Romans 5, death (a product of sin) still reigned. It reigned from the time of Adam until Moses; it simply wasn't held into account by a Law that had not yet been given (it was accountable by the laws that had been given, though).

So, here again, the question asked is not answered.

Why is the matter of antinomianism included but never addressed or expounded upon further? Would you please define your terms and explain what you mean when saying "what is called antinomianism is not lawlessness," and please do so that addresses the fact the word "antinomian" literally means "lawless"? (anti = against; nomia = law) Is the term used exclusively in the doctrinal sense in which the Law is abrogated by grace through faith, or sola gatia and sola fide? If so, then please elaborate.​

3 Did Jesus Christ specify that He gave a "New" Law?

I cannot find the phrase "new law" anywhere in the Bible. I can find mentions of a new commandment (John 13:34) but it is not new in the sense it had never before been spoken in scripture. That "new command" is new only in its application (the apostles loving each other after his departure). I can also find mention of a new covenant and a "law of the Spirit" but neither is new in the sense that they had not previously existed. Jesus said he had come to fulfill the Law, not abolish it (Mt. 5:17), and further reported not the smallest aspect of it would pass away until heaven and earth pass away. So, the answer is, "No, Jesus did not give a 'new' Law."

Here, again, the question asked is not answer by the answer to your third question.

Why is the matter of antinomianism included but never addressed or expounded upon further? Would you please define your terms and explain what you mean when saying "what is called antinomianism is not lawlessness," and please do so that addresses the fact the word "antinomian" literally means "lawless"? (anti = against; nomia = law) Is the term used exclusively in the doctrinal sense in which the Law is abrogated by grace through faith, or sola gatia and sola fide? If so, then please elaborate.​

4 According to James 2, how many of the Laws of Moses are we guilty of if we transgress 1?

One. According to James, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."

I am still not seeing how the answer to your fourth question answers my question.

Why is the matter of antinomianism included but never addressed or expounded upon further? Would you please define your terms and explain what you mean when saying "what is called antinomianism is not lawlessness," and please do so that addresses the fact the word "antinomian" literally means "lawless"? (anti = against; nomia = law) Is the term used exclusively in the doctrinal sense in which the Law is abrogated by grace through faith, or sola gatia and sola fide? If so, then please elaborate.​

.

5 According to Deuteronomy 4:2 - Deuteronomy 31:26, which Laws can be removed from the Law of Moses?

None. Dt. 4:2 states, "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

So, once again, the answer to the question does not answer my question.

Why is the matter of antinomianism included but never addressed or expounded upon further? Would you please define your terms and explain what you mean when saying "what is called antinomianism is not lawlessness," and please do so that addresses the fact the word "antinomian" literally means "lawless"? (anti = against; nomia = law) Is the term used exclusively in the doctrinal sense in which the Law is abrogated by grace through faith, or sola gatia and sola fide? If so, then please elaborate.​

And it would appear all of these answers affirm antinomianism is lawlessness, not the opposite (which is what is asserted in the five ops in this series.


Wouldn't it be much simpler, take up less space, and move the conversation forward just to answer the question asked as succinctly as possible, speaking for yourself so that all the lurkers could know and understand your perspective(s) on your ops when it comes to the assertion (what is called antinomianism is not lawlessness?

• Why was the matter of antinomianism not addressed further over the course of five ops?
• How do you define the terms "antinomianism" and "lawlessness"?
• The word, "antinomian" literally means lawless, so please address that fact.
• Is the term "antinomian" used in a doctrinal sense? If so, which doctrine?

?

I gotta go, but I'll take up the rest of Post 4 later (may not get back to it until tomorrow or Saturday, though).

 

[Grip Docility]

Hmmm... answering a question with a question . I'll give it a try.

2 Corinthians 3:4-11
But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, ... For if the ministry of condemnation

Respect to you for giving it a try. Shortened quotations to get to the pieces that your quote's unearthed.

In this passage the "ministry of death," is a reference to the Law given through Moses

Shortened quotations to get to the pieces that your quote's unearthed.

1 Corinthians 15:55-56 states the power of sin is the Law.

Shortened quotations to get to the pieces that your quote's unearthed.

In Hebrews 2:14 .... the one who has the power of death, which is the devil (or accuser, slanderer).

1 Corinthians 15:55 O Death, where is your sting...... Shortened quotations to get to the pieces that your quote's unearthed.

Beelzebub - lord of dung heap, lord of flies, lord of DEATH (god of death) ----- "Death"

The Law of Moses reveals the Perfection of Jesus and prophesies of Jesus. Only God is Good by that Law. (The Law is Good)

However, Death (The Accuser/Satan/The Dragon) used the Law to condemn Humanity and before the Law, the very perfection of God (We attempted to be like God by the adversaries deceit. Isaiah 14:14) This is why it is called "The Ministry of Death".

In my opinion.

Hagar, the slave woman, stands anti-typally as someone outside the covenant of promise. The only connection is Hagar's condition as a "bondwoman," a servant whose debt had been purchased, placing her in indentured service until her debt had been paid (or she chose to stay in service after payment of the debt).

Galatians 4:24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai ...

I cannot find the phrase "new law" anywhere in the Bible. I can find mentions of a new commandment (John 13:34) but it is not new in the sense it had never before been spoken in scripture. That "new command" is new only in its application (the apostles loving each other after his departure). I can also find mention of a new covenant and a "law of the Spirit" but neither is new in the sense that they had not previously existed. Jesus said he had come to fulfill the Law, not abolish it (Mt. 5:17), and further reported not the smallest aspect of it would pass away until heaven and earth pass away. So, the answer is, "No, Jesus did not give a 'new' Law."

James 2:8 "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well"

Romans 13:10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. 17 If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

19 This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: 20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

1 John 4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

13 This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. 16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

One. According to James, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."

Shortened quotations to get to the pieces that your quote's unearthed.

.None. Dt. 4:2 states, "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Shortened quotations to get to the pieces that your quote's unearthed.

Wouldn't it be much simpler, take up less space, and move the conversation forward just to answer the question asked as succinctly as possible, speaking for yourself so that all the lurkers could know and understand your perspective(s) on your ops when it comes to the assertion (what is called antinomianism is not lawlessness?

• Why was the matter of antinomianism not addressed further over the course of five ops?
• How do you define the terms "antinomianism" and "lawlessness"?
• The word, "antinomian" literally means lawless, so please address that fact.
• Is the term "antinomian" used in a doctrinal sense? If so, which doctrine?

It wouldn't be more simple, because you seem to enjoy engaging in scripture as much as I do. I notice that I can quote scripture and then you go locate and draw from the passage. This is exactly what I am doing to formulate opinion. You seem interested in the concept and a bit perplexed by what it has to do with a very specific word in the OP title.

If someone binds themselves or another to the law of Moses, according to James Chapter 2, they are committing the "sin" of favoritism. There is a Law of "Freedom" that is contrasted with the Law of Moses. One frees, while the other Law brings the entire 613 mitzvah down upon the head of the transgressor.

1 John states that lawlessness is sin. In full belief that scripture compliments scripture, IMO, anyone who unplugs from Jesus and goes back to the old covenant, falls from grace (Galatians).

If we fall from Grace, the Stone Law instantly condemns us to lawlessness.

Where the Law of Christ is concerned (Royal Law), Law of Love, New Command, New Covenant, Easy Yoke, Law of Freedom is employed, the result is this:

1 Peter 4:8 Above all, have fervent and unfailing love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins​

John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”​

​

In short, those that Love and are built up by the Spirit to Love as Christ Loved are walking under the fulfillment of their life debt by Jesus Christ.​

​

By being under Jesus Christ's easy yoke, they are not "Lawless".​

​

However.... What was BORN ON Sinai, per the exact words of Galatians 4, ironically binds believers that turn from the indiscriminate Love and Forgiveness given by Jesus Christ, which they would have in turn demonstrated and given to humanity.... and to the Law of Stone, they are under a Covenant which no Sacrifice is left for, per Hebrews Chapter 10, which then collapses all 613 Mitzvah upon their head, making them... Lawless.

That's my opinion.

All Love and blessings to you in the Name of Jesus Christ, Sibling in Him

 

[Josheb]

It wouldn't be more simple, because you seem to enjoy engaging in scripture as much as I do. I notice that I can quote scripture and then you go locate and draw from the passage. This is exactly what I am doing to formulate opinion. You seem interested in the concept and a bit perplexed by what it has to do with a very specific word in the OP title.

Please keep the posts about the posts and not the posters and when that temptation is found to be overcoming then try to practice Philippians 2:3, Ephesians 4:29-32, and Col. 4:5-6.

1 John states that lawlessness is sin.

Yes, scripture does say that. Scripture also provides at least three other definitions of sin that are not limited to or necessarily related to the Law. More germanely, any mishandling of God's word (especially for the purpose of asserting opinion), is lawless sin.

In full belief that scripture compliments scripture, IMO, anyone who unplugs from Jesus and goes back to the old covenant, falls from grace (Galatians).

And yet every single one of the NT writers repeatedly alluded to, referenced, and quoted the Law of Moses and applied it to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ. Remaining "plugged" into Jesus and following God's precepts are not mutually exclusive conditions. Paul and James specified two conditions for which the Law was not useful or applicable. What are those two specified conditions?

What are the two conditions specified for which the Law cannot provide?

If we fall from Grace, the Stone Law instantly condemns us to lawlessness.

.....which is a law!!!

This gets to the crux of the issue and the fundamental, foundational problem in this series of ops: by asserting rules (principles, precepts, commands, commandments, etc.) you're still asserting laws. You are being nomian! It is impossible to be entirely lawless. Even anarchists have rules!

Romans 2:12-16
For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

When Paul later appeals to the "law of the Spirit" (Romans 8) he does so within the inescapable context of 1) absolutely lawlessness is impossible and 2) the law of the Spirit never contradicts any other law in scripture. The very first words God spoke to humanity were laws!

• Be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth and rule over it.
• Do not disobey Me our you'll die.

Had Adam obeyed the first command he never would have disobeyed the latter on.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

There were still laws of God before the Law of Moses was given.

Where the Law of Christ is concerned (Royal Law), Law of Love, New Command, New Covenant, Easy Yoke, Law of Freedom is employed, the result is this:

1 Peter 4:8 Above all, have fervent and unfailing love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins​

John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”​

​

In short, those that Love and are built up by the Spirit to Love as Christ Loved are walking under the fulfillment of their life debt by Jesus Christ.​

​

By being under Jesus Christ's easy yoke, they are not "Lawless".​

​

However.... What was BORN ON Sinai, per the exact words of Galatians 4, ironically binds believers that turn from the indiscriminate Love and Forgiveness given by Jesus Christ, which they would have in turn demonstrated and given to humanity.... and to the Law of Stone, they are under a Covenant which no Sacrifice is left for, per Hebrews Chapter 10, which then collapses all 613 Mitzvah upon their head, making them... Lawless.

That's my opinion.

All Love and blessings to you in the Name of Jesus Christ, Sibling in Him

False dichotomy. Bad exegesis, too.

The "new command" is also found in the OT Law. When Jesus applied that law to the twelve (eleven, because one was about to betray him) he did so in the explicit context of them having each others' backs during the approaching persecution. Those words were originally said to the twelve, not you and me. John 13:34 does not contradict or supersede Matthew 22:36-40. or Deuteronomy 6:4!

Matthew 22:36-40
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Deuteronomy 6:4-5
"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."

The law of the Spirit most definitely does NOT negate, cancel, or in any other way discard that Law. John makes this clear in his epistles.

1 John 4:20-21
If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.

John is referencing what Jesus said to John and the other apostles that night they shared their last meal together. John was also referencing the Shema. The two are not mutually exclusive.


This series of ops reports "what is called antinomianism is not lawlessness," and I have repeatedly tried to get a forthcoming explanation for that claim. The answers are decidedly antinomian and lawless (and it could be argued they qualify for scripture's other definitions of sin).



Let me encourage you to pick up a book, "Five Views on the Law and Gospel," and give it a read. Much of what is posted in this series of five ops is addressed decisively. Some of it is left open for debate, but NOT the simple facts 1) nearly everything Jesus taught can be found in the OT, and 2) the NT writers repeatedly applied the Law to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ.... except in two specified areas of life in Christ.


What are those two specified conditions?

 

[Josheb]

This is exactly what I am doing to formulate opinion...............................................................................................................


........................That is my opinion.

Yes, that is clear to anyone who has read these ops.

The question is, "Is this opinion correct?" It's already been well established the method by which this opinion was obtained is flawed, and flawed in multiple areas (such as the fact Jesus' "new" command comes straight out of the Law and, logically speaking, absolute lawlessness is impossible).


Will you walk with me through the whole of scripture to garner a better consensus with whole scripture? If so, then start with the two conditions for which Paul specifies the Law cannot be used. What are those two conditions?

 

[Grip Docility]

Please keep the posts about the posts and not the posters and when that temptation is found to be overcoming then try to practice Philippians 2:3, Ephesians 4:29-32, and Col. 4:5-6.

Yes, scripture does say that. Scripture also provides at least three other definitions of sin that are not limited to or necessarily related to the Law. More germanely, any mishandling of God's word (especially for the purpose of asserting opinion), is lawless sin.

And yet every single one of the NT writers repeatedly alluded to, referenced, and quoted the Law of Moses and applied it to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ. Remaining "plugged" into Jesus and following God's precepts are not mutually exclusive conditions. Paul and James specified two conditions for which the Law was not useful or applicable. What are those two specified conditions?

What are the two conditions specified for which the Law cannot provide?

.....which is a law!!!

This gets to the crux of the issue and the fundamental, foundational problem in this series of ops: by asserting rules (principles, precepts, commands, commandments, etc.) you're still asserting laws. You are being nomian! It is impossible to be entirely lawless. Even anarchists have rules!

Romans 2:12-16
For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

When Paul later appeals to the "law of the Spirit" (Romans 8) he does so within the inescapable context of 1) absolutely lawlessness is impossible and 2) the law of the Spirit never contradicts any other law in scripture. The very first words God spoke to humanity were laws!

• Be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth and rule over it.
• Do not disobey Me our you'll die.

Had Adam obeyed the first command he never would have disobeyed the latter on.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

There were still laws of God before the Law of Moses was given.

False dichotomy. Bad exegesis, too.

The "new command" is also found in the OT Law. When Jesus applied that law to the twelve (eleven, because one was about to betray him) he did so in the explicit context of them having each others' backs during the approaching persecution. Those words were originally said to the twelve, not you and me. John 13:34 does not contradict or supersede Matthew 22:36-40. or Deuteronomy 6:4!

Matthew 22:36-40
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Deuteronomy 6:4-5
"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."

The law of the Spirit most definitely does NOT negate, cancel, or in any other way discard that Law. John makes this clear in his epistles.

1 John 4:20-21
If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.

John is referencing what Jesus said to John and the other apostles that night they shared their last meal together. John was also referencing the Shema. The two are not mutually exclusive.


This series of ops reports "what is called antinomianism is not lawlessness," and I have repeatedly tried to get a forthcoming explanation for that claim. The answers are decidedly antinomian and lawless (and it could be argued they qualify for scripture's other definitions of sin).



Let me encourage you to pick up a book, "Five Views on the Law and Gospel," and give it a read. Much of what is posted in this series of five ops is addressed decisively. Some of it is left open for debate, but NOT the simple facts 1) nearly everything Jesus taught can be found in the OT, and 2) the NT writers repeatedly applied the Law to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ.... except in two specified areas of life in Christ.


What are those two specified conditions?

It's interesting that "What was born on Sinai" remained unaddressed. It's a pretty big deal, "What was born on Sinai". Moses had to heal toe express it up that mountain, twice, for "What was born on Sinai". There was Darkness and Fire and Terror, during the process of "What was born on Sinai".

What was.... BORN on Sinai? Sinai? Mount Sin.......

This is a pretty important matter, in my opinon.

 

[Grip Docility]

Yes, that is clear to anyone who has read these ops.

The question is, "Is this opinion correct?" It's already been well established the method by which this opinion was obtained is flawed, and flawed in multiple areas (such as the fact Jesus' "new" command comes straight out of the Law and, logically speaking, absolute lawlessness is impossible).


Will you walk with me through the whole of scripture to garner a better consensus with whole scripture? If so, then start with the two conditions for which Paul specifies the Law cannot be used. What are those two conditions?

Love is the fulfillment of the Law.

This remains my opinion.

 

[Josheb]

It's interesting that "What was born on Sinai" remained unaddressed. It's a pretty big deal, "What was born on Sinai". Moses had to heal toe express it up that mountain, twice, for "What was born on Sinai". There was Darkness and Fire and Terror, during the process of "What was born on Sinai".

What was.... BORN on Sinai? Sinai? Mount Sin.......

This is a pretty important matter, in my opinon.

I don't know what you mean by "interesting" (whether that is used literally or rhetorically), but "born in Sinai was addressed, although it may not be obvious. I will happily discuss the matter further once I receive some answers to the questions asked.

Love is the fulfillment of the Law.

This remains my opinion.

Which is has been agreed with and affirmed, and is not a point in dispute. The fact that love is the fulfillment of the Law occurs in the Law shows the Law still applicable. The matter of transformation being defined, the matter of transformation being antinomian, and the matter of the antinomian transformation not being lawless has still not been addressed.

That is what is interesting.

Would you like me to gather all the questions I have asked and re-post them in a bullet list so they can all be answered directly in an orderly forthcoming manner, or would you like to retrieve them on your own and answer them? Would you like me to do the same with the still yet to be addressed comments (like the facts there have always been laws, most of the laws cited in the NT come from the Law, the NT writers repeatedly applied the Law to both Jewish and Gentile converts, and there are two conditions where that application is not applicable), or shall I expect a succinct response some other way?


Love is the fulfillment of the Law is "nomian," not antinomian. It is not a lawless antinomianism.


What are the two specified conditions Paul said the Law could not accomplish?

 

[Grip Docility]

I don't know what you mean by "interesting" (whether that is used literally or rhetorically), but "born in Sinai was addressed, although it may not be obvious. I will happily discuss the matter further once I receive some answers to the questions asked.

Which is has been agreed with and affirmed, and is not a point in dispute. The fact that love is the fulfillment of the Law occurs in the Law shows the Law still applicable. The matter of transformation being defined, the matter of transformation being antinomian, and the matter of the antinomian transformation not being lawless has still not been addressed.

That is what is interesting.

Would you like me to gather all the questions I have asked and re-post them in a bullet list so they can all be answered directly in an orderly forthcoming manner, or would you like to retrieve them on your own and answer them? Would you like me to do the same with the still yet to be addressed comments (like the facts there have always been laws, most of the laws cited in the NT come from the Law, the NT writers repeatedly applied the Law to both Jewish and Gentile converts, and there are two conditions where that application is not applicable), or shall I expect a succinct response some other way?


Love is the fulfillment of the Law is "nomian," not antinomian. It is not a lawless antinomianism.


What are the two specified conditions Paul said the Law could not accomplish?

Anti-Nomianism means to believe that mankind has been fully released from the grip of Moses, including the Decalogue.

In Hebrews, even the Tablets of the Covenant are included within the old covenant, in specific parenthetical dialogue which states that the New Covenant is far superior to the First or Old covenant.

I am stating that the LAW OF LOVE thy Neighbor as thyself, enemies included is far superior to commandments chiseled in Stone (AKA the "Moral Law").

By the very Hermeneutics of James Chapter 2 coupled with 1 John, Love is the very Commandment of God unto all men in the New Covenant.

Do I need to say it? My back is turned AGAINST MOSES and my Face is turned fully to Jesus. I trust the inner workings of the very Holy Spirit of Christ and Jesus Christ's completed work of salvation and NOTHING ELSE. I believe that Love is how we are to be known as His disciples and forgiveness extended from forgiven sinners unto an unbelieving world is the very commission of the Physical Gospel. We don't give to receive. We give because it is more blessed to give, while expecting nothing in return. We Love as He first Loved.

The Ministry of Death perpetually turns every word of scripture into Rules of Men. The Ministry of Jesus Christ is to Love a hurting world that is broken by Hate, Quid Pro Quo and the likes of all things which the false shepherd ushered in to our world through deceit.

I am saying that Love is superior to Judgment. I am saying that Mercy Triumphs over Judgment. I am saying that Love covers a multitude of sins. I am saying that Love is provision of God and the peace which binds mankind. I am saying that Judgment bears favoritism. I am saying that mercy unifies. I am saying that we are all guilty of all sin's cited in Moses, by the decree of James Chapter 2, which very specifically states this, as well as Galatians which states we were all imprisoned under sin, that Jesus Christ could be known for the very provision of freedom unto mankind.

This is my opinion.

 

[Josheb]

Anti-Nomianism means to believe that mankind has been fully released from the grip of Moses, including the Decalogue.

No, it does not.

This is my opinion.

The opinion is wrong.

By the very Hermeneutics of James Chapter 2 coupled with 1 John, Love is the very Commandment of God unto all men in the New Covenant.

Your hermeneutics and exegesis are sloppy; often misguided and mistaken, and I believe you are capable of doing better.

Do I need to say it? My back is turned AGAINST MOSES and my Face is turned fully to Jesus.

The two are not mutually exclusive and this is self-evident in the fact every single writer of the New Testament referenced, cited, and quoted the OT Law and applied it to both Jewish and Gentil converts to Christ! This is very apparent throughout the New Testament. Why hasn't that fact been acknowledged, and why hasn't my question been answered?

What are the two conditions Paul states the Law does not and cannot accomplish?

I trust the inner workings of the very Holy Spirit of Christ and Jesus Christ's completed work of salvation and NOTHING ELSE.

Ugh. Think before posting impulsively. If the Holy Spirit is the ONLY thing trusted, then you're on record stating Jesus and scripture are not trusted. The Holy Spirit NEVER contradicts the word of God (incarnate or written), and that is one of the ways we can all tell whether or not we've been hearing the Holy Spirit or some other errant source. Every single post in this forum that contradicts what is explicitly stated in scripture is a post that did NOT come from the Spirit. At best it came from the flesh. The Holy Spirit also does not teach fallacy. Therefore, every single Christian in this forum, all the boards no matter the topic, knows that a logical fallacy did not come from the Spirit.

• Moses and Jesus are not mutually exclusive conditions. That is a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy that does not come from the Holy Spirit.
• The Holy Spirit, the written word, and the incarnate word NEVER contradict one another so appeals to the exclusivity of the Holy Spirit in opposition to what is explicitly written are also false dichotomies, a logical fallacy that does not come from the Spirit.

Neither can be had both ways. Both must be corrected.

I believe that Love is how we are to be known as His disciples and forgiveness extended from forgiven sinners unto an unbelieving world is the very commission of the Physical Gospel.

And love is enshrined in the Low of Moses, beginning with the Shema. Once again: The Holy Spirit does not teach false dichotomies!

There are only two conditions that are stated in the NT where the Law does not apply. Outside of those two conditions every single New Testament writer applied the Law to both Jewish and Gentils converts to Christ. Understanding those two conditions helps us understand how the Law applies in the lives of Christians and it helps us avoid the problems like those existing in this five-op series of posts.


What are those two conditions @Grip Docility?

I am saying that Love is superior to Judgment.

The two are not mutually exclusive conditions. God disciplines those He loves. All humanity has already been judged and despite that judgment God has also seen fit to extend grace and show mercy. The fact that we draw breath sufficient to type these posts is an act of grace and mercy in the midst of His co-occurring judgment.

I am saying that Mercy Triumphs over Judgment.

Yes, Grip. I know and understand. It is not necessary to continually repeat the same ideas in different words (argumentum ad nauseam) in hopes the views expressed are understood and accepted.

Judgment and mercy are simply two sides of the same coin. They do not exist mutually exclusive of one another.

This is my opinion.

The opinion is wrong and if you'll answer the question asked then perhaps you'll see where these ops need to be amended. Then, the next time you post these ideas, they will be improved and better withstand critical examination. You would like to have views that do so, yes? Then answer the question asked:

What are the two conditions Paul specified as conditions the Law could not accomplish?


Think of me as someone trying to help, and not an adversary. Just answer the question asked. If the answer is known, then post it and let us move on in the discussion examining the place of the Law in light of that (correct) answer. If the answer is, "I don't know," then post that. I will not denigrate you for not knowing the answer. Just answer the question asked.


What are the two conditions Paul specified as conditions the Law could not accomplish?


.

 

[Grip Docility]

No, it does not.

The opinion is wrong.

Your hermeneutics and exegesis are sloppy; often misguided and mistaken, and I believe you are capable of doing better.

The two are not mutually exclusive and this is self-evident in the fact every single writer of the New Testament referenced, cited, and quoted the OT Law and applied it to both Jewish and Gentil converts to Christ! This is very apparent throughout the New Testament. Why hasn't that fact been acknowledged, and why hasn't my question been answered?

What are the two conditions Paul states the Law does not and cannot accomplish?

Ugh. Think before posting impulsively. If the Holy Spirit is the ONLY thing trusted, then you're on record stating Jesus and scripture are not trusted. The Holy Spirit NEVER contradicts the word of God (incarnate or written), and that is one of the ways we can all tell whether or not we've been hearing the Holy Spirit or some other errant source. Every single post in this forum that contradicts what is explicitly stated in scripture is a post that did NOT come from the Spirit. At best it came from the flesh. The Holy Spirit also does not teach fallacy. Therefore, every single Christian in this forum, all the boards no matter the topic, knows that a logical fallacy did not come from the Spirit.

• Moses and Jesus are not mutually exclusive conditions. That is a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy that does not come from the Holy Spirit.
• The Holy Spirit, the written word, and the incarnate word NEVER contradict one another so appeals to the exclusivity of the Holy Spirit in opposition to what is explicitly written are also false dichotomies, a logical fallacy that does not come from the Spirit.

Neither can be had both ways. Both must be corrected.

And love is enshrined in the Low of Moses, beginning with the Shema. Once again: The Holy Spirit does not teach false dichotomies!

There are only two conditions that are stated in the NT where the Law does not apply. Outside of those two conditions every single New Testament writer applied the Law to both Jewish and Gentils converts to Christ. Understanding those two conditions helps us understand how the Law applies in the lives of Christians and it helps us avoid the problems like those existing in this five-op series of posts.


What are those two conditions @Grip Docility?


The two are not mutually exclusive conditions. God disciplines those He loves. All humanity has already been judged and despite that judgment God has also seen fit to extend grace and show mercy. The fact that we draw breath sufficient to type these posts is an act of grace and mercy in the midst of His co-occurring judgment.

Yes, Grip. I know and understand. It is not necessary to continually repeat the same ideas in different words (argumentum ad nauseam) in hopes the views expressed are understood and accepted.

Judgment and mercy are simply two sides of the same coin. They do not exist mutually exclusive of one another.

The opinion is wrong and if you'll answer the question asked then perhaps you'll see where these ops need to be amended. Then, the next time you post these ideas, they will be improved and better withstand critical examination. You would like to have views that do so, yes? Then answer the question asked:

What are the two conditions Paul specified as conditions the Law could not accomplish?


Think of me as someone trying to help, and not an adversary. Just answer the question asked. If the answer is known, then post it and let us move on in the discussion examining the place of the Law in light of that (correct) answer. If the answer is, "I don't know," then post that. I will not denigrate you for not knowing the answer. Just answer the question asked.


What are the two conditions Paul specified as conditions the Law could not accomplish?


.

Word for word definition:

Antinomianism, (Greek anti, “against”; nomos, “law”), doctrine according to which Christians are freed by grace from the necessity of obeying the Mosaic Law

We agree to disagree. I do this Lovingly and appreciate the time that you have taken to share you opinions and convictions in relation to my opinions and convictions. This concludes my dialogue with you on this specific topic.

All Love in Jesus Christ to you, Sibling in Him.

May the Fruits of His Spirit always bless and keep you.

- Grip

 

[Josheb]

Word for word definition:

Antinomianism, (Greek anti, “against”; nomos, “law”), doctrine according to which Christians are freed by grace from the necessity of obeying the Mosaic Law

Should have paid attention to the definition with greater detail. What you just posted plainly states.... "Greek: anti = against; nomos = law"

Doctrinally speaking, the law against which Christians are freed from by grace is the Law of Moses but the word itself simply means "against the law." I posted this in both ops many posts ago. Nothing new was added to the discussion with that appeal to the dictionary. Pretending this hasn't already been posted awaiting your response is completely disingenuous (unloving).

The doctrine in Christianity saying we are freed from the Law by God's grace does not contradict scripture. So when Jesus and all the New Testament writers say we have been freed by grace from the Law they 1) do so in the context of the two conditions for which the Law no longer applies and 2) the fact every single one of them applied the Law to both Jewish and Gentile converts.

We agree to disagree.

Yes, but I have scripture backing me up and you've got your opinion.

I do this Lovingly

The posts say otherwise. There is a way to disagree with love but that's not what I received. The contents of my posts has been shunned. That's rude, not loving. I do not mean to be unkind, but the simple fact is your opinion has been asserted above the word of God... repeatedly and openly. There is no love in that. Love has been asserted as preeminent while disobeying it and mocking it. A pile of misused scripture and a pile of logical fallacy and refusal to discuss any of it does not demonstrate love.

I have tried (repeatedly) to start with something small and work from there in an effort to build consensus between us with God's word! I have tried to start with something plainly stated in scripture, something with which every single Christian on the entire planet should agree, regardless of their theological or doctrinal orientation. I have been patient, kind, forbearing, hopeful, and trusting (1 Cor. 13:4-7) only to be ignored. Perhaps this hasn't yet been realized, but apathy is the opposite, the antithesis, of love. Instead of shunning the question asked, the single best thing you could have done to demonstrate love and prove your practice authentic would have been to answer the question asked.

But that never happened.

...and appreciate the time that you have taken to share you opinions and convictions in relation to my opinions and convictions.

There is no evidence to that effect.

This concludes my dialogue with you on this specific topic.

Blessedly, I am not bound by anyone's lack of participation, so I will continue to post.

I would have preferred to do this together; to walk with you through scripture in an exegetical and logical manner so these ops could be improved and better benefit the lurkers. I'll return to the thread later, when I have time, to further elaborate, but for now the answer to the question asked is....


Righteousness and justification.


Paul described how the Law could not be the means of obtaining either. An already sinful person cannot obtain righteousness by obeying the Law. Even if s/he could obey the entirety of the Law (to err in one single law is to have broken the entire Law, as James so astutely put it) it still would not accomplish righteousness. God and God alone is righteous. His Son is our righteousness. This was a stumbling block for the Jew and foolishness to the Gentile. Likewise, no one can stand before God in order to present their case because none have any basis for doing so apart from Christ. No one is justified before God apart from Christ. Scripture provides at least two bases by which we are justified (Christ and faith). They are both predicated on Jesus, not the Law.

Aside from that the Law remains applicable, but not as the Old Testament Jews wrongly imagined it. Jesus, and every single writer of the New Testament used the Law and applied it to their readers, whether their readers were Jewish converts or Gentile converts. They did not, however, apply it in its letter, or in its misguided Judaic perspective. This can be seen most notably in the use of the Law against muzzling the ox (Dt. 25:4).

Deuteronomy 25:4
You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.

That Law is used at least six times in the New Testament, but not once does it have anything to do with oxen or threshing.


The opinion expressed in these five ops is wrong. It is both antinomian and lawless because Christian doctrine does not say we've been freed from the law in all ways. That would be a blatant contradiction of scripture! The opportunity to discuss that opinion, and have it measured by the whole of scripture, availed itself and you cr@pped on it, hiding behind, "Well, this is my opinion." Now that this additional information has been provided reconsider returning to the discussion you started.

• The Law is not a means by which righteousness can be obtained.
• The Law is not a means by which justification can be obtained.
• Outside of those two specified conditions the Law was applied by Jesus and every single one of the New Testament writers, but never according to its letter, and never in opposition to the Spirit (or vice versa).
• The Law is good and spiritual, a means by which sin can be known, and it testifies to Christ and the grace of God we have through His Son. What it cannot do is provide a means for obtaining righteousness or justification. Those two conditions are found only in Christ and the work he accomplished on Calvary.

Prove me wrong.

It's a huge mistake to post a dictionary definition of "antinomian" and ignore what that definition explicitly states in the parentheses. Prove those four bullet points wrong or acknowledge them as true and correct and rejoin the conversation so these ops can be amended accordingly. Most Christians understand those four bullet points. It is very, very strange that a Christian would write five ops and entirely miss all of them. Now that you see them, I hope you're saying, "Yes, of course. Every word in those bullet points is true and correct."

If not, then go back and re-read the New Testament. Either way, the opinion expressed in these ops is wrong and you should be discussing them. If not with me then with your pastor or one of your elders. Print out this post and show it to three people whose views you respect and ask them to be honest and forthcoming with you.

Or walk with me through the relevant scriptures and hone your knowledge and understanding.

Proverbs 27:17
As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.


Start by reading Romans chapters 3 through 8 and heed what is stated in Rom. 3:21 and follow Paul's line of reasoning through the rest of the six chapters.

Romans 3:21-25
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.


That same author repeatedly referenced, cited, and quoted from the Law. He did so in ALL his letters, and he did so with both Jewish and Gentile converts.

Galatians 3:21
Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

The Law is NOT contrary to God's promises, the promises found in Christ. That is what the dictionary means when it describes the Christian doctrine grace has freed us from the Law. Nothing more. Christian doctrine does not abandon the Law. It does not abandon anything found in God's word. It simply understands the older revelation according to the newer revelation.

 

[Grip Docility]

Should have paid attention to the definition with greater detail. What you just posted plainly states.... "Greek: anti = against; nomos = law"

Doctrinally speaking, the law against which Christians are freed from by grace is the Law of Moses but the word itself simply means "against the law." I posted this in both ops many posts ago. Nothing new was added to the discussion with that appeal to the dictionary. Pretending this hasn't already been posted awaiting your response is completely disingenuous (unloving).

The doctrine in Christianity saying we are freed from the Law by God's grace does not contradict scripture. So when Jesus and all the New Testament writers say we have been freed by grace from the Law they 1) do so in the context of the two conditions for which the Law no longer applies and 2) the fact every single one of them applied the Law to both Jewish and Gentile converts.

Yes, but I have scripture backing me up and you've got your opinion.

The posts say otherwise. There is a way to disagree with love but that's not what I received. The contents of my posts has been shunned. That's rude, not loving. I do not mean to be unkind, but the simple fact is your opinion has been asserted above the word of God... repeatedly and openly. There is no love in that. Love has been asserted as preeminent while disobeying it and mocking it. A pile of misused scripture and a pile of logical fallacy and refusal to discuss any of it does not demonstrate love.

I have tried (repeatedly) to start with something small and work from there in an effort to build consensus between us with God's word! I have tried to start with something plainly stated in scripture, something with which every single Christian on the entire planet should agree, regardless of their theological or doctrinal orientation. I have been patient, kind, forbearing, hopeful, and trusting (1 Cor. 13:4-7) only to be ignored. Perhaps this hasn't yet been realized, but apathy is the opposite, the antithesis, of love. Instead of shunning the question asked, the single best thing you could have done to demonstrate love and prove your practice authentic would have been to answer the question asked.

But that never happened.

There is no evidence to that effect.

Blessedly, I am not bound by anyone's lack of participation, so I will continue to post.

I would have preferred to do this together; to walk with you through scripture in an exegetical and logical manner so these ops could be improved and better benefit the lurkers. I'll return to the thread later, when I have time, to further elaborate, but for now the answer to the question asked is....


Righteousness and justification.


Paul described how the Law could not be the means of obtaining either. An already sinful person cannot obtain righteousness by obeying the Law. Even if s/he could obey the entirety of the Law (to err in one single law is to have broken the entire Law, as James so astutely put it) it still would not accomplish righteousness. God and God alone is righteous. His Son is our righteousness. This was a stumbling block for the Jew and foolishness to the Gentile. Likewise, no one can stand before God in order to present their case because none have any basis for doing so apart from Christ. No one is justified before God apart from Christ. Scripture provides at least two bases by which we are justified (Christ and faith). They are both predicated on Jesus, not the Law.

Aside from that the Law remains applicable, but not as the Old Testament Jews wrongly imagined it. Jesus, and every single writer of the New Testament used the Law and applied it to their readers, whether their readers were Jewish converts or Gentile converts. They did not, however, apply it in its letter, or in its misguided Judaic perspective. This can be seen most notably in the use of the Law against muzzling the ox (Dt. 25:4).

Deuteronomy 25:4
You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.

That Law is used at least six times in the New Testament, but not once does it have anything to do with oxen or threshing.


The opinion expressed in these five ops is wrong. It is both antinomian and lawless because Christian doctrine does not say we've been freed from the law in all ways. That would be a blatant contradiction of scripture! The opportunity to discuss that opinion, and have it measured by the whole of scripture, availed itself and you cr@pped on it, hiding behind, "Well, this is my opinion." Now that this additional information has been provided reconsider returning to the discussion you started.

• The Law is not a means by which righteousness can be obtained.
• The Law is not a means by which justification can be obtained.
• Outside of those two specified conditions the Law was applied by Jesus and every single one of the New Testament writers, but never according to its letter, and never in opposition to the Spirit (or vice versa).
• The Law is good and spiritual, a means by which sin can be known, and it testifies to Christ and the grace of God we have through His Son. What it cannot do is provide a means for obtaining righteousness or justification. Those two conditions are found only in Christ and the work he accomplished on Calvary.

Prove me wrong.

It's a huge mistake to post a dictionary definition of "antinomian" and ignore what that definition explicitly states in the parentheses. Prove those four bullet points wrong or acknowledge them as true and correct and rejoin the conversation so these ops can be amended accordingly. Most Christians understand those four bullet points. It is very, very strange that a Christian would write five ops and entirely miss all of them. Now that you see them, I hope you're saying, "Yes, of course. Every word in those bullet points is true and correct."

If not, then go back and re-read the New Testament. Either way, the opinion expressed in these ops is wrong and you should be discussing them. If not with me then with your pastor or one of your elders. Print out this post and show it to three people whose views you respect and ask them to be honest and forthcoming with you.

Or walk with me through the relevant scriptures and hone your knowledge and understanding.

Proverbs 27:17
As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.


Start by reading Romans chapters 3 through 8 and heed what is stated in Rom. 3:21 and follow Paul's line of reasoning through the rest of the six chapters.

Romans 3:21-25
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.


That same author repeatedly referenced, cited, and quoted from the Law. He did so in ALL his letters, and he did so with both Jewish and Gentile converts.

Galatians 3:21
Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

The Law is NOT contrary to God's promises, the promises found in Christ. That is what the dictionary means when it describes the Christian doctrine grace has freed us from the Law. Nothing more. Christian doctrine does not abandon the Law. It does not abandon anything found in God's word. It simply understands the older revelation according to the newer revelation.

My Sibling in Him, your walk is your walk, not mine. If you desire to be under Moses, that is your choice. I choose Jesus.

This new vessel does not imbibe in the Old Wine. I only desire and thirst for the New Wine.

Blessings and Peace to you

 

[Josheb]

My Sibling in Him, your walk is your walk, not mine.

Not if we follow Jesus through the narrow gate to eternal life. There is no other name in heaven or earth by which anyone may be saved.

If you desire to be under Moses, that is your choice.

I did not say I was "under Moses. That is a gross, unloving, wretched fleshly straw man that demonstrates the following words are not true.

I choose Jesus.

Jesus may be chosen in thought, but the posts prove he's not chosen in deed.

John 14:15
If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

Keep his commands. Do it in every single post.

James 2:14-20
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

Having been deemed righteous through faith, Abraham then proceeded to be faithful. These post demonstrate the opposite: a claim of faith followed by faithless comments and a refusal to address the whole of scripture.

Romans 14:23
But the one who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

The Law is not the only measure of sin. Every episode in which a lack of faith exists is also sin. This is not antinomian; it is extra-nomian.

This new vessel does not imbibe in the Old Wine.

Once again, that proves personal opinion is added to God's word. Jesus said no one puts new wine into old skins, not that new vessels don't imbibe old wine. You are juxtaposing the Law and the Spirit in opposition to one another.

Zechariah 7:8-14
Then the word of the LORD came to Zechariah saying, "Thus has the LORD of hosts said, 'Dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother; and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.' But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing. They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts. And just as He called and they would not listen, so they called and I would not listen," says the LORD of hosts; "but I scattered them with a storm wind among all the nations whom they have not known. Thus, the land is desolated behind them so that no one went back and forth, for they made the pleasant land desolate."

I have recommended re-reading Romans 3-8 while being conscious of Paul's excluding the Law as a means of obtaining righteousness and justification. That is the context when he wrote,

Romans 7:4-6
Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

And then he proceeded to describe the ongoing tension between sin at work in his flesh and the Spirit at work in his spirit.

Romans 7:21-8-8
I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

He then concludes his six-chapter commentary with an allusion to the courtroom. The Judge is Jesus. The Prosecutor is Jesus. The Plaintiff is Jesus. We have no hope because Jesus is impeccable and we are sinful BUT for other facts. Not only are the Judge, Prosecutor, and Plaintiff Jesus, but so too are the Defense Attorney, Defendant, and Witness! Christ took out place in the docks! Therefore no one can bring any accusation against us (even though we remain corrupted by sin). Nothing can separate us from the love of God found in Jesus.

You, presumably, would be offended if I said, "You don't follow anyone, Moses or Jesus," so do not be rude to me and tell me I follow Moses, not Jesus, when it's clear across five different threads the relationship between the Law and the gospel is not very well understood. It is decidedly unloving to tell me I don't follow Jesus when every single post affirms Jesus and his teachings.

 

[Josheb]

I only desire and thirst for the New Wine.

Then act like it.

Blessings and Peace to you

According to James....

James 3:8-10
But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.

Telling someone they follow Moses and not Jesus and then blessing them is disobedient hypocrisy. It shows a lack of understanding of what it means to be in Christ. I stated at the beginning of the discussion method is just as important as content.

James 4:1-12
What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures. You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: "He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us"? But He gives a greater grace. Therefore, it says, "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you. Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

When James says, "God opposed the proud...," he is quoting from Exodus, 1 Samuel, Job, the psalms, and Proverbs. The exact same James who said, "...whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all," also quoted the Law and applied it to his readers. It was extraordinary inconsistent and ironic to cite James 2:10 because in the previous verse AND the very next verse James quotes the Law of Moses!!!

James 2:8-13
If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

How can James apply the Law of Moses to his Christian audience and then tell them to act is if they are judged by the law of liberty? Does this "law of liberty" give Christians license to murder and commit adultery? No! We understand the Law of the Spirit never contradicts the written word. The Spirit never contradicts the Son. We are neither bound nor judged by the Law of Moses but we are not free from judgment. God has appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment (Heb. 9:28), so no one escapes judgment. We will all be held accountable for every vain word and vain act. In fact, we will all be judged by a much higher standard than the Law. We will be measured by the Son of God, a man who knew no sin, a man who was perfectly obedient in all ways to the commands of God, Mosaic or otherwise. All will fail.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15
For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

A Christian can lose all their work; they can lose everything and still be saved as long as they built on the foundation of Christ crucified and resurrected.

Speaking of Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and Moses God spoke through Paul to say, "For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then, it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy," (Rom. 9:15-16). Human works, especially not compliance to the Law of Moses, does not save. The Law was never the means of obtaining righteousness or justification.

The opinion expressed in this series of five ops is that the Law has been completely abrogated, done away with in its entirety. That opinion is wrong. That opinion does NOT reconcile with the whole of scripture. That opinion does not reconcile with the blunt, undeniable fact nearly everything Jesus taught can be found in the Old Testament. Jesus constantly quoted and applied the Law of Moses to those to whom he preached salvation by grace through faith in his work at Calvary. The same holds true for Acts, the entire epistolary, and Revelation. By abolishing the Law in his flesh, Jesus brought together two separated people and reconciled them both to God (Eph. 2:15). Jews were no closer to God than Gentiles. They had the Law and all the promises of the Patriarchs, but they were chronic covenant-breakers, chronically disobedient and, as a consequence, they were desolate (see the Zechariah quote above).

When Paul mentioned "the law of sin and death," he was likely referring to the first commands uttered by God to Adam and Eve, NOT Moses. God told Adam and Eve to multiply, be fruitful (profitable), subdue the earth and rule over it, AND He told them "Don't eat..... or you will die." This can be summarized in a very simple principle, rule, or law: Obey or die. It was through the disobedience of one man that sin entered the world and through sin came death (even though Adam and Eve were made physically mortal). That is plainly stated in Romans 5. If a person sins, then they die. It's not rocket surgery. There has always been laws we must obey and by which we will be measured. Christianity is NOT lawless!

Galatians 6:7-8
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

The flesh wishes to be free of all laws and rules. It seeks to be its own law, to do as it pleases. It seeks to have its own righteousness but there is only one who is righteous.

Matthew 5:48
Therefore, you shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

And that, like Romans 14:23 and 1 John 3:4, as another measure of sin, an extra-Law measure of sin. No one will be able to match that standard apart from the shed blood of Jesus.


The true relationship between Law and gospel has not yet been grasped in these five ops, and the essence of refusing to discuss the opinion is, "My opinion is better than the whole of God's word. I pick and choose which verses I like, which verses I say are applicable, and I tell everyone my opinion is what they should think because I will not discuss any of it with anyone." This is not much different than what Jesus said to the Jews of his day,

Mark 7:9-13
And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God) — then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Notice Jesus quoted Moses. Paul compared this ignoring of the Law to the Jews who'd denied Jesus.

Romans 10:1-10
Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: ...........if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

The only difference is you profess a belief in Christ, but you want to believe in Jesus and have no rules (even though that is not what Jesus taught). That is, in fact, both antinomian and lawless. The Law of Moses could never be the means of obtaining righteousness or justification, but the principles of the Law endure. They have their root in the first commands God spoke in Eden and have their conclusion in Christ, before whom every single person must stand in judgment.


John 3:18-19
He who believes in him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "This is the verdict: that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil.

The entire world already stands in condemnation simply because they have not believed in Jesus. Blessedly, for those in Christ, there is NOW no condemnation.

Romans 8:1
Therefore, there is now no condemnation at all for those who are in Christ Jesus.


So do not tell me I follow Moses, not Jesus. You stood in the place of God, presumed to judge the eternal disposition of another, and judged wrongly. Prove you understand the preeminence of love and make this right.

 

[Grip Docility]

Then act like it.

According to James....

James 3:8-10
But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.

Telling someone they follow Moses and not Jesus and then blessing them is disobedient hypocrisy. It shows a lack of understanding of what it means to be in Christ. I stated at the beginning of the discussion method is just as important as content.

James 4:1-12
What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures. You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: "He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us"? But He gives a greater grace. Therefore, it says, "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you. Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

When James says, "God opposed the proud...," he is quoting from Exodus, 1 Samuel, Job, the psalms, and Proverbs. The exact same James who said, "...whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all," also quoted the Law and applied it to his readers. It was extraordinary inconsistent and ironic to cite James 2:10 because in the previous verse AND the very next verse James quotes the Law of Moses!!!

James 2:8-13
If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

How can James apply the Law of Moses to his Christian audience and then tell them to act is if they are judged by the law of liberty? Does this "law of liberty" give Christians license to murder and commit adultery? No! We understand the Law of the Spirit never contradicts the written word. The Spirit never contradicts the Son. We are neither bound nor judged by the Law of Moses but we are not free from judgment. God has appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment (Heb. 9:28), so no one escapes judgment. We will all be held accountable for every vain word and vain act. In fact, we will all be judged by a much higher standard than the Law. We will be measured by the Son of God, a man who knew no sin, a man who was perfectly obedient in all ways to the commands of God, Mosaic or otherwise. All will fail.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15
For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

A Christian can lose all their work; they can lose everything and still be saved as long as they built on the foundation of Christ crucified and resurrected.

Speaking of Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and Moses God spoke through Paul to say, "For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then, it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy," (Rom. 9:15-16). Human works, especially not compliance to the Law of Moses, does not save. The Law was never the means of obtaining righteousness or justification.

The opinion expressed in this series of five ops is that the Law has been completely abrogated, done away with in its entirety. That opinion is wrong. That opinion does NOT reconcile with the whole of scripture. That opinion does not reconcile with the blunt, undeniable fact nearly everything Jesus taught can be found in the Old Testament. Jesus constantly quoted and applied the Law of Moses to those to whom he preached salvation by grace through faith in his work at Calvary. The same holds true for Acts, the entire epistolary, and Revelation. By abolishing the Law in his flesh, Jesus brought together two separated people and reconciled them both to God (Eph. 2:15). Jews were no closer to God than Gentiles. They had the Law and all the promises of the Patriarchs, but they were chronic covenant-breakers, chronically disobedient and, as a consequence, they were desolate (see the Zechariah quote above).

When Paul mentioned "the law of sin and death," he was likely referring to the first commands uttered by God to Adam and Eve, NOT Moses. God told Adam and Eve to multiply, be fruitful (profitable), subdue the earth and rule over it, AND He told them "Don't eat..... or you will die." This can be summarized in a very simple principle, rule, or law: Obey or die. It was through the disobedience of one man that sin entered the world and through sin came death (even though Adam and Eve were made physically mortal). That is plainly stated in Romans 5. If a person sins, then they die. It's not rocket surgery. There has always been laws we must obey and by which we will be measured. Christianity is NOT lawless!

Galatians 6:7-8
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

The flesh wishes to be free of all laws and rules. It seeks to be its own law, to do as it pleases. It seeks to have its own righteousness but there is only one who is righteous.

Matthew 5:48
Therefore, you shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

And that, like Romans 14:23 and 1 John 3:4, as another measure of sin, an extra-Law measure of sin. No one will be able to match that standard apart from the shed blood of Jesus.


The true relationship between Law and gospel has not yet been grasped in these five ops, and the essence of refusing to discuss the opinion is, "My opinion is better than the whole of God's word. I pick and choose which verses I like, which verses I say are applicable, and I tell everyone my opinion is what they should think because I will not discuss any of it with anyone." This is not much different than what Jesus said to the Jews of his day,

Mark 7:9-13
And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God) — then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Notice Jesus quoted Moses. Paul compared this ignoring of the Law to the Jews who'd denied Jesus.

Romans 10:1-10
Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: ...........if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

The only difference is you profess a belief in Christ, but you want to believe in Jesus and have no rules (even though that is not what Jesus taught). That is, in fact, both antinomian and lawless. The Law of Moses could never be the means of obtaining righteousness or justification, but the principles of the Law endure. They have their root in the first commands God spoke in Eden and have their conclusion in Christ, before whom every single person must stand in judgment.


John 3:18-19
He who believes in him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "This is the verdict: that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil.

The entire world already stands in condemnation simply because they have not believed in Jesus. Blessedly, for those in Christ, there is NOW no condemnation.

Romans 8:1
Therefore, there is now no condemnation at all for those who are in Christ Jesus.


So do not tell me I follow Moses, not Jesus. You stood in the place of God, presumed to judge the eternal disposition of another, and judged wrongly. Prove you understand the preeminence of love and make this right.

All blessings to you, friend in Jesus.

I have enjoyed our discussion and am sorry that my way of speaking offends you. I will now silence myself to myself to avoid further misunderstanding.

- Grip

 

[Josheb]

All blessings to you, friend in Jesus.

I have enjoyed our discussion and am sorry that my way of speaking offends you.

I am not offended. This, once again, is a politician's apology and NOT an admission of your own wrongdoing, an expression of regret or willingness to change. Whether ANYONE is offended or not, it is wrong to assume the role of God judging the eternal disposition of others. It is sheer, unmitigated arrogance. Since that judgment occurred among repeated claims of humbleness the judgment proves hypocritical. Whether anyone is offended or not it is wrong to claim humbleness and then judge others. What you should have been doing is,

Philippians 2:3-4
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

And, as I posted previously, applied Ephesians 4 to your posts,

Ephesians 4:25-32
Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each one of you with his neighbor, for we are members of one another........... Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.

As I have endeavored to do with you.

Romans 2:1
Therefore, you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Romans 14:4
Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

I cite what is posted. You cite me. That happens despite my repeated requests to keep the posts about the posts, not the posters. Every single post I've received has lawlessly ignored the teaching of Christ while claiming to follow Christ! Every single post reeks of hypocrisy.

I will now silence myself to myself to avoid further misunderstanding.

- Grip

You said that before and proved yourself untrue. I told you further your participation was not required and invited you to reconsider so the inconsistencies in these ops could be discussed. You came back but still refuse to discuss the op, preferring instead non sequitur and falsehood.



The problems with these five ops boil down to four very real and undeniable facts of scripture.

1. Nearly everything Jesus taught can be found in the Old Testament, including the Law of Moses. To deny the relevance of the Law is to deny much of Jesus' teachings.
2. Every single writer of the New Testament applied the Law to their readers and did so with both Jewish and Gentile converts. The Law cannot be said to be done away with in its entirety without also denying much of the New Testament epistolary and making their authors hypocrites.
3. There are two explicitly specified conditions where the Law is said not to apply: obtaining righteousness and justification. Outside of those to specific domains Jesus and every New Testament writer used and applied the Law to teacher New Testament era Christians how to follow Christ.
4. The principles ensconced in the Law precede the letter of the Law. The letter kills, but the precepts of God are eternal.

So, if you're going to be silent then be silent. If you're going to engage what I have posted then do so without resorting to avoidance. Star with the fact Jesus taught from Tanakh and every New Testament writer followed his example.