Once and for all - Law vs Grace

[Soyeong]

So, here are some initial questions to chew on:

Why should you keep the Ten Commandments? Is keeping the commandments is a requirement for favor with God? Keeping HIS commanded Seventh Day Sabbath is one of the eternal requirements … are you keeping it?

If you said YES to any of the questions above, then how can you insist that God's grace is the only necessary and sufficient condition for the favor of heaven? Why bother with the Ten Commandments at all, if "grace" is all that's required? Oh - that the world wouldn't work well without them, you say? Well, but this justification is entirely pragmatic and arbitrary and therefore subject to the cultural views of the age, isn't it? Things have changed so much that today, many believe they only need to bother with TWO commandments! (Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself.)

Can you provide any biblical justification, some God-given reason why you should live now according to His will? Be careful how you respond, because if you provide any justification at all, we will want to know why these behaviors are necessary if you are under "grace"....

Every example of saving faith in Hebrews 11 is also an example of someone living in obedience to God's commands. The same faith that pleases God is the faith that requires us to obey His commands. According to Romans 1:5 we have received grace to bring about the obedience that faith requires. According to Psalms 119:29, David asked God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His Law. According to Titus 2:11-14, our salvation involves being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly and sinful. So yes, keeping God's commands is a requirement for favor with God, but only because they are done by faith, and it is through grace that we are being trained to obey Him, because we are made new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works. All of God's commands can be summarized as instructions for How to love Him and our neighbor, so they are examples or the explanation of how to obey the greatest two commands, and to correctly obey the greatest two commands is to live in obedience to the other commands.

 

[Soyeong]

Mosaic Law was given to Israel and Gentiles were never under this Law.

God's grace was given to us gentiles, through faith in Christ Jesus by obedience to Paul's word of the cross gospel message, after Israel committed the transgression of Rom 11:11. Israel was supposed to transgress, it was part of the plan, so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord.

By what Law were the people judged as wicked during the Flood?

 

[bugkiller]

I am still very much confused by this.
Are we under the law still or grace?

- It seems to me at least on the outset that Matthew 7:21-22 says that we are still under the law:

21Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.’

These people who are seemingly Christians (they believe in the Lord), are getting REJECTED from heaven because they have worked 'lawlessness'.

- Then we have Ephesians 2:8-9, which speaks for grace:

8For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

- To me these two verses appear to be at odds with each other. Why? You either live as a worker of lawlessness (doing whatever you want) or a worker of law (keeping the commandments, living a sanctified life, loving God and one another, etc)

You can't be neither.

So if Lawlessness gets you cut from heaven, where is the grace?
And if grace is sufficient, why are those people cut from heaven? How does this not mean then that they had to work their way to salvation (by being more righteous)?

Doesn't it seem like we still must strive to be workers of the law?

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. I Jn 3

Jesus says -

10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. Jn 15

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

ok so after reading this:

Is it Possible to Live Without Sinning? | Free Book Library | Amazing Facts

I believe it is possible to live a sinless life and keep the ten commandments. The devil is trying to lie to us and tell us otherwise.

Your focus is wrong. You are looking at the body of flesh and desiring it top reform. It simply can not. Rom 8 discusses this.

You are listening to people who partially follow the law. Living the Christian life is easy if you are led by the Spirit according to Gal 5:18.

bugkiller

 

[Imagican]

The law is said to have been a 'teacher'. When we learn what the law was meant to teach, we no longer NEED the law to teach us. When we are children we behave as children. When we become adults we put away childish things.

So what was it that the law was meant to teach? LOVE. So if we come to the perfection of the understanding and ability to share our love, we are abiding in ALL the commandments. If you love God and love your neighbor, there is no occasion for 'sin'.

So to LOVE, truly LOVE God and each other is the FULFILLMENT of the LAW.

That is the 'exact' example Christ offered us and has commanded us to FOLLOW.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[2PhiloVoid]

While Jesus certainly accomplished much, everything has not yet be accomplished because there is still the second coming. There is also the condition that not the least part would disappear until heaven and earth passed away, which last I checked are still here, so Jesus was either that the Law will remain as it is until the end of time. The Law reveals God's character and how to act according to it, so the Law could not change unless God's eternal character first changed, which again would be never, which is in accordance with other Scripture like Psalms 119:160 that state that all of God's righteous Laws are eternal. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faith are one of the weightier matters of the Law, so obedience to the Law has always been learning to reflect the characteristics of God, which means there was no change in God's plan regarding the Law. The Law teaches us to be charitable, merciful, giving, and loving children, so what sense does it make to say that we have faith in God to transform us into people who show characteristics that the Law teaches us to have, but that it is no longer God's will to follow His Law? It it pretty straightforward that God's will is made known through His commands, so how can it not be His will for us to to follow what He has commanded?

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, Soyeong. Obviously, you're right in that the Law isn't dead and still serves as an expression of God's Will in the world as it was given through Moses. W

We also both know that Jesus told His disciples that part of His intensive purpose for them was to have the main part of "the Law" written on their hearts. Nevertheless....by faith in Christ, the Law is already fulfilled, and we no longer have to follow the specific sacrificial rudiments of the Law, such as is found in providing animal sacrifice, etc. (and is expressed in the book of Hebrews, and by the Jerusalem Council in the Book of Acts, and implied throughout the text of the Gospel of Matthew).

See the book, "Five Views on Law and Gospel" for further considerations.

 

[Soyeong]

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, Soyeong. Obviously, you're right in that the Law isn't dead and still serves as an expression of God's Will in the world as it was given through Moses. W

We also both know that Jesus told His disciples that part of His intensive purpose for them was to have the main part of "the Law" written on their hearts. Nevertheless....by faith in Christ, the Law is already fulfilled, and we no longer have to follow the specific sacrificial rudiments of the Law, such as is found in providing animal sacrifice, etc. (and is expressed in the book of Hebrews, and by the Jerusalem Council in the Book of Acts, and implied throughout the text of the Gospel of Matthew).

See the book, "Five Views on Law and Gospel" for further considerations.

Pleroo: to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

Heaven and earth have not passed away and all has not been accomplished, so Christ's warning not to relax the least part of the Law is still one that we should heed. Jesus said he came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it, and then proceeded to fulfill to Law six times in the rest of Matthew 5 by causing God's will as made known in the Law to be obeyed as it should be. Jesus fulfilled the Law in the same sense that Romans 15:18-19 says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, namely they he taught full obedience to it, not that he did away with even the least parts of it. In Acts 15:1, while God did require circumcision as a sign of the covenant, the Judaizers were wanting to require Gentiles to do something that God did not require even of Jews, so we should not take the Jerusalem Council's rejection of what man required as a rejection of what God has required, nor if you think that they were rejecting what God had required should you follow man instead of God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Pleroo: to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

Heaven and earth have not passed away and all has not been accomplished, so Christ's warning not to relax the least part of the Law is still one that we should heed. Jesus said he came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it, and then proceeded to fulfill to Law six times in the rest of Matthew 5 by causing God's will as made known in the Law to be obeyed as it should be. Jesus fulfilled the Law in the same sense that Romans 15:18-19 says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, namely they he taught full obedience to it, not that he did away with even the least parts of it. In Acts 15:1, while God did require circumcision as a sign of the covenant, the Judaizers were wanting to require Gentiles to do something that God did not require even of Jews, so we should not take the Jerusalem Council's rejection of what man required as a rejection of what God has required, nor if you think that they were rejecting what God had required should you follow man instead of God.

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree, Soyeong. We obviously have different interpretive approaches that affect a dozen related concepts as they pertain to the relationship between the Law and the Gospel of Jesus.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[dougangel]

Pleroo: to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

Heaven and earth have not passed away and all has not been accomplished, so Christ's warning not to relax the least part of the Law is still one that we should heed. Jesus said he came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it, and then proceeded to fulfill to Law six times in the rest of Matthew 5 by causing God's will as made known in the Law to be obeyed as it should be. Jesus fulfilled the Law in the same sense that Romans 15:18-19 says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, namely they he taught full obedience to it, not that he did away with even the least parts of it. In Acts 15:1, while God did require circumcision as a sign of the covenant, the Judaizers were wanting to require Gentiles to do something that God did not require even of Jews, so we should not take the Jerusalem Council's rejection of what man required as a rejection of what God has required, nor if you think that they were rejecting what God had required should you follow man instead of God.

Christian law is different to mosaic law on a whole although some laws have been brought into christian law.
We are now under the commands of Christ and guidance of the NT.
Christ took the moral laws and other things he amended or dropped or approached in a different way.
Matthew 5 is ambiguous but now we are past the old law it's talking about christian law or New covenant law that we must keep.
Mosaic law was for a country being ruled by God. It has administration laws that Christians no longer use. It was conditional and has curses for not keeping it totally. Through the grace of Christ christian's are no longer under the curse of the old law.
It had a period of use.
Christianity is now a law for individuals.
Paul is talking about being under the grace of Christ not the OT law or no law at all.
I have shown you the bible text before soyeng.
A lot of people have explained this to you.
If you are purposely sewing misinformation you will be judged.I say this because alot of people have shown you the truth.

 

[Soyeong]

Christian law is different to mosaic law on a whole although some laws have been brought into christian law.
We are now under the commands of Christ and guidance of the NT.

If you believe that Jesus practiced what he preached, preached what he practiced, and that he practiced sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, then you should believe that is also what he commanded. Everything that Christ taught by word and by example was in accordance with the Mosaic Law, so I see no good reason to think that that Law of Christ is anything other than the Law of Moses as he taught and lived it out. Jesus was not in disagreement with the Father about what commands we should obey, but rather he said that his teaching was not his own, but that of the Father (John 7:16) and that whoever does not love him will not keep his commands, which were not his, but that of the Father (John 14:24), so he did not teach anything that wasn't in accordance with the Mosaic Law. Furthermore, if Jesus did go off and teach his own commands in disagreement with the Father, then he would have been sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2, so if you are right, then should not consider him to be your Savior.

Christ took the moral laws and other things he amended or dropped or approached in a different way.

Morality is based on what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's Laws are inherently moral laws.

Matthew 5 is ambiguous but now we are past the old law it's talking about christian law or New covenant law that we must keep.

While I agree that we are under a New Covenant, we are still under the same God, who is eternal and unchanging. If taking a particular action was in accordance with God's righteousness before Christ came, but after Christ came that was no longer the case, or vice versa, then God's righteousness changed, but God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142) and so therefore are all of His righteous laws (Psalms 119:160).

Mosaic law was for a country being ruled by God. It has administration laws that Christians no longer use. It was conditional and has curses for not keeping it totally. Through the grace of Christ christian's are no longer under the curse of the old law.

According to Deuteronomy 30:15-20, the Law brings life and a blessing for obedience and death and curse for disobedience, so being free from the curse of the law means that we are free from living in disobedience to it and are now free to enjoy life and the blessing of obedience. Through the grace of Christ we are being taught by God to obey His Law (Psalms 119:29, Titus 2:11-14).

It had a period of use.
Christianity is now a law for individuals.

The Law is for God's people.

Paul is talking about being under the grace of Christ not the OT law or no law at all.
I have shown you the bible text before soyeng.
A lot of people have explained this to you.

Please explain to me how it makes sense to interpret Paul as saying that we are under grace that we are not under OT Law in light of Psalms 119:29, Titus 2:11-14, and that fact that being under grace doesn't permit us to do what God revealed to be sin when the OT Law was given to reveal what sin is (Romans 6:15).

If you are purposely sewing misinformation you will be judged.I say this because alot of people have shown you the truth.

I am not purposefully sewing misinformation, far from it. While people have tried to explain your position to me, I have also tried to explain how they have not correctly understood the Bible text, and how it should be correctly understood. It's always possible for me to be wrong, and if I am I hope that you are able to convince me of how I have misunderstood the Bible, but my desire to have and to teach a correct understanding of the Bible.

In Matthew 5:19, Jesus said that those who relax the least of the laws or teach others to do the same while be called least in the Kingdom, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the Kingdom, so this is a warning that you should heed, and indeed we will be judged accordingly.

 

[dougangel]

In Matthew 5:19, Jesus said that those who relax the least of the laws or teach others to do the same while be called least in the Kingdom, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the Kingdom, so this is a warning that you should heed, and indeed we will be judged accordingly.

You have been in posts where I and others have shown you these texts before.

1 cor 9

20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law),so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

Paul who had been a Jew is not under the law. Paul is not free from God's law but is under Christ's laws.

God's law after the Cross is Christs law

Christian law and Mosaic law is different on a whole. They are just not the same.

The commands and practices are to follow Christs commands after the cross. Notice Paul is just using the word law for two different laws in the same text. This is why so many people get him confused.

 

[dougangel]

While I agree that we are under a New Covenant, we are still under the same God, who is eternal and unchanging. If taking a particular action was in accordance with God's righteousness before Christ came, but after Christ came that was no longer the case, or vice versa, then God's righteousness changed, but God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142) and so therefore are all of His righteous laws (Psalms 119:160).

Exodus 21:23-25 (NIV)
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Eye for Eye
Matt 5
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

This is a complete change in law.
Christians don't do an eye for an eye.
What you were saying is complete misinformation and mis interpretation of scripture.

 

[Soyeong]

Exodus 21:23-25 (NIV)
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Eye for Eye
Matt 5
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

This is a complete change in law.
Christians don't do an eye for an eye.
What you were saying is complete misinformation and mis interpretation of scripture.

Whenever Jesus quoted Scripture, he always preceded by saying "it is written", but when he was quoting from what the teachers of the Law of his day had been teaching about it, he preceded it by saying "you have heard that it was said". In other Jesus was correcting what his audience had heard being incorrectly taught about what the Law said to do. Here is a clear example of this:

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

While the Law certainly instructs us to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), it does not instruct us to hate our enemy, so that was what was being incorrectly taught about how to obey God's Law. The issue with "an eye for eye" is that it was only meant to be used as a guideline by judges for fair sentencing, and this is still a fair guideline, but Jesus was speaking against its abuse as a justification for personal revenge. According to Proverbs 20:22 and Proverbs 24:29, we should not repay evil, so these principles were already part of the OT and Jesus was teaching nothing brand new. To fulfill the Law means to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and that is precisely what Jesus was doing throughout the rest of Matthew 5.

You have been in posts where I and others have shown you these texts before.

1 cor 9

20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law),so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

Paul who had been a Jew is not under the law. Paul is not free from God's law but is under Christ's laws.

God's law after the Cross is Christs law

Christian law and Mosaic law is different on a whole. They are just not the same.

The commands and practices are to follow Christs commands after the cross. Notice Paul is just using the word law for two different laws in the same text. This is why so many people get him confused.

There is a theme throughout the Bible that we must obey God rather than man, so we need to be careful not to take something that was only against obeying the laws of men as being against obeying the Law of God, so indeed it is important to correctly determine which law is he is talking about.

In Acts 10:28, Peter referred to a law that forbade Jews for visiting or associating with Gentiles, which isn't a law found anywhere in God's Law, so it is a man-made law. In Galatians 2, this was the law that Peter was obeying when he stopped visiting or associating with the Gentiles. During the 1st century, there was a large body of Jewish oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences that they taught for how to obey God's Law, which were a major source of conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees (Matthew 15:1-9). So when Paul said in Galatians 2:14 that Peter was living like a Gentile rather than a Jew, he was speaking about not living according to all of these Jewish traditions that would have forbidden associating with Gentiles.

Paul was already a Jew and never stopped identifying as one, so when he said that to the Jews he became a Jew in 1 Corinthians 9:20, he was speaking about giving up his rights and following the traditions of the people that he was with in order to reach them for Christ. When he said to those not having to law he became like one not having the law, he was not saying that he was becoming a murderer in order to reach murderers or an adulterer in order to reach adulterers, or about doing what God revealed to be sin in order to reach sinners because that would undermine his very message to them, but rather he was again speaking about giving up his rights to meet people where they were at. He said in verse 21 that he was not free from God's Law, so he was still under the Mosaic Law, which was the Law of Christ. In Acts 21:24, it confirms that Paul continued to live in obedience to the Mosaic Law.

 

[dougangel]

Whenever Jesus quoted Scripture, he always preceded by saying "it is written", but when he was quoting from what the teachers of the Law of his day had been teaching about it, he preceded it by saying "you have heard that it was said". In other Jesus was correcting what his audience had heard being incorrectly taught about what the Law said to do. Here is a clear example of this:

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

While the Law certainly instructs us to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18), it does not instruct us to hate our enemy, so that was what was being incorrectly taught about how to obey God's Law. The issue with "an eye for eye" is that it was only meant to be used as a guideline by judges for fair sentencing, and this is still a fair guideline, but Jesus was speaking against its abuse as a justification for personal revenge. According to Proverbs 20:22 and Proverbs 24:29, we should not repay evil, so these principles were already part of the OT and Jesus was teaching nothing brand new. To fulfill the Law means to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and that is precisely what Jesus was doing throughout the rest of Matthew 5.



There is a theme throughout the Bible that we must obey God rather than man, so we need to be careful not to take something that was only against obeying the laws of men as being against obeying the Law of God, so indeed it is important to correctly determine which law is he is talking about.

In Acts 10:28, Peter referred to a law that forbade Jews for visiting or associating with Gentiles, which isn't a law found anywhere in God's Law, so it is a man-made law. In Galatians 2, this was the law that Peter was obeying when he stopped visiting or associating with the Gentiles. During the 1st century, there was a large body of Jewish oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences that they taught for how to obey God's Law, which were a major source of conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees (Matthew 15:1-9). So when Paul said in Galatians 2:14 that Peter was living like a Gentile rather than a Jew, he was speaking about not living according to all of these Jewish traditions that would have forbidden associating with Gentiles.

Paul was already a Jew and never stopped identifying as one, so when he said that to the Jews he became a Jew in 1 Corinthians 9:20, he was speaking about giving up his rights and following the traditions of the people that he was with in order to reach them for Christ. When he said to those not having to law he became like one not having the law, he was not saying that he was becoming a murderer in order to reach murderers or an adulterer in order to reach adulterers, or about doing what God revealed to be sin in order to reach sinners because that would undermine his very message to them, but rather he was again speaking about giving up his rights to meet people where they were at. He said in verse 21 that he was not free from God's Law, so he was still under the Mosaic Law, which was the Law of Christ. In Acts 21:24, it confirms that Paul continued to live in obedience to the Mosaic Law.

Wow
Judges should't use an eye for eye either so it is acomplete change of mosaic law
Christian law just isnt the same as mosaic law

 

[Soyeong]

Wow
Judges should't use an eye for eye either so it is acomplete change of mosaic law

You really don't think that the punishment matching the crime is a good guideline for judges?

Christian law just isnt the same as mosaic law

Jesus was sinless, so he set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, which means that even if he had said nothing, he still would have taught obedience to the Mosaic Law by example, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:3-6). I do not see any room for the Law of Christ to be anything other than what he taught and lived out by example in accordance with his Law that he gave to Moses. God's Law is eternal and has existed from the beginning independently of any covenant, so it does not change from covenant to covenant, so God's Law after the cross is precisely the same as God's Law before the cross. It is not as though God changed His mind about his righteous standard or as through laws that He gave before the cross became someone else's laws. If God was willing to lower His righteous standard, then he would not have needed to send Christ in the first place.

 

[dougangel]

You really don't think that the punishment matching the crime is a good guideline for judges?



Jesus was sinless, so he set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, which means that even if he had said nothing, he still would have taught obedience to the Mosaic Law by example, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:3-6). I do not see any room for the Law of Christ to be anything other than what he taught and lived out by example in accordance with his Law that he gave to Moses. God's Law is eternal and has existed from the beginning independently of any covenant, so it does not change from covenant to covenant, so God's Law after the cross is precisely the same as God's Law before the cross. It is not as though God changed His mind about his righteous standard or as through laws that He gave before the cross became someone else's laws. If God was willing to lower His righteous standard, then he would not have needed to send Christ in the first place.

personally having more people in society running around mutilated isnt the best solution but thats not the point.
Eye for an eye is civil judgment law for israel when it was a nation under god before the cross.
Christian law is for the individual and the whole world. That's why Jesus changed it.

 

[Soyeong]

personally having more people in society running around mutilated isnt the best solution but thats not the point.
Eye for an eye is civil judgment law for israel when it was a nation under god before the cross.
Christian law is for the individual and the whole world. That's why Jesus changed it.

Eye for an eye is not about having a society running around mutilated, but about fair sentencing, and Jesus did not do away with fair sentencing.