Once and for all - Law vs Grace

[Imagican]

This may be 'too deep' for some but I'm going to try it anyway.

Here's the 'real deal: If and when one is able to come to a perfect understanding and ability to practice 'love', they are no longer able to break any laws. That is what it means to be 'free'. Free to practice 'only love' eliminates any possibility to 'break the law'. So long as one is sharing their love, they are obeying every law ever delivered by God or His Son.

If you can understand these words, you probably already do. For the Bible offers the exact words but not as condensed as I have here.

If you don't understand, keep reading your Bible. All the law and all the prophets hang on two commandments: Love God above all else and love your neighbor as yourself. The common denominator is 'love', plain and simple.

This means that every law ever delivered by any prophet or messenger from the beginning to this very day, were offered to 'teach' on thing: 'love'.

So once one 'learns' the lesson that the law was meant to teach, they also are able to 'fulfill' the law in the very sharing of their love with God and each other.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[SkyWriting]

Okay if I accused you falsely of being an OSAS Lukewarm theologian I apologize. We agree on that, anyway.

People don't always fit the molds you put them in. Sometimes they do.

 

[nothead]

People don't always fit the molds you put them in. Sometimes they do.

You seemed to have some buttons pushed in your first response. Maybe I misconstrued the "why" behind them. But it seemed you rebuked me for something.

Might be better to just say what chapped your hide.

 

[expos4ever]

It is vital to realize that most references to "law", especially by Paul are specifically references to the Law of Moses. In such cases, Paul is not, repeat not, referring to a general moral law.

And remember, too, that only Jews are under the law of Moses.

 

[expos4ever]

The biggest reason why there appears, repeat appears, to be a conflict is that people mistakenly think Paul's references to law are references to a general moral code.

They are not, I believe. For Paul, the law is the law if Moses that is for jews only. When Paul denies that the law can save, he is simply saying that salvation is not limited to jews. He is not denying what he clearly affirms in texts like Romans 2, namely that good works are indeed needed for salvation.

 

[nothead]

It is vital to realize that most references to "law", especially by Paul are specifically references to the Law of Moses. In such cases, Paul is not, repeat not, referring to a general moral law.

And remember, too, that only Jews are under the law of Moses.

Wrong on both counts. Paul is referring to ALL Pharisee Law including the add-ons, traditional new ones, cultural ones, itty bitty ones, sublaws, bylaws and laws expounding laws which are under overall laws, i.e. targum made law. The idea that ALL LAW must be upheld was the main MISrepresentation of law which the present day Jews OF that day did get wrong. This PREsupposed the umbrella laws were already being done, which was not the case. Obsessive making of oneself "holy" by nit-picking all things you do and then judging others by this same mechanism was the norm. And a vicious descent into madness and evil.

Jesus said if you love him you will follow his commands. And what were the commands he did say which were not already rendered unto text? The HARD sayings as a whole. But rather than thinking this is a NEW SET of laws, consider that ALL of his hard sayings fall under the general category of Shema, the Great Law of Love.

Of course you shucked aside ALL Law, and the Shema and the Ten have never been abrogated. Shema rather is FULFILLED in the sayings of Jesus, and expresses the Love of God to it's extreme meaning, Love God with ALL of your heart mind and strength.

You are so wrong that all Lukewarmness has done in articulation the very same Paradigm: that all Law is set aside now in New Covenant, and the Principle of Grace has overcome it.

 

[nothead]

The biggest reason why there appears, repeat appears, to be a conflict is that people mistakenly think Paul's references to law are references to a general moral code.

They are not, I believe. For Paul, the law is the law if Moses that is for jews only. When Paul denies that the law can save, he is simply saying that salvation is not limited to jews. He is not denying what he clearly affirms in texts like Romans 2, namely that good works are indeed needed for salvation.

Paul did deny that the Law can save. All it does is CONVICT when we sin against it.

God was never said to be LAW although his Word was said to be qualitatively Him, ...and the Word was God, no definite article.
This is saying the direct words of God are Him, qualitatively. All expounding, reading into, sublaw, bylaw, laws made from rabbis and teachers and other expounders were not as prioritized.

God was said to be both Spirit and Love and these attributes LESSER than the whole. The statement "You are mad" is the same kind of thing. Mad is not you en whole but much of you is mad. God was never said to be Law. Law is what God gave not only as a moral code but the purpose and intent of Him for us. And the MAIN purpose and intent of God for us is Shema, to love Him first and peer second.

And the Mosaic Law given as they crossed the river Jordan was at that time and place the Ten and the Shema. This is CORE LAW and instead of being abrogated, FULFILLED in Christ Jesus. And by the way, the DIRECT words of God to man through Moses.

And oddly some of the Ten may be in some cases abrogated by Shema. To HATE your mother or father is directly opposed to the "honor thy mother and father" law. But in some cases it must be done.

 

[expos4ever]

Wrong on both counts.

No. The Law of Moses is indeed for Jews only. No scholar will dispute this. In this text from Leviticus, it is clear that the Law is for Jews only:

You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those that I have set apart as unclean for you. 26 You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

And there is much more Biblical evidence to this effect. There is no question: The Law of Moses was given to the nation of Israel and to them alone (true, if a Gentile was otherwise fully integrated into the Jewish community, the Law applied to them alone, however God clearly sees the Law of Moses as for the nation of Israel alone).

As for what "law" means for Paul. Here is just one text that shows that the "law" was indeed the Law of Moses, and not add-ons:

What shall we say, then?" Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

The law that Paul refers to here is clearly that law which includes the commandment "you shall not covet". And that, of course, is from the 10 commandment - part of, yes, the Law of Moses.

 

[nothead]

No. The Law of Moses is indeed for Jews only. No scholar will dispute this. In this text from Leviticus, it is clear that the Law is for Jews only:

You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those that I have set apart as unclean for you. 26 You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

And there is much more Biblical evidence to this effect. There is no question: The Law of Moses was given to the nation of Israel and to them alone (true, if a Gentile was otherwise fully integrated into the Jewish community, the Law applied to them alone, however God clearly sees the Law of Moses as for the nation of Israel alone).

As for what "law" means for Paul. Here is just one text that shows that the "law" was indeed the Law of Moses, and not add-ons:

What shall we say, then?" Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

The law that Paul refers to here is clearly that law which includes the commandment "you shall not covet". And that, of course, is from the 10 commandment - part of, yes, the Law of Moses.

And so the German Lutherans and German Catholics ALSO considered the Ten moot and void. Not having, as Imagician said even any Spirit indwelling to automatically do the Ten.

And they did covet Jew property. Ignoring the most basic things, the Holocaust STARTED with the coveting of Christians for Jew property. And if they themselves did not covet personally, they STOOD ASIDE and watched more powerful ones among them do so.

Paul's advice would have gone a long way, nipping this situation and subsequent event in the BUD, sir. What was that nation, Germany but NOMINAL Christian? Were they Buddhist? Hindu? Zoroastrians? Sikhs?

But consider Germany had the most ERUDITE scholars of the day. My own brother in the flesh learned German and spoke it fluently in the past BECAUSE he had to learn German Theology for his PHD.

Missing the most basic things, and in core missing the Shema altogether.

 

[expos4ever]

Of course you shucked aside ALL Law, and the Shema and the Ten have never been abrogated.

This does not fairly represent my position. Here is my position:

1. When Paul refers to the "law", he almost always means the Law of Moses;

2. When Paul denies that the law (i.e. the Law of Moses) justifies, he is really saying justification is not limited to Jews - he is not saying we don't need to, for example, follow the principles in the 10 commandments. The key point is how the Jews of Paul's day interpreted the Law of Moses: since it was given to Jews alone, they saw it is a sign that God only included Jews in His true family. To make his point that all people can be justified (and not just Jews), Paul declares that the Law of Moses - the thing Jews saw as the identifier of them as a unique people - cannot justify.

3. Paul clearly believes that good works are indeed needed for final salvation - see Romans 2:6-7, for example.

 

[nothead]

This does not fairly represent my position. Here is my position:

1. When Paul refers to the "law", he almost always means the Law of Moses;

2. When Paul denies that the law (i.e. the Law of Moses) justifies, he is really saying justification is not limited to Jews - he is not saying we don't need to, for example, follow the principles in the 10 commandments. The key point is how the Jews of Paul's day interpreted the Law of Moses: since it was given to Jews alone, they saw it is a sign that God only included Jews in His true family. To make his point that all people can be justified (and not just Jews), Paul declares that the Law of Moses - the thing Jews saw as the identifier of them as a unique people - cannot justify.

3. Paul clearly believes that good works are indeed needed for final salvation - see Romans 2:6-7, for example.

The Law does not justify but the Fruit of Spirit will justify. This COMES from faith in the precepts of Jesus that he is Messiah, Propitiator and Lord Adon over all men. Those indwelled will be doing Law automatically including in new ways never rendered unto text. But ALL works of faith do fall under the Command to Love God, Shema. We do not DO Shema in our flesh rather our spirit.

 

[Tree of Life]

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?

I really think that the Reformed view gets it right on the relationship between Law and Grace. The Lutheran view (and many protestants follow this) would make them diametrically opposed to one another. The Law is always bad and grace is always good. And there is no crossover between the two. But I don't think this accords with Scripture. The Law is full of grace and grace is full of Law. Here's how I would answer your question:

1. We are not under the Law in the sense that we must represent ourselves before God and are either saved or lost based on our obedience to the Law. The Law is not a means of justification or salvation for us.
   
   
2. We are under grace in the sense that we are awarded the full blessings of obedience not for our own obedience, but for the obedience of Jesus Christ. We are under the Law, but we are reckoned as fully obedient sons because we are clothed in the righteousness of Christ.
   
   
3. The Law of God remains the Law of God. We are still obliged to keep it. Indeed, part of our salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit writing the Law on our hearts and making us obedient to the Law - conforming us to the image of Christ.

So, in sum, the Law is not a means of salvation for us. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ. But Christ's perfect righteousness clothes us and merits for us all the blessings of obedience to the Law. And the Spirit is at work in our lives to make us obedient from the heart to the Law of God. In the New Heavens and New Earth we will be perfectly obedient to God from the heart without any desire to sin. The Holy Spirit is forming us into that even now.

 

[expos4ever]

The Law does not justify but the Fruit of Spirit will justify. This COMES from faith in the precepts of Jesus that he is Messiah, Propitiator and Lord Adon over all men. Those indwelled will be doing Law automatically including in new ways never rendered unto text. But ALL works of faith do fall under the Command to Love God, Shema. We do not DO Shema in our flesh rather our spirit.

I think I agree with this. If I understand you, you are not denying that we need to do good works to be justified.

 

[nothead]

I really think that the Reformed view gets it right on the relationship between Law and Grace. The Lutheran view (and many protestants follow this) would make them diametrically opposed to one another. The Law is always bad and grace is always good. And there is no crossover between the two. But I don't think this accords with Scripture. The Law is full of grace and grace is full of Law. Here's how I would answer your question:

1. We are not under the Law in the sense that we must represent ourselves before God and are either saved or lost based on our obedience to the Law. The Law is not a means of justification or salvation for us.
   
   
2. We are under grace in the sense that we are awarded the full blessings of obedience not for our own obedience, but for the obedience of Jesus Christ. We are under the Law, but we are reckoned as fully obedient sons because we are clothed in the righteousness of Christ.
   
   
3. The Law of God remains the Law of God. We are still obliged to keep it. Indeed, part of our salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit writing the Law on our hearts and making us obedient to the Law - conforming us to the image of Christ.

So, in sum, the Law is not a means of salvation for us. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ. But Christ's perfect righteousness clothes us and merits for us all the blessings of obedience to the Law. And the Spirit is at work in our lives to make us obedient from the heart to the Law of God. In the New Heavens and New Earth we will be perfectly obedient to God from the heart without any desire to sin. The Holy Spirit is forming us into that even now.

Reformed don't know in general what the Holy Spirit is, the Indwelling of the Saints. They THINK it is God working in our minds and souls automatically...this is like the assumption that you are learning as you pick up a reference book and read it.

There is an aspect to the mechanism considered. But what is not considered is a primitive man's view of spirit. And that the Working of the Holy Spirit in us is a supernatural working not a natural one.

 

[nothead]

I think I agree with this. If I understand you, you are not denying that we need to do good works to be justified.

I am not denying faith without works is dead. I am denying the oddball idea of Pharisees that all itty bitty law must be upheld which has the assumption that the higher ones are already upheld. Shema is STILL the impossible Law to love God with ALL of our heart soul and minds, and only POTENTIATED in the Holy Spirit as much as we can do.

Once you look back constantly to see how you are doing, you are running that Road to Self-Centered Perdition. No man who runs his race and constantly looks back is gonna win anything but 15th place or so. 14th. 13th. WHATever.

 

[mikpat]

If "Once saved, always saved" were true, then grace and law are meaningless, along with the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes. Reconciliation and Pennance.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

ok so after reading this:

http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/36/t/is-it-possible-to-live-without-sinning

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.

It is theoretically possible to avoid sin or else it would not be a sin. The odds are against it, of course.

 

[John Davidson]

I believe it is possible to live a sinless life and keep the Ten Commandments.

If anyone claims he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

If it was possible to keep the Ten Commandments then Christ died in vain.

 

[Tree of Life]

We are sinners and it is not possible for us to fulfill the Law as God requires. God requires absolute perfection and we violate God's Law in deed, intention, thought, and desire on a daily basis. Anyone who believes that they can fulfill the Law of God either grossly misunderstands their own sinful condition or grossly underestimates God's true requirements.

 

[theniceiceman]

It makes me chuckle when people say it's possible to live sinless lives. Like was mentioned above, we sin in thought, intention, word, and deed. Not only that, but if we know what we should do and don't do it, that's sin. The Bible says anything that isn't done in faith is sin. And people think they can get to a point, here in this life, when they don't/won't sin? Good luck with that! You'll need it.