Why do people try to obey the law when it's not possible

[Gregory Thompson]

You're so funny. You did it again. I did not say anything about us being under the law or not, so Luke 16:16 does not relate. It is a wonderful verse. I like it a lot. It would be relevant if I were saying that we were under the law. I am not.

The verses I quoted say that Hezekiah, Zechariah, and Elizabeth kept the commandments of the Lord. That is all I am saying. The first post of this thread said it was not possible. I have showed two verses that say that at least three people other than Jesus did what he said was not possible.

Now please do not respond by saying that we are not under the law. Let's just say that after so many posts I am not expecting much.

I was just pointing out that the three passages you mentioned all happened during the previous covenant. so they don't apply directly anymore. I wasn't talking about under the law this time. i was pointing out the premise of your argument had since dispensed.

 

[mark273]

I was just pointing out that the three passages you mentioned all happened during the previous covenant. so they don't apply directly anymore. I wasn't talking about under the law this time. i was pointing out the premise of your argument had since dispensed.

But whether or not the things happened under the previous covenant makes absolutely no difference as to whether or not it happened. Can't you see that? The Mayflower compact was made by some of the first Europeans who came to North America. It was written before the US Constitution that defines the legal structure for the United States. The Mayflower Compact has absolutely no legal standing today. But that doesn't mean it did not happen.

The beginning thesis of this thread was that no one can keep the law. It did not restrict that inability to a particular time. The argument from the folks who have been supporting the thesis is that it is not and has never been possible. Well, it was. I don't understand how you refuse to give any credence to verses that contradict the thesis. Why does the time period make any difference for the issue of whether or not it happened. Just because the Southern Confederacy does not exist today doesn't mean that it did not exist at one time.

So the premise of my argument has not "since dispensed". My argument, premise, thesis, and main point is that contrary to the thesis of this thread, there were people who kept the law.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

But whether or not the things happened under the previous covenant makes absolutely no difference as to whether or not it happened. Can't you see that? The Mayflower compact was made by some of the first Europeans who came to North America. It was written before the US Constitution that defines the legal structure for the United States. The Mayflower Compact has absolutely no legal standing today. But that doesn't mean it did not happen.

The beginning thesis of this thread was that no one can keep the law. It did not restrict that inability to a particular time. The argument from the folks who have been supporting the thesis is that it is not and has never been possible. Well, it was. I don't understand how you refuse to give any credence to verses that contradict the thesis. Why does the time period make any difference for the issue of whether or not it happened. Just because the Southern Confederacy does not exist today doesn't mean that it did not exist at one time.

I was not commenting on occurance but efficacy.

 

[mark273]

I was not commenting on occurance but efficacy.

Well, I was commenting on the title of the thread, namely that keeping the law is not possible. It was. Feel free to comment on efficacy, but why do you comment on my posts when you are not addressing the issue that I (and the thread) was raising?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Well, I was commenting on the title of the thread, namely that keeping the law is not possible. It was. Feel free to comment on efficacy, but why do you comment on my posts when you are not addressing the issue that I (and the thread) was raising?

i was responding to the discussion in the thread. i can assume by your stonewall tactic. that our conversation is over.

 

[mark273]

i was responding to the discussion in the thread. i can assume by your stonewall tactic. that our conversation is over.

I have acknowledge and agreed with the idea that we are not under the law, but rather under the new covenant. I have done that several times.

I was commenting on the point the original post made. Why do you keep trying to impress upon me a point I gladly acknowledge? Why do you refuse (stonewall) my effort to actually discuss the issue raised by the title of the original post?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I have acknowledge and agreed with the idea that we are not under the law, but rather under the new covenant. I have done that several times.

I was commenting on the point the original post made. Why do you keep trying to impress upon me a point I gladly acknowledge? Why do you refuse (stonewall) my effort to actually discuss the issue raised by the title of the original post?

i believe i already agreed with the original sentiment originally. and then continued with the usual tangent conversation as is with most threads on this forum. i think our disconnect is we're having two diff conversations at the same time and they don't meet.

 

[mark273]

i believe i already agreed with the original sentiment originally. and then continued with the usual tangent conversation as is with most threads on this forum. i think our disconnect is we're having two diff conversations at the same time and they don't meet.

You agreed with "the original sentiment originally". What does that mean? Which sentiment? Whose sentiment? Originally when? I am all for tangential discussions. I have done quite a few of those myself. But I have no idea what you are referring to.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

You agreed with "the original sentiment originally". What does that mean? Which sentiment? Whose sentiment? Originally when? I am all for tangential discussions. I have done quite a few of those myself. But I have no idea what you are referring to.

Okay. let's start over.

the topic of discussion is: Why do people try to obey the law when it's not possible

What's your view on that?

 

[mark273]

Okay. let's start over.

the topic of discussion is: Why do people try to obey the law when it's not possible

What's your view on that?

Wow. Clarity. I like it. I can go a few more rounds, but it is is starting to get late in my part of the world, so if I stop responding, its because I have decided to go to bed.

What is my view? I see the question as having two parts. The first part asks about the reason why people try to obey the law. The second part functions as a foundation or warrant for why the question should be asked. The person was asking the question because he knows that it is not possible to obey the law. I think he is honestly concerned about people and wants to give them a message of grace and hope and love from God that they do not have to earn their way into his favor.

I sympathize with his concern. I am glad for a message of grace and hope and love from God. I know that we are under the New Covenant.

However, I disagree with the idea that it is not possible to obey the law. I have given three main passages (but there are many more) that demonstrate that point. My concern is that the law and keeping the law are being reduced to a definition something like "graceless demand". But the the law cannot be reduced to that in Scripture.

So. For me "trying to obey the law" is too ambiguous a phrase to give a definitive answer to. But the "when it is not possible to" obey the law phrase is something I can respond to. I disagree with the statement and I have the verses that demonstrate that the statement is wrong.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Wow. Clarity. I like it.

me too

However, I disagree with the idea that it is not possible to obey the law. I have given three main passages (but there are many more) that demonstrate that point. My concern is that the law and keeping the law are being reduced to a definition something like "graceless demand". But the the law cannot be reduced to that in Scripture.

So. For me "trying to obey the law" is too ambiguous a phrase to give a definitive answer to. But the "when it is not possible to" obey the law phrase is something I can respond to. I disagree with the statement and I have the verses that demonstrate that the statement is wrong.

I think the part he might have been referring to is the law that the apostles asserted could not be kept as an appeal for grace.

but as far as love compelling us to good works, unintentionally, yes .. the law is fulfilled.

I believe the concern with the diction of "obey" and "trying" is more related to what i was bringing up before in "being under the law" the word commonly translated as under in the passage can be translated as lead by or just "by" in the echoed instance.

it's a really subtle difference. and love is the part that's most important.

 

[mark273]

I think I am going to check out for now and will check back in in the morning. Post # 86 in the this thread gives a fuller version of my perspective on this.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

okay i'll read #86 . good night

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Hello, I am going to jump in here now with a different view. I believe it was and is possible to keep the law. Now when I say law, and most of the time when the Biblical writers refer to the law, they are referring to the law of Moses as contained in the first five books of the Bible. I don't want to quibble about exceptions, I know there are some. But most of the time that is the law they are talking about. So how can I say that it is possible to keep the law?

First of all, Deuteronomy 30:11 says that "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." Also, it is said of Hezekiah the king in 2 Kings 18:6: "He held fast to the Lord and did not cease to follow him; he kept the commands the Lord had given to Moses." And it is said of Zechariah and Elizabeth in Luke 1:6 that: "Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly."

Now you may say, how is that possible? Everybody sins. That is true. Even Hezekiah, Zechariah, and Elizabeth sinned. However, we need to understand the way the Bible speaks about someone who keeps the law, or about someone who obeys the law. You see, the law of Moses was not simply a list of laws or rules, but contained within itself a way for sin to be forgiven. In other words, God expected that those who kept and obeyed the law would sin, and so, within the law itself, provided a way for atonement in the form of sacrifices. These sacrifices prefigured, were based on, and ultimately derived their power from the death of Christ on the cross.

So then, "keeping the law" or "obeying the commandments" in the Bible did not refer to those who were sinless, rather to those who trusted in God and determined to live their lives in obedience to him. By God's grace they followed him, and when they sinned, they repented and trusted in God's provision for atonement. We know that Hezekiah sinned in arrogance and foolishness. And yet, when summarizing his life, the Biblical writer says that on the whole, Hezekiah kept the commands the Lord had commanded Moses.

Thus, I think that asking the question is a misunderstanding of the way the Bible uses language, of the way the law worked in the Old Testament, and of how it can work today.

In fulfilling the law through the underlying premise: love . they were blameless of the particulars . is what i get from those examples.

 

[disciple1]

In the old testament they could offer sacrifices for sins unintentional and some people think Jesus is for unintentional sin, but Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. 1 John chapter 2 verse 2
The only reason I can see that some one would be blameless is they offered the sacrifices and were considered blameless, I'm not up on the old testament anymore.
The only thing we have to do now is love our neighbor as our selves as it says in Galatians chapter 5 verse 14
And your faith has to express itself in love, I don't know if they had to do that in old testament times or not, but it must have been included, since Jesus was talking about it with a clergy of his time.
So now as it says in Galatians chapter 5 verse 6 The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself in love. That sums up the entire law.

 

[Epoisses]

Does love kill? Can love lie or steal? Or get angry and jealous? Is sexual love and passion always sin? Herein lies the problem.

What is Love?

I can provide examples form the scriptures where love actually does all of these things and many are violations of the Law or ten commandments.

I like this verse from Paul- ‘All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.’ 1Cor. 10:23

Paul seemed to think that ‘all things’ were lawful unto him. Does that mean he did whatever he wanted? No, because he lived his life in service to others, but he still had the freedom to do those things he just never exercised it.

 

[mark273]

@Michael Collum -

Thank you for interacting with what i said. You have moved in a direction I have wanted to go and found much more interesting, and that is, what does it mean to keep the law. In the Old Testament, the law was not a list of demands that God gave people so that they could try to earn salvation. The law included sacrifices, which were ways to restore fellowship which God's people sinned.

I think the part he might have been referring to is the law that the apostles asserted could not be kept as an appeal for grace.

But I would challenge you to find a passage that says it was not possible to keep the law. I have never found one. Now understand, I am not saying that all are not sinners. i know that all have sinned. But according to the way the Bible uses the phrase "to keep the law" or be a "lawkeeper", simply committing a sin does not deprive you of that status. Where does it say that no one can keep the law?

Part of the problem is that the word law in Engish brings to mind simply a list of standards. However, the law, the first five books of Moses are much more than some commands. They were also stories. That is why Jewish people, including modern Jewish people who have trusted Christ prefer to translate the Hebrew word torah (law) as instruction.

My own definition that I have proposed is that the law of Moses is a description of what relationship with God was supposed to look like at the time it was given. People were supposed to follow it, but it included in itself the way to be restored to fellowship. Now I am firmly convinced that the sacrifices only had efficacy because they were dependent on and derived their power from the death of Christ on the cross. Thus it was a backwards in time operation. But Leviticus says that as a result of the sacrifices, the people were forgiven.

 

[mark273]

So now as it says in Galatians chapter 5 verse 6 The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself in love. That sums up the entire law.

Paul says that same thing ("the only thing that counts") two more times in his writings and you need to put them all together to get his whole idea"

Galatians 5:6:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love."

Galatians 6:15:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation."

1 Corinthians 7:19:
"Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters."

 

[Gregory Thompson]

@Michael Collum -

Thank you for interacting with what i said. You have moved in a direction I have wanted to go and found much more interesting, and that is, what does it mean to keep the law. In the Old Testament, the law was not a list of demands that God gave people so that they could try to earn salvation. The law included sacrifices, which were ways to restore fellowship which God's people sinned.



But I would challenge you to find a passage that says it was not possible to keep the law. I have never found one. Now understand, I am not saying that all are not sinners. i know that all have sinned. But according to the way the Bible uses the phrase "to keep the law" or be a "lawkeeper", simply committing a sin does not deprive you of that status. Where does it say that no one can keep the law?

Part of the problem is that the word law in Engish brings to mind simply a list of standards. However, the law, the first five books of Moses are much more than some commands. They were also stories. That is why Jewish people, including modern Jewish people who have trusted Christ prefer to translate the Hebrew word torah (law) as instruction.

My own definition that I have proposed is that the law of Moses is a description of what relationship with God was supposed to look like at the time it was given. People were supposed to follow it, but it included in itself the way to be restored to fellowship. Now I am firmly convinced that the sacrifices only had efficacy because they were dependent on and derived their power from the death of Christ on the cross. Thus it was a backwards in time operation. But Leviticus says that as a result of the sacrifices, the people were forgiven.

Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. (Acts 13:38-39)

I think the secret of the "exceptions" was they weren't following the law. they just knew God in a different way. very similar to the way we know him now.There were always forerunners (even as far back as the first offering in Genesis) of a taste of what was to come. so in light of this .. i'd rather continue tasting what is to come .. than seeking what has already past and died.

 

[mark273]

Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses(Acts 13:38-39)

For whatever it does say, it doesn't say that it was not possible to keep the law. I don't feel like this verse meets the criteria.