Does the Bible teach that obedience is expected after salvation?

[Norah63]

The wall might be that frog has not heard the inner voice from the Holy Spirit?
Who can say what the word obey sounds like to another person? Maybe it is frightning.
I thought it was cheap to call another christian a dog, puppy, whatever term to say the same as 'your not as far along as I am'.
We can disagree on living close to Jesus, but it should be done in a kind manner.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Its a clanging cymbal ,technical garb without life ,without relationship .

The law was a school teacher . but then i graduated . and just like how what i learned in high school and university is mostly irrelevant in the working world . teachers wont be hearing that it is irrelevant while they're teaching .
.
the law/written code teaches something . but it teaches us to learn . that part is important .. but what we learn from direct contact with the Holy Spirit in life service is far more important .

 

[razzelflabben]

You have the elements backwards. Obedience doesn't come before the relationship. It is the result OF the relationship.

It's not that "we are only friends with Christ if we obey what He commands", it's that we WILL, by nature, be obedient IF we have a relationship with Him.

The way you have them makes it all dependent on the believer to be obedient to remain saved. That isn't Scriptural.

He didn't command obedience to remain in Christ. He was saying we WILL be obedient IF we remain in Christ. The "remaining" is done through faith.

The first in depth study I did on Biblical Love looked at all the ways God shows us His love and different aspects there of....for example, God is our Father, our Brother, our Savior, our Friend. He is our Creator, Bridegroom, etc. Notice that just because He is our Father (think correction here) does not mean He automatically is our Friend. Or another example. Just because He is our Creator, doesn't automatically mean He is our Savior. As Creator over all, we know that He is sadly not Savior of those who choose otherwise.

So, let's look at the verse in question again....John 15:14 You are My friends if you do what I command you.

Now keep in mind that He can be our Savior but not our Friend....thus it is not a loss of salvation we are talking about but rather the intimacy of friendship. In my current study on the prayer of Love, I am looking at prostrate, there are four times in scripture that people of God were said to be prostrate 1. in the presence of God or one of His messengers 2. when seeking forgiveness 3. when seeking God and 4. when implying for something. Now, how this relates to the point of this discussion is this, we have no reason to prostrate ourselves before a Friend, only before a God or other authority. You see, God can be our God and not be our Friend. In order to add to the list of things that God is to us, Friend, it is necessary to obey Him....but just for clarification because so many people on the boards don't read for comprehension (not saying you, saying some of those that will read this post) I am not saying obedience is necessary to our salvation, but rather that it is necessary for us to claim the status of Friend with Christ. Just like belief of the heart is necessary to claim status of Child of the King, coheir with Christ.

 

[razzelflabben]

As a part of His earthly ministry, yes, He was tempted. However, I wasn't referring to His earthly ministry. I was referring to His current status, AFTER resurrection. He no longer CAN be tempted, He has defeated sin.

And, that exact same nature which He now lives can be MINE, through faith. While I remain in faith of God's promise to give me a new nature, I am as immune to sin's temptation as Christ is NOW. If this is not true, then God's promise was a lie.

As I have studied Biblical Love in depth, one thing struck me that applies to this discussion. Christ was empowered by the HS. The very same HS that is to empower every believer. IOW's the same power that Christ had to overcome sin on this earth is the same power we have as believers. So...here is a question for you. If we have the same power that Christ had to avoid temptations on this earth, why do we need Him to take away temptations that He says we will have in order to be without sin? Look at this passage....Heb. 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tested in every way as we are, yet without sin.

Notice that the testing we endure is present tense where the testing He endured is past tense and yet, without sin. There is some reason why our tempting is present tense but can be without sin, just like Christ was...it is the power of the indwelling HS.

 

[razzelflabben]

I take issue with this. I would leave out the word "alone". We cannot be obedient at all, even with help. It requires a brand new nature. HIS nature. In HIS nature, we are not only ABLE to be obedient, it requires no extra effort. It doesn't require yielding, or striving, or anything like that at all. It is the natural result of the new nature.

Then I will have to disagree with you being that scripture tells us what we must do in order for us to live the sin free life. I personally hold scripture to be a greater authority than I hold you to be on the topic at hand.

Now, as to new nature, we aren't talking about living in the old nature, a nature that was dead to Christ, had no indwelling HS and no will to live in the truth of Christ. Rather we are talking about the new nature, a nature that is alive in Christ, determined to live in the truths of the cross, is the temple of the Living God, etc.

 

[razzelflabben]

Difficult to get a straight answer..thus far its been oddky avoided..any one else feel free to dive in ...

Q. I'm in a supermarket ,i'm about to buy some beers because i have always had that liberty to drink .(but avoid being drunken) and the holy Spirit speaks to my heart (he is my Sheppards voice -he only speaks that which he hears from the father ) And he says to me ..do not buy that ...
Do i go ahead and buy it ?-if so why?

Do i listen and obey ? - if so , why ?

lets get applicable with the topic .

this is not only an imagined scenario.

I thought the question was a great question and have been waiting the answer of some since you posted it...thanks for the question by the way, it illustrates the point very well.

 

[razzelflabben]

But was the elementary the goal? NO!

The writer wanted to move on, that is clear in the text, and is what I have said, people need to leave the training wheels behind.

You may think you corrected me, but you did not, actually you are the one not listening or reading my posts, as you accuse me of doing.

Puppies that are obedient, are still puppies.

wow...okay, I showed you that you were wrong in what the elementary teachings are and you ignore that to talk about my original point that we are to move beyond that, as if I never said that. You know, moving beyond into righteousness....

Then, to make matters even worse, you keep talking about this puppy that you don't like being equated to because he obeys because he is disciplined into obedience, so I show how the son is disciplined into obedience, how Christ was taught obedience, and I'm not listening to you because the puppy is still a puppy....

So if I am the one not listening, then show me what I missed given the summary of our discussion in this post. Otherwise, I will assume you misspoke and move on to someone willing to listen and respond to me.

 

[razzelflabben]

Living by works of law, is rule keeping,

except you are the only one talking about living by works of law, which means you are the only one talking about rule keeping....which means you aren't responding to me and so, moving on.

and obedience is central it has to be, after all it is a rule, and one had to be obedient or he did not get a puppy biscuit! Rules become the mode. And it is self righteousness, see Rom 10:3, and Phil 3:9 for facts. That is my point, obedience obssesed people, are not seeing God deeply, or the higher way, they just measure themselves all the time, having their own righteousness. I have shown that it was for children, Gal 3 and 4 shows this, puppies need to grow up already.

but since that isn't what I am saying or talking about, you are not responding to me or what I said which means....what? I'm not listening to you? Seriously...if you can't respond to what I am saying how does it show that I am not listening to you?

So...look what I said....obedience in the believer is not an act of following the law, nor is it an act of being punished or rewarded for things I do. Rather it is an act of Love that seeks to honor, please, be the fragrant aroma of Christ lived out in my life.

Notice that nothing I said resembles what you are trying to accuse me of saying. So if you want to continue our discussion you need to respond to what I said.

Look here at the verse, it is good puppy or bad puppy, basic elementalism. The law was for children, that is a development stage, that some are stalled in, sort of like arrested development.

yet the text says that the elementary teachings are not the legalism you are preaching against, but rather the elementary teachings are the going to the cross and stopping there. We are suppose to move on, beyond the cross to the deeper things of God, things like who He is and why He does what He does, things like obedience being an act of Love, not some legalistic non sense like you are going on about. It is about not crucifying Christ all over again by denying the power within to overcome sin and death. You know, the deeper things of Christ that we don't see when we just stop at the cross like your posts seem bent on us doing.

It was to be just a stage, the Hebrews wanted to go backwards, not good. See, look, bad puppy gets retribution.:o

Heb 2:2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution,

Yep...God will judge each man on what he does, that is scriptural, but that is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing obedience not judgment. Shall I post some passages about being judged for what we do? Like Romans 2:6; Job 34:11; Psalms 62:12; Jere. 17:10; Matt. 16:27; II Cor. 11:15

Now back to the discussion at hand and how this truth in scripture informs us. where obedience is an act of grace through the power of the indwelling HS, it is also our actions and how we live out our lives in light of that HS power. Like the question asked and ignored, we make decisions all the time, decisions to obey God in the power of the HS or decisions to disobey in our own power and pride. When we chose to yield our desires, our wills to His (aka new man) we choose to live in obedience through the power within in the form of the HS. When we allow our pride to tell us that we are already righteous therefore do not need to obey, then we are crucifying Christ again, because Christ gave us the power to overcome, we just need to apply ourselves to the task at hand. And before you get all edgy on this...scripture is the one that says God will judge each man on what they do, not me. But it is to each man, not just the unbelievers that is the problem for people who think righteous living is not necessary.

 

[Frogster]

"A merit system!" Obedience is the mark of the Spirit led believer, wilful disobedience makes us a child of darkness.

no, because the merit system, gives merit or condemnation the reward to the person, it is people centered, that is law life, do this and you will live, do this and you die, said the Law, it's there, you can read it, it's there inthe Bible, the do this was emphatic upon the person, not God. That is law, that is a fact.

 

[Norah63]

Stephanie says, You cannot live in both natures simultaneously. IF you live in the new nature consistently, the old nature is dead. So, yes, we CAN "just live and breathe in the new nature". For, IF we are in the new nature, the cross has already killed the old nature.

Notice the word consistently, then the words can and if bolded.
That's saying the same as stay obedient, so what's the problem with staying obedient?
Any friend will get along with another friend. Not go contrary to them.

 

[razzelflabben]

again what is the big deal? God said not to, don't, but for me, there is more to life, than coming home knowing i did not buy the beer.

Again, it is like the puppy being all excited that he did not go on the couch, like he was trained not to, after a while, so what!? I mean really, elementalism should become boring already.

this response suggests to me that you have no real understanding of what God wants for His children, or just how prideful we people are in comparison to Christ.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The wall might be that frog has not heard the inner voice from the Holy Spirit?
Who can say what the word obey sounds like to another person? Maybe it is frightning.
I thought it was cheap to call another christian a dog, puppy, whatever term to say the same as 'your not as far along as I am'.
We can disagree on living close to Jesus, but it should be done in a kind manner.

Kinda reminds me of that time when I divided church history up into the days of creation with Jesus ending the "third day" . People who drank the water of the word and breathed the holy spirit as living waters didn't like much being characterized as fish .. though i was trying to make a point that some people can exist in environments that are spiritually toxic or deadly for others .

 

[Frogster]

Its a clanging cymbal ,technical garb without life ,without relationship .

This is the incredibly sad thing about your argument frog. You are either obeying or disobeying. There is no in between in that regard. If God tells do something you have two options, not three or four or five, two.

Do as he says, or
Do not do as he says

You have multiple times here fought against obedience so that means you are promoting disobedience as a rule which is why your talking point is scary and sad.

show me one post, where I fought against obedience. 1..just 1..

 

[razzelflabben]

Paul spent his whole earlier life in Judaism, in obedience class, but look at the verses, but then he wanted something higher, living by faith, and resurrection power!.


Phil 3:9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,

Same here, died to elementalism, to live by faith, something higher than good Paul, bad Paul.


Ga; 2;19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.


That is why Galatians shows that the law was a just a temporary stage, it was for kiddies under tutors, and govenors in chapt 3-4, but then it ended, so that the Sons would come, the mature ones after the age of obedience classes, they graduated!. That is a fact, that is text.

To be perfectly transparent for a moment, the thing that bothers me most about what you keep saying is how many NT passages we have to throw away in order to keep this theology in tack. For example....James 4:7 is a NT passage that tells us to do something to maintain the cleansing that we received upon salvation. John 14:15 is another....in fact, the NT is full of passages that we would have to throw away if we were to accept what you are saying as truth.

Now, that being said, I could be misunderstanding you, but the likelihood of that is growing slimmer by every post that says the same thing and that others are understanding the same way I am. Which begs the question of why you feel justified to remove so many passages from our scriptures?

 

[Frogster]

It does seem that you have added in a fair amount of unwarranted personal opinion to this word. The word has no connection with what you have suggested which you will be able to see from the following lexical entries:

(BibleWorks 9) Friberg Lexicon:

24998 στοιχεῖον, ου, τό strictly small upright post; hence first beginning, element or principle; only plural in the NT; (1) generally, the rudimentary elements of anything, what belongs to a basic series in any field of knowledge; in grammar, the ABCs; in speech, basic sounds; in physics, the four basic elements (earth, air, fire, water); in geometry, the axioms; in philosophy, the givens; (2) as used in the NT; (a) as a religious technical term elementary doctrines, fundamental teachings, basic principles (HE 5.12; perhaps CO 2.8, 20 and GA 4.3, 9); (b) in a negative sense, humanistic teachings common to Jewish and pagan religions, involving binding traditions, taboos, prohibitions, ordinances, ceremonies, etc., teachings involving either supernatural elemental or animating spirits (probably CO 2.8, 20), or basic material elements (probably GA 4.3, 9) elements, elemental things; (c) in relation to the natural world (basic) elements, natural substances (2P 3.10, 12)​

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon

4914 stoicei/on
stoicei/on, stoiceiou, to, (from stoi/coj a row, rank, series; hence, properly, that which belongs to any stoi/coj, that of which a stoi/coj is composed; hence), "any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or composite whole take their rise; an element, first principle". The word denotes specifically:

1. the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech, not however the written characters (which are called gra,mmata), but the spoken sounds: stoicei/on fwnh/j fwnh, avsu,nqetoj, Plato definition, p. 414 e.; to, rvw to, stoicei/on, id. Crat., p. 426 d.; stoicei/on evsti fwnh, avdiairetoj, ouv pa/sa de,, avllV evx h-j pefuke suneth, gi,gnesqai fwnh,, Aristotle, poet. 20, p. 1456{b}, 22.

2. the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe (evsti de, stoicei/on, evx ou- prw,tou gi,netai ta, gino,mena kai, eivj o` e;scaton avnalu,etai ... to, pu/r, to, u[dwr, o` avh,r, h` gh/, Diogenes Laërtius Zeno 137); so very often from Plato down, as in Tim., p. 48 b.; in the Scriptures: Sap. 7:17; 19:17; 2 Pet. 3:10,12.

3. the heavenly bodies, either as parts of the heavens, or (as others think) because in them the elements of man's life and destiny were supposed to reside; so in the earlier ecclesiastical writings: Ep. ad Diogn. 7, 2; Justin Martyr, dialog contra Trypho, 23; ta, Ouvrani,a stoicei/a, id. Apology 2, 5; stoicei/a Qeou/, created by God, Theoph. Ant. ad Autol. 1, 4; cf. Hilgenfeld, Galaterbrief, pp. 66-77. Hence, some interpreters infelicitously understand Paul's phrase ta, stoicei/a tou/ ko,smou, Gal. 4:3,9; Col. 2:8,20 , of the heavenly bodies, because times and seasons, and so sacred seasons, were regulated by the course of the sun and moon; yet in unfolding the meaning of the passage on the basis of this sense they differ widely.

4. the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles (cf. our `alphabet' or `a b c') of any art, science, or discipline; e. g. of mathematics, as in the title of Euclid's well-known work; stoicei/a prw/ta kai, me,gista crh,sthj politei,aj, Isocrates, p. 18 a.; th/j avreth/j, Plutarch, de puer. educ. 16, 2; many examples are given in Passow, under the word, 4, ii., p. 1550b; (cf. Liddell and Scott, under the word, II. 3 and 4). In the N. T. we have ta, stoicei/a th/j avrch/j tw/n logi,wn tou/ Qeou/ (see avrch,, 1 b., p. 76{b} bottom), Heb. 5:12, such as are taught to nh,pioi, Heb. 5:13; ta, stoicei/a tou/ ko,smou, the rudiments with which mankind like nh,pioi were indoctrinated before the time of Christ, i. e. the elements of religions training, or the ceremonial precepts common alike to the worship of Jews and of Gentiles, Gal. 4:3,9, (and since these requirements on account of the difficulty of observing them are to be regarded as a yoke -- cf. Acts 15:10; Gal. 5:1 -- those who rely upon them are said to be dedoulwme,noi u`po, ta, stoicei/a); specifically, the ceremonial requirements especially of Jewish tradition, minutely set forth by theosophists and false teachers, and fortified by specious argument, Col. 2:8,20. The phrase ta, stoicei/a tou/ ko,smou is fully discussed by Schneckenburger in the Theolog. Jahrbücher for 1848, Part iv., p. 445ff; Neander in the Deutsche Zeitschrift f. Christl. Wissensehaft for 1850, p. 205ff; Kienlen in Reuss u. Cunitz's Beiträge zu d. theolog. Wissenschaften, vol. ii., p. 133ff; E. Schaubach, Comment. qua exponitur quid stoicei/a tou/ ko,smou in N. T. sibi velint. (Meining. 1862).*​

How? I said stoicheion means the elementals, the abc's, or it can mean spirit beings like in Col 2:20, though there i think it means the law as per the context, or it can mean the elements, earth, wind, etc.

In my verses the context dictates, it was the abc's, and I am right. Heb 5:12 was talking about teacing the basics, so was Gal 4:3, leaving the childhood state, where we "were" children, it even says child and children in 4:1-3.

So, in the end, the elementals were the basics, abc's, not at all seen as the high end, the mature end, vertainly not the goal. And in both cases, it was telling or showing to move on from the basics.

 

[razzelflabben]

both verses were about after conversion, the life I NOW live after dying to law,

Gal. 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.


Gal. 2:19 "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.


Notice that in both passages the dieing is to self and our selfish, prideful desires and will, not to the law itself. It is according to Gal. 2:19 through the law that I die, not the law that I am dying to.

and when he wrote Phil that was a late epistle, where he wanted to know him and the power, well after not being under law, well after conversion..

the power is over sin and death....I Cor. 15:57...not over the law but rather the power to fulfil the law....Matt. 5:17

 

[razzelflabben]

You keep saying this, but I already showed you a verse that makes good works a fruit of the Holy Spirit. Though I notice you are now saying "human works," the "human" perhaps meaning "not by the working of God?" If that's the case, that's a significant reversal.



What do you know about the Christian walk? You are one who denies the omniscience of God, says nasty things to people who disagree with you (and repeatedly twisted what I said), and doesn't debate using the scripture, but with lame human philosophy (which is even non-nonsensical by philosophical standards, since you can't even represent my position correctly). Check yourself; perhaps you are the one far from God, and not the eeevil Calvinist.

Just wanted to point out that the last half of this post is way out of line and should be ignored by everyone reading.

 

[Frogster]

The wall might be that frog has not heard the inner voice from the Holy Spirit?
Who can say what the word obey sounds like to another person? Maybe it is frightning.
I thought it was cheap to call another christian a dog, puppy, whatever term to say the same as 'your not as far along as I am'.
We can disagree on living close to Jesus, but it should be done in a kind manner.

No, humor or other things drive home a point. It's true, they call schools obedience classes, where people bring disobedient pets to.

You are welcome to rebutt my texts used, instead of going on about the puppy issue, the puppy issue is a good one, it shows that even fundamental creatures can learn obedience, i think Chritstians are better than that, and deserve better or more, Do you?

 

[Frogster]

The law was a school teacher . but then i graduated . and just like how what i learned in high school and university is mostly irrelevant in the working world . teachers wont be hearing that it is irrelevant while they're teaching .
.
the law/written code teaches something . but it teaches us to learn . that part is important .. but what we learn from direct contact with the Holy Spirit in life service is far more important .

True, and there was even a time of no law.

 

[razzelflabben]

Naaa...not demeaning, but the puppy point drives home a point, that being, if a puppy can be obedient, then it's really not the highest standard of achievement for us now, in grace. Besides, a little humor is good for the soul, don't take it so seriously.

I posted text about elementalism, it is a fact.


Even here, in the Greek it is stoicheion, elementalism, same as Gal 4:3, used for the obedience works centered life that Paul was under when in law, and it was elemental, and for a child, not the mature, and in heb 5:12 it is used also, and the writer wanted them to also go on to maturity, not be stuck in a rules centered elemental life, these are textual facts.




Hebrews 5:12Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)
12 ·

kai For

gar though
by

dia this

ho time

chronos you
ought

opheilō to
be

eimi teachers

didaskalos,
you
have

echō need

chreia of
someone

tis to
teach

didaskō you

hymeis again

palin ·

ho the

ho basic

archē elements

stoicheion ·
ho of

ho God’
s

theos revelation

logion.
·

ho ·

kai You
have
become

ginomai people
having

echō need

chreia of
milk

gala,
not

ou solid

stereos food

trophē;

are you confusing legalism with obedience? I am seriously trying to figure out what the heck you don't understand and this currently seems to be my best guess.