Righteousness, liberty & teaching OC law

[Clare73]

But apparently it is complicated for some who for whatever reason desire to have no concern for the parts and profess to have the whole. And the analogy to the car is fun, but not meaningful. Similar to love, I doubt you'd know if you're driving with all parts or with all parts in perfect performance or not.

If obeying the one rule is equal to obeying all the rules, then logic says obeying all the rules is equal to obeying the one rule. I'd agree with this, and I think this is what Paul is saying. But it works both ways, not just the one way you're using. Yet many want to say we have nothing to do with all the rules and still say they're in obedience to the one.

If someone more learned and mature than you should walk up and say, Sister, what are you doing not acting in love and show you the rule you're not obeying, and was correct, would you argue & oppose him? If the Spirit similarly taps your conscience and awareness, would you oppose Him (1 John 1:10)?

So, you're saying you "already possess full" love. Are you saying you already walk fully according to God's commandments? Pardon me for not trusting your opinion.
I doubt you really see yourself as being fully conformed to Christ's likeness.

And that would be due to loving self more than Christ.

Really, it's not about possession anyway, love is doing.

I dare say it is, for doing is the possession of love.

Nor do I have to always be doing to always possess loving, for instance, my husband.

Come in to the NT. . .

 

[GDL]

And that would be due to loving self more than Christ.

Not sure what you mean by this

I dare say it is, for doing is the possession of love.

Nor do I have to always be doing to always possess loving, for instance, my husband.

Come in to the NT. . .

Came in some time ago and such statements may seem to you to make some demeaning point, but they really don't.

The problem with your reasoning, is that you can act unloving and make the excuse that you nevertheless possess love. The simple counter, like speaking to a child, is, Then, act like it!

Love is action, Clare, not possession, nor simply possession. That's why 1 John5:3 says, "This IS the Love of God, THAT we keep His commandments..."

When we [think and] act in conformity to what He commands - this obedient action is love. This is language from long ago related to living under kings and rulers. To love a ruler is to do what he says.

Your possession and non-action is addressed here at minimum:

NKJ Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.

One of the words used here means He views this profession without action as disgusting.

It's not a matter of doing with perfection in this existence, and provisions are in place when we may deviate. But we are to be growing in knowledge & ability and we're held responsible to function at the level we've grown to.

 

[Clare73]

Love is action, Clare, not possession,

Nope. . .

Actions which are not from the possession of love do not equate to fulfilling the law.

It is their love that makes them equate to fulfilling of the law.

 

[GDL]

Nope. . .

Actions which are not from the possession of love do not equate to fulfilling the law.

It is their love that makes them equate to fulfilling of the law.

You should not pick & chose from what was said, Clare:

Love is action, Clare, not possession, nor simply possession. That's why 1 John5:3 says, "This IS the Love of God, THAT we keep His commandments..."

Righteous actions are love.

Once again, love is action. In 1 John 5:3 it is the keeping of God's Commandments and His Commandments are not burdensome. This same action of keeping God's Commandments being love is likewise applicable to loving brothers (1 John 4; 5:2). We can add 1 John 2:4-5.

Then there's 1 John 3:17-18 - more action - without action, no love.

If you'd like to talk about "having love" as a precursor to actions, based in 1Cor13, you still have to deal with the fact that Biblical Love recognizes what is evil & unrighteousness (which is sin which is lawlessness) & truth. So, even in this description of love that we can possess, we're dealing with it being described in relation to and understanding of lawlessness vs. truth. Not only is lawlessness anti-law, which is not keeping God's Commandments, but:

NKJ Psalm 119:142 Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, And Your law is truth.

Having love and loving (acting) are rooted in obeying God, because God is love and He doesn't just possess, He is, and He acts.

NET John 3:16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

 

[Clare73]

You should not pick & chose from what was said, Clare:

Likewise, you should not abuse the grammatical construction of what is stated in the word of God.

And what I said couldn't be more clear in the NT that:
"Actions which are not from the possession of love do not equate to fulfilling the law.
It is their love that makes them equate to fulfilling of the law."

Righteous actions are love.

And all righteous actions are not necessarily stated in the Decalogue.

Jesus gave the example of love of neighbor which is/equates to fulfillment of the law, in the good Samaritan, whose actions were no where prescribed in the Decalogue, yet equate to the fulfillment of the Decalogue (Romans 13:8-10).

The "picking and choosing" here is the bastardization of Romans 13:8-10 to mean other than its grammatical construction, where the verb "is" equates, makes equal, equivocates two things:
love : fulfillment of the law.
If one loves, as did the good Samaritan, one has thereby fulfilled the Decalogue even though his love did nothing required by the Decalogue.

 

[Minister Monardo]

Nice statement, but unless you refer to God's Law, you can't tell me what love is, what exactly the Spirit is producing in you.

Au contraire. . .it's not rocket science.

Love is "Do no harm;" i.e., committed to another's well-being as you are to your own.

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
Under what standard do we establish the Law,
unto an unfeigned love of the brethren?
John 7:24 Do not judge according to appearance,
but judge with righteous judgment.
Therefore, maturity (perfection) among the Body of Chist is identical to a just society under the Law of Moses.
Deuteronomy 1:
16 Then I commanded your judges at that time, saying, ‘Hear the cases between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the stranger who is with him.
17 You shall not show partiality in judgment;
you shall hear the small as well as the great;
you shall not be afraid in any man’s presence,
for the judgment is God’s.

Both require hearing and obeying the Voice
of the Spirit for Righteous Judgment.
James is not trying to make a point, he is making
THE Point.
James 2:
1 My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory, with partiality.
4 Are you not then partial in yourselves, and become judges of evil thoughts?
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, You shall love your neighbor as yourself,
you do well;
9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin,
and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in this one point, he is guilty of all.

Partiality in Judgment undermined the Just requirements of the Law, as it also undermines
the perfect Law of liberty.
Both require a conscience without offense...
Acts 24:16 This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.

 

[GDL]

Likewise, you should not abuse the grammatical construction of what is stated in the word of God.

And what I said couldn't be more clear in the NT that:
"Actions which are not from the possession of love do not equate to fulfilling the law.
It is their love that makes them equate to fulfilling of the law."

And all righteous actions are not necessarily stated in the Decalogue.

Jesus gave the example of love of neighbor which is/equates to fulfillment of the law, in the good Samaritan, whose actions were no where prescribed in the Decalogue, yet equate to the fulfillment of the Decalogue (Romans 13:8-10).

The "picking and choosing" here is the bastardization of Romans 13:8-10 to mean other than its grammatical construction, where the verb "is" equates, makes equal, equivocates two things:
love : fulfillment of the law.
If one loves, as did the good Samaritan, one has thereby fulfilled the Decalogue even though his love did nothing required by the Decalogue.

There's nowhere you've proven any abuse of grammatical construction. This is an empty charge.

I addressed your possession issue pursuant to 1 Corinthians 13. If you attempt to remove good or righteousness (the opposite of bad/evil) and truth (1Cor13:4-5) then you're missing one of the points taught there.

I agree that the 10 Commandments are not all we must pay attention to, and this will answer your Samaritan point.

To deal with Law, there's a depth we must go to. A few examples:

• Luke 14:1-6 Jesus heals a man on Sabbath & challenges the lawyers & Pharisees there as to the legality of this. To defend His actions Jesus referred to Deuteronomy in reference to pulling a donkey or ox from a pit on Sabbath. It's a lesser to greater argument: If the Law says to help an animal on Sabbath, how do we not help a man?
• In 1 Corinthians 9:9 Paul uses a similar analogy from Deuteronomy and oxen to support what he says about caring for God's messengers.
• In Luke 6 Jesus takes some Pharisees through a few laws to make a case for His disciples picking & eating grain on Sabbath. The moral of this lesson was that the Sabbath was for man - for the good of man. IOW, Law is structured for the good of man.
• Beyond concepts like this there are the commands to be holy like our Father, perfect like our Father. Do we negate these also? Same goes for all the instruction about mercy (part of what's stated in Jesus' instruction using the Samaritan). There are many things stated in God's Law.

So, as I said earlier, your "equates" in Romans 13:8-10 works both ways. To do God's Commandments towards people equates to love neighbor (and love God). To love neighbor equates to doing God's Commandments.

I'll grant you that if you possess God's Love and do it perfectly, then we won't have reason to ask you if you're keeping God's Commandments. But, since you've already said you don't always act in Love towards your poor husband, how would you explain this in detail if not by telling us what Commandment you are not living up to?

There's an implied "is" (or "are") in the present tense verb being translated as "summed up" as I'd guess every English translation inserts (I'm looking at 9 now & all insert it). So, the 4 + any other commandment as Paul states, equate to love neighbor. I guess we could include helping oxen in a lesser to greater sense in this "any other commandment" stated by Paul.

Also, should you say the implied "is" in 13:9 is abusing grammar, please note that the "is" in 13:10 is also implied; The Greek simply says, "...therefore fulfillment of law the love" - "...therefore the love fulfillment of law".

Many times, in Greek grammar, this construction is actually placing an emphasis on what's being stated "Love - fulfillment of Law!"

Also, you might note that "fulfillment" also has the sense of completion, and the noun carries the implication of action. Something is in a fulfilled/completed condition when it has been fulfilled/completed. And the context here is the doing of commandments. This is not simple possession, but the action of loving by doing commandments.

Paul picked some commandments and added a catch-all. Jesus picked some commandments to make application to. If you're not doing love - which is really doing righteousness - at some point along the day, we can pick a commandment and point out why.

Love neighbor, BTW, is from Leviticus 19, which is also Law from the Moses era. It's still a Commandment of Law - made of other Commandments per Paul - and is written in a couplet having to do with rebuking neighbors who are out of line and with not taking personal vengeance.

 

[GDL]

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
Under what standard do we establish the Law,
unto an unfeigned love of the brethren?
John 7:24 Do not judge according to appearance,
but judge with righteous judgment.
Therefore, maturity (perfection) among the Body of Chist is identical to a just society under the Law of Moses.
Deuteronomy 1:
16 Then I commanded your judges at that time, saying, ‘Hear the cases between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the stranger who is with him.
17 You shall not show partiality in judgment;
you shall hear the small as well as the great;
you shall not be afraid in any man’s presence,
for the judgment is God’s.

Both require hearing and obeying the Voice
of the Spirit for Righteous Judgment.
James is not trying to make a point, he is making
THE Point.
James 2:
1 My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory, with partiality.
4 Are you not then partial in yourselves, and become judges of evil thoughts?
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, You shall love your neighbor as yourself,
you do well;
9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin,
and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in this one point, he is guilty of all.

Partiality in Judgment undermined the Just requirements of the Law, as it also undermines
the perfect Law of liberty.
Both require a conscience without offense...
Acts 24:16 This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.

How would you summarize all you've said here in 1 or 2 simple points regarding God's Law & Love?

 

[Minister Monardo]

How would you summarize all you've said here in 1 or 2 simple points regarding God's Law & Love?

Here's the Lord's summary,
should do fine for One.
Matthew 7:
12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you,
do also to them,
for this is the Law and the Prophets.

I would prefer to be thorough and include
the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.
1 John 4:
7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.
10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
12 No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us.
13 By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us His Spirit.

 

[Minister Monardo]

How would you summarize all you've said here in 1 or 2 simple points regarding God's Law & Love?

How would you summarize all you've said here in
1 or 2 simple points regarding God's Law & Love?
My post BTW, is about impartiality if that was not clear; and Love being an expression
of righteous judgment towards others.

 

[GDL]

How would you summarize all you've said here in
1 or 2 simple points regarding God's Law & Love?
My post BTW, is about impartiality if that was not clear; and Love being an expression
of righteous judgment towards others.

I was going to bring in James with Clare but recalled a prior discussion where she expressed a favoring of Paul over whatever James has to say.

I understood the impartiality, that was clear.

I also liked this statement, mostly based upon Hebrews 5 regarding infancy & maturity (perfection) based in the Word of Righteousness:

Therefore, maturity (perfection) among the Body of Christ is identical to a just society under the Law of Moses.

I'd use (as I did) 1 John 2 re: knowing God, Love & keeping His Word, and 1 John 5:3 re: Love = keeping His commandments in any discussion about Biblical Love and as a basis for your statement about righteous judgment towards others.

The work of the Spirit is always included if not stated.

Agree, or no?

 

[Minister Monardo]

I was going to bring in James with Clare but recalled a prior discussion where she expressed a favoring of Paul over whatever James has to say.

I understood the impartiality, that was clear.

I also liked this statement, mostly based upon Hebrews 5 regarding infancy & maturity (perfection) based in the Word of Righteousness:



I'd use (as I did) 1 John 2 re: knowing God, Love & keeping His Word, and 1 John 5:3 re: Love = keeping His commandments in any discussion about Biblical Love and as a basis for your statement about righteous judgment towards others.

The work of the Spirit is always included if not stated.

Agree, or no?

I will continue to follow the discussion between
the two of you. Maybe impartiality will form a
point of commonality to work towards agreement.
I also defer to the Spirit in finding harmony between
the Law and the Prophets, and apostolic doctrine.
All require impartiality among the mature leadership, whether Christian society or the nation of Israel,
upholding a conscience without offense.
James 3:
1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that
we shall receive the greater condemnation.
2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.

 

[Clare73]

There's nowhere you've proven any abuse of grammatical construction. This is an empty charge.

You reduce love to law-keeping.

The abuse of grammatical construction lies in your not seeing either the error of treating as the same, nor the difference in the meaning of,
the sentence, "Love is the fulfillment (noun) of the law" (Romans 13:10), (love counts as law-keeping)
and the different sentence, "Love is the fulfilling (gerund; verbal noun) of the law," (love is law-keeping),
which reverses the action from love
(committed to another's well-being as committed to one's own)
to law-keeping
(obedience to specific commandments, which fall exceedingly short of covering the commitment of love,
as in the actions of the Samaritan's love of neighbor being over and above the law, where his specific loving actions were not prescribed).

I addressed your possession issue pursuant to 1 Corinthians 13. If you attempt to remove good or righteousness (the opposite of bad/evil) and truth (1Cor13:4-5) then you're missing one of the points taught there.

I agree that the 10 Commandments are not all we must pay attention to, and this will answer your Samaritan point.

To deal with Law, there's a depth we must go to. A few examples:

• Luke 14:1-6 Jesus heals a man on Sabbath & challenges the lawyers & Pharisees there as to the legality of this. To defend His actions Jesus referred to Deuteronomy in reference to pulling a donkey or ox from a pit on Sabbath. It's a lesser to greater argument: If the Law says to help an animal on Sabbath, how do we not help a man?
• In 1 Corinthians 9:9 Paul uses a similar analogy from Deuteronomy and oxen to support what he says about caring for God's messengers.
• In Luke 6 Jesus takes some Pharisees through a few laws to make a case for His disciples picking & eating grain on Sabbath. The moral of this lesson was that the Sabbath was for man - for the good of man. IOW, Law is structured for the good of man.
• Beyond concepts like this there are the commands to be holy like our Father, perfect like our Father. Do we negate these also? Same goes for all the instruction about mercy (part of what's stated in Jesus' instruction using the Samaritan). There are many things stated in God's Law.

So, as I said earlier, your "equates" in Romans 13:8-10 works both ways. To do God's Commandments towards people equates to love neighbor (and love God). To love neighbor equates to doing God's Commandments.

I'll grant you that if you possess God's Love and do it perfectly, then we won't have reason to ask you if you're keeping God's Commandments. But, since you've already said
you don't always act in Love towards your poor husband,

I made nor implied no such statement.
Pay attention.

how would you explain this in detail if not by telling us what Commandment you are not living up to?

It's not for me to explain what I never said.

There's an implied "is" (or "are") in the present tense verb being translated as "summed up" as I'd guess every English translation inserts (I'm looking at 9 now & all insert it). So, the 4 + any other commandment as Paul states, equate to love neighbor. I guess we could include helping oxen in a lesser to greater sense in this "any other commandment" stated by Paul.

The issue is not "is," the issue is "fulfillment" (noun) vs. "fulfilling" (gerund),
"completed" vs. "in completing."

Also, should you say the implied "is" in 13:9 is abusing grammar, please note that the "is" in 13:10 is also implied; The Greek simply says, "...therefore fulfillment of law the love" - "...therefore the love fulfillment of law".

Many times, in Greek grammar, this construction is actually placing an emphasis on what's being stated "Love - fulfillment of Law!"

Precisely! . . .and what is being stated is "fulfillment" (noun), completion--by love. . .and not "the fulfilling," nor the verb, "fulfills" by law-keeping.

How does not killing, not stealing, not lying, not coveting (i.e., Decalogue-keeping, Romans 13:8-10) satisfy "as committed to my neighbor's well being as to my own" when he needs a ride to the doctor's office or someone to do to his grocery shopping?

Also, you might note that "fulfillment" also has the sense of completion,

Good move. . .yes, love is counted as completion of the law. . .my point precisely!

and the noun carries the implication of action. Something is in a fulfilled/completed condition when it has been fulfilled/completed.

Precisely. . .the law is fulfilled/completed when love has been executed/accomplished.

And the context here is the doing of commandments.

Au contraire. . .

The context there is love. . .the law is completed by loving one's neighbor, i.e., carrying out the commitment to his well being as one is committed to one's own.

This is not simple possession, but the action of loving by doing commandments.

However, not killing, not stealing, not lying, not coveting another's spouse nor goods does not satisfy the NT meaning of "love" and, therefore, obeying the Decalogue cannot be equated to loving one's neighbor.

Paul picked some commandments and added a catch-all. Jesus picked some commandments to make application to. If you're not doing love - which is really doing righteousness - at some point along the day, we can pick a commandment and point out why.

Nope. . .we can be obeying all the Decalogue I listed above, and still point out why you're not doing love.

The commandments are not about doing righteousness, they were given to reveal sin (Romans 3:20), what one must not do to avoid sin, not what one must do to be righteous.

Love neighbor, BTW, is from Leviticus 19,

Romans 13:8-10 is referring to the Decalogue, which Leviticus 19 is not.

which is also Law from the Moses era. It's still a Commandment of Law - made of other Commandments per Paul - and is written in a couplet having to do with rebuking neighbors who are out of line and with not taking personal vengeance.

It is written in a triplet on the practice of righteousness (12:1-15:13), in the body, the world and among immature Christians.
Righteousness is practiced in the world by paying our debts, which debts include love of neighbor (Romans 13:8-10), and which simply obeying the Decalogue will not satisfy, as demonstrated in the case of the good Samaritan.

 

[Clare73]

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
Under what standard do we establish the Law,

We establish it on its right basis, as the means of sanctification (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19),
not as the means of salvation or justification (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:28).

 

[GDL]

You reduce love to law-keeping.

That you see neither the error of treating as the same, nor see the difference in the meaning of,
the sentence, "Love is the fulfillment (noun) of the law" (Romans 13:10), (love counts as law-keeping)
and the different sentence, "Love is the fulfilling (gerund; verbal noun) of the law," (love is law-keeping),
which reverses the action from love (committed to another's well-being as committed to one's own)
to law-keeping
(obedience to specific commandments, which fall exceedingly short of covering the commitment of love,
as in the actions of the Samaritan's love of neighbor being over and above the law, where his specific loving actions were not prescribed).

Scripture says the love of God is keeping His commandments. I quote and agree with Scripture that says specifically with no implied words: 1 John 5:3 For this IS (not implied but literally included) the love (noun) [of/for] God, that the commandments [of] Him we keep (verb)...

• Please note the action describing the noun love.

Paul says love neighbor is the fulfillment/completion of law:

• You made the case that the "is" (which is only implied not specifically stated) means equates.
• I responded that if it means equates, then it works both ways: love = fulfillment of law & thus fulfillment of law = love. You want it to work one way and not the other, so you must think "is" does not mean equates.
• Now are you changing "equates" to "counts as"? If "is" now means "counts as" then "is" still needs to work both ways, unless you're changing what "is" means, or inserting your own word(s).
• I didn't reverse the action. The action reverses itself based upon "is"
• I didn't change the noun to a verb, I simply said the noun infers some action took/takes place to bring about the fulfillment/completion.
• Romans 13:8 uses the verbs: The one who loves/is loving the other has fulfilled/completed Law - so here's the action, which is the beginning of the context. And please note that this is action and not possession that you've been inserting into this interpretation. Loving (verb) means has completed (verb) Law. This is the same message as 1 John 5:3 above referenced that also describes the human action involved. And since MinisterMonardo may be watching this discussion, we can do this action in Christ by the Spirit of God with the new faculties provided at the new birth in the new creation and under the training of a loving Father energizing us to both will & do what pleases Him.
• 13:9 explains ("for") that a single command is a compilation of 4+ commands. This explains that a single command to love being a compilation of other commands is the reason Paul can say that loving is completing law (because we're dealing with 4+ commands and actually an old command from Leviticus given during the era of the 4+ commands Paul cites.
• 13:10 is another way of saying the same thing and drawing it tighter: Love works no evil (because loving is completing law/doing [righteous] commandments) therefore this thing called "love" (noun) [is] fulfillment (noun) [of] law. And now we're right back to whether you still want to say "is/equates" or change it or change it again....

I made nor implied no such statement.
Pay attention.

My rebuttal is from your quoted statements below. Maybe I misunderstood you. If so, it's probably because of this use of "possession" of love vs. doing love. You always possess love for your husband, but don't always have to be loving him. Well, actually, you do always have to be loving, but provision has been made for our weakness and temporary deviations:

Nor do I have to always be doing to always possess loving, for instance, my husband.

It's not for me to explain what I never said.

Next topic:

Precisely! . . .and what is being stated is "fulfillment" (noun), completion--by love. . .and not "the fulfilling," nor the verb, "fulfills" by law-keeping.

But now you're inserting words again. Doesn't "by love" put some action into the language vs. the language just speaking of equating as you've been arguing (albeit one-sidedly vs. equating going both ways)? By means of love would be different grammar. By the agency of love also. There is Greek grammar for such. It's not here. Explanation?

How does not killing, not stealing, not lying, not coveting (i.e., Decalogue-keeping, Romans 13:8-10) satisfy "as committed to my neighbor's well being as to my own" when he needs a ride to the doctor's office or someone to do to his grocery shopping?

I think you can figure this out and see how far you're going to try to assert your argument.

Do you see any comparison of love neighbor as self and whatever you desire men to do to/for you, you do also to/for them?

I'll remind you once again of Paul's inclusion of "if there be any other commandment" in Romans 13:9 and ask you why you bring out those commands as if there are no other commands. One of the commands is to be Holy as our Father is Holy and be Perfect as our Father is Perfect. When Jesus discusses such things, He includes loving enemies...doing good to those who hate you, etc. As I brought out before re: the Samaritan discussion you brought in, the OC Scriptures are full of instruction about God's mercy, which word Jesus mentions in the Samaritan account. Be imitators of God as dear children Paul says in Ephesians 5:1 before he commands to walk in love as Christ did and before he proceeds to command against lawlessness (sins) discussed in the Decalogue and elsewhere in God's Law.

Good move. . .yes, love is counted as completion of the law. . .my point precisely!

Addressed above.

Precisely. . .the law is fulfilled/completed when love has been executed/accomplished.

Actually, 13:8 says if loving, then have completed law. Meaning when one has kept God's commandments (in Christ with His Spirit and Law on new hearts). It's simply back to the "equates" language again & the verbal context of loving/fulfilling.

I've simply got to skip ahead a bit. I'm already referring you back to previous answers. If I miss something you'd like specifically addressed, please feel free to ask.

The commandments are not about doing righteousness, they were given to reveal sin (Romans 3:20), what one must not do to avoid sin, not what one must do to be righteous.

Sin is lawlessness, which is the opposite of righteousness. You can do a search in the Text and see this in several verses. If we're not doing lawlessness, then we're doing the righteousness stated in His commandments. Once again, you're approaching this in only one side of the concept, but these things work both ways: Doing lawlessness is not doing righteousness - Doing righteousness is not doing lawlessness.

The Law was given to do more than reveal sin, but that's more work than needed right now.

Romans 13:8-10 is referring to the Decalogue, which Leviticus 19 is not.

Read Leviticus 19 again. Hate is the opposite of love, and love is identified by Paul and by John as equating to doing God's Commandments. Note how "sin" is mentioned in verse 17. Sin is lawlessness. You're assuming the Leviticus 19 is not included in dealing with lawlessness, but it is. As is the Decalogue. This is all one big package known as Torah/Instruction/Law.

Leviticus 19:17-18 is a couplet - a grammatical construction dealing with what we've separated into 2 verses, and we can see these couplets that each end with, "I [am] YHWH".

This verse is dealt with 3 times in the NC as I recall (as I think you're referring to), and each gives us a bit of a different angle on what instruction is being taken from it.

A lot here now. These discussions get unwieldly, and I could do better at keeping them on point.

You're simply not making your case that there is no 2-way equation in the language, and you seem to be attempting to do what all law opponents try to do: explain away God's [core] commandments containing His standards of righteousness that we remain responsible for in Christ.

BTW, I noticed a spot where you seem to be heading this back into a justification issue. Please don't. It's a weak argument against Law used correctly as Paul speaks of vs. works of law under law for justification/acquittal.

 

[GDL]

We establish it on its right basis, as the means of sanctification (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19),

But aren't you arguing against this with me?

BTW, "make void" & "establish" have the meanings of "invalidate" and "validate" - So through The Faith we validate Law.

 

[Clare73]

Scripture says the love of God is keeping His commandments.

And God is not my "neighbor."

My rebuttal is from your quoted statements below. Maybe I misunderstood you. If so, it's probably because of this use of "possession" of love vs. doing love. You always possess love for your husband, but don't always have to be loving him. Well, actually, you do always have to be loving, but provision has been made for our weakness and temporary deviations:

Misquote. . .misrepresentation.
I do not always have to be doing something to actually love my husband.
I likewise love him when I am doing nothing.

Sin is lawlessness, which is the opposite of righteousness. You can do a search in the Text and see this in several verses. If we're not doing lawlessness, then we're doing the righteousness stated in His commandments.

Nope. . .

The atoning work of Jesus Christ remits sin and saves from God's wrath (Romans 5:9).
But it does not make righteous.
At the point of saving faith, I am sinless and not doing lawlessness, but I am not righteous unless God imputes Christ's righteousness to me (Romans 4:1-11).

Leviticus 19:17-18 is a couplet -

I am stating Romans 13 is a triplet.

you seem to be attempting to do what all law opponents try to do: explain away God's [core] commandments containing His standards of righteousness that we remain responsible for in Christ.

That saw cuts both ways. . .proponents of law-keeping do the same: add law-keeping.

And I repeat: not killing, not stealing, not lying, not coveting our neighbor's spouse or possessions do not equate to fulfilling the command to love our neighbor, which love is to commit to their well-being as we commit to our own, as is shown in Jesus' example of love of neighbor in the good Samaritan.

I really don't see any basis for a discussion, as I do not accept your hermeneutic here.

 

[Clare73]

But aren't you arguing against this with me?

BTW, "make void" & "establish" have the meanings of "invalidate" and "validate" - So through The Faith we validate Law.

I'm arguing against law-keeping as satisfying the command to love our neighbor, or defining loving our neighbor as not killing, steading, lying, or coveting our neighbor's spouse or possessions, when it involves so much more than that.

Likewise, there are many exhortations and commands in the NT that are not the Decalogue.

And I think we are done here.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Scripture says the love of God is keeping His commandments. I quote and agree with Scripture that says specifically with no implied words: 1 John 5:3 For this IS (not implied but literally included) the love (noun) [of/for] God, that the commandments [of] Him we keep (verb)...

• Please note the action describing the noun love.

Paul says love neighbor is the fulfillment/completion of law:

• You made the case that the "is" (which is only implied not specifically stated) means equates.
• I responded that if it means equates, then it works both ways: love = fulfillment of law & thus fulfillment of law = love. You want it to work one way and not the other, so you must think "is" does not mean equates.
• Now are you changing "equates" to "counts as"? If "is" now means "counts as" then "is" still needs to work both ways, unless you're changing what "is" means, or inserting your own word(s).
• I didn't reverse the action. The action reverses itself based upon "is"
• I didn't change the noun to a verb, I simply said the noun infers some action took/takes place to bring about the fulfillment/completion.
• Romans 13:8 uses the verbs: The one who loves/is loving the other has fulfilled/completed Law - so here's the action, which is the beginning of the context. And please note that this is action and not possession that you've been inserting into this interpretation. Loving (verb) means has completed (verb) Law. This is the same message as 1 John 5:3 above referenced that also describes the human action involved. And since MinisterMonardo may be watching this discussion, we can do this action in Christ by the Spirit of God with the new faculties provided at the new birth in the new creation and under the training of a loving Father energizing us to both will & do what pleases Him.
• 13:9 explains ("for") that a single command is a compilation of 4+ commands. This explains that a single command to love being a compilation of other commands is the reason Paul can say that loving is completing law (because we're dealing with 4+ commands and actually an old command from Leviticus given during the era of the 4+ commands Paul cites.
• 13:10 is another way of saying the same thing and drawing it tighter: Love works no evil (because loving is completing law/doing [righteous] commandments) therefore this thing called "love" (noun) [is] fulfillment (noun) [of] law. And now we're right back to whether you still want to say "is/equates" or change it or change it again....

My rebuttal is from your quoted statements below. Maybe I misunderstood you. If so, it's probably because of this use of "possession" of love vs. doing love. You always possess love for your husband, but don't always have to be loving him. Well, actually, you do always have to be loving, but provision has been made for our weakness and temporary deviations:





Next topic:



But now you're inserting words again. Doesn't "by love" put some action into the language vs. the language just speaking of equating as you've been arguing (albeit one-sidedly vs. equating going both ways)? By means of love would be different grammar. By the agency of love also. There is Greek grammar for such. It's not here. Explanation?



I think you can figure this out and see how far you're going to try to assert your argument.

Do you see any comparison of love neighbor as self and whatever you desire men to do to/for you, you do also to/for them?

I'll remind you once again of Paul's inclusion of "if there be any other commandment" in Romans 13:9 and ask you why you bring out those commands as if there are no other commands. One of the commands is to be Holy as our Father is Holy and be Perfect as our Father is Perfect. When Jesus discusses such things, He includes loving enemies...doing good to those who hate you, etc. As I brought out before re: the Samaritan discussion you brought in, the OC Scriptures are full of instruction about God's mercy, which word Jesus mentions in the Samaritan account. Be imitators of God as dear children Paul says in Ephesians 5:1 before he commands to walk in love as Christ did and before he proceeds to command against lawlessness (sins) discussed in the Decalogue and elsewhere in God's Law.



Addressed above.



Actually, 13:8 says if loving, then have completed law. Meaning when one has kept God's commandments (in Christ with His Spirit and Law on new hearts). It's simply back to the "equates" language again & the verbal context of loving/fulfilling.

I've simply got to skip ahead a bit. I'm already referring you back to previous answers. If I miss something you'd like specifically addressed, please feel free to ask.



Sin is lawlessness, which is the opposite of righteousness. You can do a search in the Text and see this in several verses. If we're not doing lawlessness, then we're doing the righteousness stated in His commandments. Once again, you're approaching this in only one side of the concept, but these things work both ways: Doing lawlessness is not doing righteousness - Doing righteousness is not doing lawlessness.

The Law was given to do more than reveal sin, but that's more work than needed right now.



Read Leviticus 19 again. Hate is the opposite of love, and love is identified by Paul and by John as equating to doing God's Commandments. Note how "sin" is mentioned in verse 17. Sin is lawlessness. You're assuming the Leviticus 19 is not included in dealing with lawlessness, but it is. As is the Decalogue. This is all one big package known as Torah/Instruction/Law.

Leviticus 19:17-18 is a couplet - a grammatical construction dealing with what we've separated into 2 verses, and we can see these couplets that each end with, "I [am] YHWH".

This verse is dealt with 3 times in the NC as I recall (as I think you're referring to), and each gives us a bit of a different angle on what instruction is being taken from it.

A lot here now. These discussions get unwieldly, and I could do better at keeping them on point.

You're simply not making your case that there is no 2-way equation in the language, and you seem to be attempting to do what all law opponents try to do: explain away God's [core] commandments containing His standards of righteousness that we remain responsible for in Christ.

BTW, I noticed a spot where you seem to be heading this back into a justification issue. Please don't. It's a weak argument against Law used correctly as Paul speaks of vs. works of law under law for justification/acquittal.

Thank you for your well-thought out and insightful posts. I have learned that sometimes you are not posting to the person you are in discussion with, but the silent others who are reading and planting seeds with them.

Just want to jump in really quick in regard to Romans 13:8-10. From my understanding in reading Romans 13 in context Paul is referring to the law we should submit to the government. Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities. Paul seems to be going out of his way not to include the laws that deal with worshipping God. Is Paul teachings that we don't have to obey the greatest commandment to love God with all our hearts which is fulfilled by keeping the first 4 commandments. I don't think so, but he is only dealing with the commandments on loving man, not loving God when submitting to the government, which seems to be the context to Romans 13:8-10. God will never want a force worship, worshipping Him should always be through genuine love and not through force by the government. I think there will come a time when church and state will merge and there will be a forced worship, which will be led not by the Holy Spirit, but by the other spirit as predicted 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

 

[GDL]

Obviously, no discussion necessary.

And God is not my "neighbor."

Agree. God doesn't live next door. God lives much, much closer in some.

And God is also not my brother in the context of all of this, yet John wraps this love issue up nice & tightly for us:

NKJ 1 John 5:2-3 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

• There is a textual variant in 5:3. Some manuscripts say "keep". Others say "do".
• The love of/for God is to keep/do God's commandments and His commandments are not burdensome
  • The word "is" here speaks of what's stated in the 2 clauses being identical. The grammar, "this is" says what's stated in the first clause "means" what's stated in the next clause. The "this" "that" grammar makes this "identical" & "means" even more certain.
    • So:
      • Love for God is identical to keeping/doing God's commandments and God's commandments not being burdensome
      • Love for God means keeping/doing God's commandments and God's commandments not being burdensome
    • So, since what is stated in the 2 clauses are identical and mean the same thing:
      • Keeping God's Commandments and His commandments not being burdensome is Love for God

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

• God commands that the one who loves God also love his brother
• Since God commands that the one who loves God also love his brother:
  • We cannot love God if we hate our brother
  • If we hate our brother and say, "I love God", then we are liars

If we simply put these 2 instructions about love together, then:

• When we love our brother as God commands, we are keeping/doing God's command, which means we love God
  • When we love brother, we likewise love God

Since God commands that we love Him, which means that we keep/do God's commandments, and since God commands that we love our neighbor as ourselves:

• Then the same lessons John teaches about love for brothers, applies to love for neighbors:
  • When we love our neighbor as ourselves as God commands, we are keeping/doing God's command, which means we love God
    • When we love neighbor, we likewise love God
      • This is why Jesus said the 2nd Greatest Commandment - Love Neighbor is "homoios" - "like" the 1st Greatest Commandment - Love God
        • This is surely where John got his instruction to tie love for God and love for brother together so tightly

So, with this understanding about love for God meaning keeping/doing God's commandments, back to Romans 13:8-10:

• 13:8 The one loving another has fulfilled the Law
  • Because the one who loves has kept/done God's commandments to love others, which is also to love God, which is to keep/do God's commandments
  • To love is keep/do God's commandments
    • To love is to fulfill law
      • To keep/do God's commandments is to fulfill law / to love
• 13:9 To explain why one who loves another has fulfilled Law:
  • God's command to love neighbor (contextually "another") is a compilation of 4 of God's 10 Commandments, plus any other commandments of God
    • To keep/do God's commandments is to fulfill law / to love
• 13:10 The love ("The" is referring to the love discussed in the 2 previous verses) [does] not work to accomplish evil [to] the neighbor (contextually "another"), therefore (the result of what's been said here about love) the love [is] fulfillment (that which fulfills) law
  • The Love does not work to accomplish evil to the neighbor
    • Because The Love (for neighbor/another) is commanded by God
    • Because The Love (for neighbor/another) commanded by God is a compilation of at minimum 4 of the 10 commandments of God + any other commandment of God
    • Because The Love (for neighbor/another) is commanded by God and is a compilation of at minimum 4 of the 10 commandments of God + any other commandment of God, so The Love cannot work to accomplish evil
  • The Love [is] fulfillment (that which fulfills) law:
    • Because of all that has just been said

This is a nice short chiasm (parallelism structure):

• The one loving another has fulfilled law
  • God's command to love neighbor/another is a compilation of God's commandments
  • The love [of neighbor/another] does not work to accomplish evil to the neighbor
• The love [is] fulfillment (that which fulfills) law

• These 2 statements parallel and complement & explain one another
  • These 2 statements parallel and complement & explain one another and are the central point(s) of the instruction

• The one loving another has fulfilled law - the love [for another] [is] fulfillment (that which fulfills) law
  • God's command to love neighbor/another is a compilation of God's commandments - The love [of neighbor/another] does not work to accomplish evil to the neighbor

The central point, including the instruction by John per Jesus regarding The Love, is that God's Commandments, which when compiled detail what is means to Love God and Neighbor - the 2 Greatest Commandments - do not work to accomplish evil to Neighbor.

Love works to accomplish righteousness, because Love is keeping/doing God's Commandments (Romans 13; 1 John)

1 John 3:10 In this (what's said in the following statement) the children of God and the children of the Slanderer are clearly seen: Every [man] who is not doing righteousness is not from The God, namely the one who is not loving his brother

• Doing righteousness is loving brother (another) because love is commanded by God and keeping/doing God [righteous] commandments is The Love

I could probably tighten this up a bit to better reflect how tight God has stated it. But the gist of it is here.

To detach The Love from keeping/doing God's Righteous Commandments is nonsense - it's unbiblical. This detachment causes people to make up their own concepts of Love. Antinomianism is a severe problem and is a lack of Love for God.