Righteousness, liberty & teaching OC law

[GDL]

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).

As I said, the antinomian will usually take this back into an initial justification issue, mistaking either with purpose to derail the discussion or in misunderstanding the matter being discussed (God knows).

But we are talking about living the Christain Life & what it means to Love as God commands, not about the initial justification/acquittal that enters a person into Christianity - The Christian's relationship to God's Holy Law - God's Holy & Righteous & Good Commandment (Romans 7:12) - God's Good Law used lawfully (1 Timothy 1:8).

We are talking about not being deceived and about doing Righteousness just as God's Son & God are Righteous (1 John 3:7), because we seek and allow The Righteous God (Daniel 9:14; 1 John 2:1) to teach us by all of His Word what is Righteous and what is evil (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

I'm surprised no one has published a bible that has deleted the greatest written revelation of God's Law that exists. Maybe they have. Some simply do this in practice.

 

[GDL]

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.

Thank you for your post. Whoever may read I would hope can learn, agree or correct me if I'm wrong. Both are good.

I agree with your noting of context. I'd see the instruction on Love Neighbor as central to all that's said here. If we're loving as God commands, then we're also rendering to all their due (Romans 13:7 as Christ's Apostle commands) and recognizing God's Institution of human government.

As Paul exhorts (I see Apostolic "parakaleo" essentially as command) in 1 Timothy 2, our prayer and support for those in authority is self-serving - so we can live quiet and tranquil lives in all godliness & dignity. Paul proceeds to tie this to salvation which he ties to coming to experiential knowledge of truth. So, our growth and learning in godliness (living righteously as Christ did) - our salvation - is best served when we can live under decently functioning human government.

So, Paul surrounds Love Neighbor / Keeping/Doing God's Commandments with instruction on honoring and supporting authorities and then living not in flesh and its desires.

Note also how he speaks of the times (Romans 13:11-12). Was he thinking about the impending judgment of Jerusalem & the exclamatory change of the era Jesus foretold?

From some of the things I'm watching to some degree, it looks like what you say about the attempt to merge is well in the works right now on all fronts. We should be doing what Christ's Apostle exhorts. We may well find ourselves gaining first-hand experience on the value of the quiet and tranquility we had wherein we could focus on our growth in Christ.

 

[Clare73]

As I said, the antinomian will usually take this back into an initial justification issue, mistaking either with purpose to derail the discussion or in misunderstanding the matter being discussed (God knows).

Strawman. . .

 

[Clare73]

Obviously, no discussion necessary.

Agreed. . .

God is not my neighbor, to whom Romans 13:8-10 applies, he is my Sovereign Creator.

And obedience to the Decalogue is not about doing, it is about not doing.
Rather, it is love of neighbor that is about doing.

My issue with you is singular and simple.
It is not about salvation, justification, sanctification, law-keeping, obedience, righteousness, etc.
It is simply about your contra-Biblical hermeneutic of grammatical gymnastics which bastardizes the text of Romans 13:8-10:
"(the Decalogue), and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up into this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' . . Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law."

That text puts us under one rule--love, for obedience to multiple commandments,
while you put us under multiple commandments for obedience to one rule--love.

That text states this one rule is in lieu of multiple commandments,
while you state multiple commandments are in lieu of this one rule.

Grammatical gymnastics are applied to Romans 13:9-10 to bring it into agreement with a personal theology. . .thereby leaving us with no basis for discussion.

 

[BrotherJJ]

Salvation isn't accessed in OT Mosaic law keeping.

It's accessed thru FAITH placed Jesus's death & resurrection. 1 Cor 15:1-4, Rom 5:1-2. 10:9, Eph 1:7,13,14, 2:8-9

Galatians 3:
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
(NOTE: Abraham believed God & God declared Abraham righteous thru FAITH, not works)

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
(MY NOTE: Everyone the puts their FAITH in Christ's sin payment & resurrection is a child of Abraham & declared righteous by God)

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
(MY NOTE: 430 yrs before the Law to Moses (Gal 3:17). God promises Abraham ALL gentile/nations would be justified thru Faith (see justification KJB dictionary below)

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
(MY NOTE: We receive the same justification blessing as Abraham did thru FAITH)

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
(MY NOTE: If doing works of law keeping is your litmus test for accessing righteousness/justification. You are cursed/condemned in God's sight)

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
(See MY NOTE vs 10 & here The just shall live by FAITH)

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
(MY NOTE: A sinless Christ took our due judgment paying sins required wage (Rom 6:23).

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
(MY NOTE: Thru FAITH/trust placed in Christ' payment & resurrection. Believers receive God's promise: Lk 24:49, Acts 1:4, 5, 2:4, 33. The baptism of Christ's salvation sealing: (2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, 2 Tim 1:14, Eph 4:30) forever indwelling Holy Spirit)

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
(MY NOTE: Scripture proclaims here, this promise of righteousness once confirmed thru FAITH can't be annulled)

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
(MY NOTE: 430 & yrs before the Law to Moses. God made Abraham a promise & the Mosaic law covenant doesn't change or annul God's Abrahamic promise)

KJV Dictionary Definition: JUSTIFICATION; (4) In theology, remission of sin and absolution from guilt and punishment; or an act of free grace by which God pardons the sinner and accepts him as righteous, on account of the atonement of Christ.
JUSTIFICATION - Definition from the KJV Dictionary

(MY NOTE: ABSOLUTION from GUILT & PUNISHMENT. Believers are JUSTIFIED = Judicially Declared Righteous by a sovereign God. Righteousness is an imputed free Gift (Rom 5:17). Imputed thru Faith placed in Jesus FINISHED sin atoning sacrifice & resurrection. Thru Faith & faith alone, we become justified/righteous/SAVED the "MOMENT" we believe in Christ's sin payment & resurrection. Jesus did ALL the work necessary & all we need to do is TRUST Him!)

 

[GDL]

@clare Actually, it's the strawman you inserted into the discussion. As I said, many do.

 

[Clare73]

@GDL Crickets. . .

 

[GDL]

And obedience to the Decalogue is not about doing, it is about not doing.
Rather, it is love of neighbor that is about doing.

In the context we're dealing with, not doing something on the one hand, on the other hand is doing something else. To repeat, you seem to have a block on seeing both sides of the equation.

Before this you said Love was about possession (vs. doing). I agree Love Neighbor is about doing - action as I previously brought into discussion.

My issue with you is singular and simple.
It is not about salvation, justification, sanctification, law-keeping, obedience, righteousness, etc.
It is simply about your contra-Biblical hermeneutic of grammatical gymnastics which bastardizes the text of Romans 13:8-10:
"(the Decalogue), and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up into this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' . . Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law."

As I said, you seem to have a block on seeing both sides of the equation even though you brought up how "is" equates. You're moving your argument around to suit your changing position just to circle us back to the beginning of the discussion. Thus, this has been answered already.

Again, Clare, what you're calling a contra-biblical hermeneutic is simply language to say you disagree with my translation and interpretation of Scripture. I was instructed in seminary and even before then on various hermeneutical approaches to the Text used by various theological camps. We're really not even talking about a comprehensive hermeneutic here. We're just dealing with basic translation and dealing with grammar and some basic logic.

You are reverting to a simple error for reasons of your own. You keep asserting that A = B does not mean B = A. There can be validity to this argument, but you're not proving this to me, especially when you set the rule here:

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.

So, you said '"is" equates, makes equal"' (please look up "equivocates" and make certain you meant this). So, if '"is" equates, makes equal"' then please clarify why we cannot reverse the 2 phrases.

I'm open to learning my error. You're just not showing me where it is, and I've given you a lot of points to pick apart. If I'm wrong, then my error is likely written & exposed.

That text puts us under one rule--love, for obedience to multiple commandments,
while you put us under multiple commandments for obedience to one rule--love.

That text states this one rule is in lieu of multiple commandments,
while you state multiple commandments are in lieu of this one rule.

In light of ". . .we are no longer under the supervision of the law" (Galatians 3:25), your hermeneutic is simply grammatical gymnastics bastardizing the plain text of Romans 13:9-10 to bring it into agreement with your personal theology. . .thereby leaving us with no basis for discussion.

The Text actually puts us under at minimum 2 rules (Commandments from Mosaic Law) and a 3rd NC Command in regard to Love (that actually also deals with Law & lawlessness): (1) Love God; (2) Love Neighbor; (3) Love one another as Christ Loved us.

• Love for God is to keep/do His commandments & His commandments are not burdensome
  • If we are keeping/doing God's commandments and they are not burdensome, is this Love for God?
    • If A = B, does B = A?
• Love [is] fulfillment of Law
  • Is fulfillment of Law, Love?
    • If A = B, does B = A?
• Love of another has fulfilled Law
  • Has Law been fulfilled when someone loves another?
    • If A = B, does B = A?
• Love Neighbor is a compilation of 4+ (actually 5+) commandments
  • Is the compilation of the same 5+ commandments, Love Neighbor?
    • If A = B, does B = A?
• Love as Christ loved us
  • This one requires more work than the above basics and although Scripture gives us some guidance on imitating our Lord, I see no way to literally Love as He loved us and gave Himself for us... I simply see no "=" we can deal with.

"That text states this one rule is in lieu of multiple commandments,"

• Romans 13:9 does not state this. This is your error. In whatever terminology you want to think about this, whether it be: "contra-Biblical hermeneutic of grammatical gymnastics which bastardizes the text of Romans 13:8-10" or any other charge you've made, you should stop, focus & think right here.
• Romans 13:9 says what it says, and it says 5+ commandments are summarized, recapitulated (stated briefly), brought together (anakefalaoutai) in the one commandment to Love Neighbor

"while you state multiple commandments are in lieu of this one rule."

• See just above
• You are not understanding or purposely misstating what I state. I am not stating what you say.
• I have looked at the Greek of Romans 13:9, detailed precisely what I read there, and have interpreted it just as I have above.
• There is no "in lieu of" in this language. This is an insertion you are making. This insertion is an example of eisegesis - inserting your ideas into the Text vs. letting it says what it says.
• The meaningful discussion here is the A=B, B=A logic we were dealing with some posts back.
  • Since Love Neighbor is a summary of 5+ Commandments, then if we list & combine those same 5+ Commandments, can they together be stated as Love Neighbor?
    • If they can, and if we're obeying those commandments [in Christ by the Spirit], then we're Loving Neighbor / we've Fulfilled Law.
    • We cannot be Loving Neighbor if we're not also keeping/doing those Commandments that, when brought together, are Love of Neighbor.

You said before that our discussion was over. Yet you returned. And I'm now reaching the conclusion of my response.

I agree with what Galatians 3:25 says and will even accept your interpretation of it. But this does not make your case.

• What do you do with the fact that Leviticus 19:18 - Love Neighbor - is part of the Mosaic Law and is shorthand for 5+ Commandments in Mosaic Law?
  • Are we free to commit adultery, to murder, to steel, to perjure, to covet as long as we Love Neighbor?
  • Are we free to do (or not do) those things stated in the "any other commandment(s)" Paul says are also stated briefly in the one Love Neighbor Command from Torah?
• What do you do with Love of God being Commanded in Law?

Do you think you might be misunderstanding and misapplying Galatians 3:25? Does not being "under law" truly mean we are not dealing with Commandments in Law?

I'll close with a request: If we are going to have any further discussion, in this thread or in others, please check your accusations and language. This is not the first thread in which you have bowed out ungracefully from discussion with me. If that's your process, I may just live with it, but from one Christian to another, it's not fitting. Please likewise call me on such if I should do similarly. This is actually in line with the context of Leviticus 19:18.

FWIW, my theology these days is simplified - what does the Text say? Years after I was trained in exegesis and hermeneutics and slotted into a certain hermeneutic in a certain theological camp and had done some battles with some in other camps with their different hermeneutics, a certain chain of events redirected me into some very specific, basic, foundational, time-redeeming and detailed studies. From this redirection, I came to realize that we can argue hermeneutics all we want, but if we're not finding the definitions of words as God uses them, then it really doesn't matter what our overall theory of interpretation is. I've learned more in some years of focused [basically] word studies using all of Scripture than I ever did arguing about hermeneutic theories & systematized theologies.

All you and I are really doing here is discussing what a few verses say in context and using grammatical principles in the process. You keep attacking me on this process, but you fall short of proving me wrong and then enter into personal attacks to provide cover for your falling short. I think you can do better. We all can & this is one of our goals in Christ.

 

[GDL]

@GDL Crickets. . .

Actually, out for the day.

Hadn't you ended discussion, twice at least?

 

[GDL]

@Clare73 Probably going into Crickets mode again in case you want to end discussion again

 

[GDL]

Salvation isn't accessed in OT Mosaic law keeping.

Thank you for this instruction. I'll assume the rest of your post is detail.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

Keep it civil, folks!​

 

[GDL]

ADVISOR HAT

Keep it civil, folks!​

Please be specific so we all can know where we may be off in your judgment.

Thank you.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Stop the call-outs.

 

[GDL]

Stop the call-outs.

Thanks!

 

[BrotherJJ]

Thank you for this instruction. I'll assume the rest of your post is detail.

I posted KJ Bible in post #45.

Find AMP Bible here all brackets & parenthesis are placed by their verifiable translators. Link to AMP version under verse 14

Gal 3:
10 For all who depend on the Law [seeking justification and salvation by obedience to the Law and the observance of rituals] are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed (condemned to destruction) is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, so as to practice them.”

11 Now it is clear that no one is justified [that is, declared free of the guilt of sin and its penalty, and placed in right standing] before God by the Law, for “The righteous (the just, the upright) shall live by faith.”

12 But the Law does not rest on or require faith [it has nothing to do with faith], but [instead, the Law] says, “He who practices them [the things prescribed by the Law] shall live by them [instead of faith].”

13 Christ purchased our freedom and redeemed us from the curse of the Law and its condemnation by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs [crucified] on a tree (cross)”

14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might also come to the Gentiles, so that we would all receive [the realization of] the promise of the [Holy] Spirit through faith.
Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 3 - Amplified Bible

(MY PARSING:
Vs 10, anyone seeking salvation thru law keeping is cursed & condemned to destruction, if they ever break 1 law, just 1 time.

Vs 11, No one is justified/declared free of the guilt of sin and its penalty & placed in right standing with God thru Law keeping. The righteous/just live by FAITH!

Vs 12, Live by the law, DIE by the law.

Vs 13, Christ purchased the believer's freedom & redeemed them from curse of the Law & its condemnations.

Vs 14, Believers like Abraham, are justified/saved/declared righteous/placed in right standing with God thru FAITH & not thru self-works of law keeping!)

 

[Clare73]

@GDL

Romans 13:8-10 puts us under one rule--love, for obedience to multiple commandments,
while you put us under multiple commandments for obedience to one rule--love.

Romans 13:8-10 states this one rule is in lieu of multiple commandments,
while you state multiple commandments are in lieu of this one rule.

The Text actually puts us under at minimum 2 rules (Commandments from Mosaic Law) and a 3rd NC Command in regard to Love (that actually also deals with Law & lawlessness): (1) Love God; (2) Love Neighbor; (3) Love one another as Christ Loved us.

Q.E.D.

All are the same one rule--love.

The grammatical gymnastics being applied to Romans 13:9-10 to bring it into agreement with an alternate interpretation speak so loudly their denial cannot be heard.

 

[GDL]

@GDL

Romans 13:8-10 puts us under one rule--love, for obedience to multiple commandments,
while you put us under multiple commandments for obedience to one rule--love.

Romans 13:8-10 states this one rule is in lieu of multiple commandments,
while you state multiple commandments are in lieu of this one rule.

Q.E.D.

All are the same one rule--love.

The grammatical gymnastics being applied to Romans 13:9-10 to bring it into agreement with an alternate interpretation speak so loudly their denial cannot be heard.

Back again? After 2-3 end of discussions?

"Grammatical gymnastics" allegation but no answer to the points and questions about the basic logic in language even when one sets the rule of "is" equates, makes equal.

If we don't use this basic logic contained in language, or explain why "is" does not equate, then we're left with people detaching God's Commandments from "Love", instead of God actually equating them with Love and defining Biblical Love for us, and now we have an antichrist, human viewpoint free-for-all telling us what love is. Or maybe it's just from Christian infancy or childhood. God knows.

Christianity is easy! All we have to do is love and we get to make up what that means! Thank you, Jesus for freeing us from God's standards for righteousness!

It's easy to be a Christian when we can make stuff up to suit ourselves. But our life of Love is this:

• NKJ 1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

And there's the New Birth information to deal with:

• LXE Ezekial 36:25-27 and I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be purged from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols, and I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and will put a new spirit in you: and I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you, and will cause you to walk in mine ordinances, and to keep my judgments, and do them.

And then there's Jesus' love for righteousness and hate for lawlessness:

• NKJ Hebrews 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."

• NET Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?' 23 Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!' (Literally, "the ones who work to accomplish lawlessness)

• According to my Lord, doing our Father's will is parallel to not doing lawlessness.

• We have law to tell us what is lawful, righteous.

It's really an errant theology to think we have nothing to do with God's Law anymore. It's being written on our hearts so we can do His will. It's a major part of instruction that defines Love. It's a problem when some work so hard to distance us from God's standards.

End of discussion again?

 

[Clare73]

Back again?

Romans 13:8-10 puts us under one rule--love, for obedience to multiple commandments,
while you put us under multiple commandments for obedience to one rule--love.

Romans 13:8-10 states this one rule is in lieu of multiple commandments,
while you state multiple commandments are in lieu of this one rule.

Contrary to some, love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:8-10).

Christianity is easy! All we have to do is love and we get to make up what that means!
Thank you, Jesus for freeing us from God's standards for righteousness!

Q.E.D.

God's NT standards for righteousness (justification and sanctification) are faith and love, respectively (Romans 3:28, Romans 13:10).

And sorry, simply obeying the Decalogue of "not's" does not satisfy the commandment to love (Romans 13:10), as illustrated in Jesus example of love, the good Samaritan.

 

[Mark Quayle]

As I said, the antinomian will usually take this back into an initial justification issue, mistaking either with purpose to derail the discussion or in misunderstanding the matter being discussed (God knows).

But we are talking about living the Christain Life & what it means to Love as God commands, not about the initial justification/acquittal that enters a person into Christianity - The Christian's relationship to God's Holy Law - God's Holy & Righteous & Good Commandment (Romans 7:12) - God's Good Law used lawfully (1 Timothy 1:8).

We are talking about not being deceived and about doing Righteousness just as God's Son & God are Righteous (1 John 3:7), because we seek and allow The Righteous God (Daniel 9:14; 1 John 2:1) to teach us by all of His Word what is Righteous and what is evil (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

I'm surprised no one has published a bible that has deleted the greatest written revelation of God's Law that exists. Maybe they have. Some simply do this in practice.

"Antinomian" is another of those words that gets used loosely, like, "freewill" and "christian". If I were to ask most people, and probably you, what you meant by it, you might say, "Against(Anti)-law". Well, @Clare73 is not at all what I call antinomian.

You seem not to understand why she speaks of justification and imputation in this discussion. To me, you don't seem to be listening, but just spouting. You are assuming what her reasons are. You are mistaken.