The law, the commandments, and Christians.

[HIM]

None the less the way this Scripture is being applied here is still wrong. Taking this Scripture out of context of the rest of the New Testament and all of the Scripture I quoted previously here is an unsound hermeneutic.

Jesus said, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded. Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I [am] pure from the blood of all [men]. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
If the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take [any] person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.



Matt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.


Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I [am] pure from the blood of all [men].

Acts 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Ezek 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take [any] person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

This Scripture is not some random general truth to condemn silence in the face of evil or error.

Amos 5:10-13
10 They hate the one who reproves in the gate,
and they abhor the one who speaks the truth.
11 Therefore because you trample on the poor
and take from them levies of grain,
you have built houses of hewn stone,
but you shall not live in them;
you have planted pleasant vineyards,
but you shall not drink their wine.
12 For I know how many are your transgressions
and how great are your sins—you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe
and push aside the needy in the gate.
13 Therefore the prudent will keep silent in such a time,
for it is an evil time.



If one is asserting that a passage of Scripture means something that contradicts the rest of the Bible, I think their interpretation needs to change.

Yes we are not to throw His pearls to the swine. Let God be the Judge. As for now after the 2nd or 3rd admonition we will reject and kick the dust from our heals.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Well, yes, that is the point. We must remain in him and he and us.

The point is that it is not a slow fade. If Jesus were to exit our hearts, none of those things would continue to be true.

• We would not be one with the Father and the Son (Jn 17:22),
• We would not be in Him and He would not be in us (Jn 17:23),
• We would not be joined to the Lord and would not be one Spirit with Him (1 Cor 6:17),
• We would not have eternal life because life is in Jesus and Jesus would not be in us (1 Jn 5:11–12),
• We would not escape judgement because we had passed from life into death (Jn 5:24),
• With an veiled face, we would not behold the glory of the Lord and would not be transformed into the same image (2 Co 3:18),
• We would not be have the firstfruits of the Spirit, and we would not groan within ourselves, or eagerly await our adoption (Ro 8:23),
• We would not be earnestly desire clothing from above and would not have the Spirit as a guarantee (2 Co 5:1–5),
• We would not have the mind of Christ (1 Co 2:16),
• We would not know Him because He was not living in our hearts (Jn 14:19-23),
• He will have left us and forsaken us (Heb 13:5), and
• We would no longer be partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4).

And since you think it would be a slow fade, and not an instantaneous loss, I think it points to a difference of opinion on the residency of Jesus in a person's heart. And what I mean by that is that oneness with God is a spiritual matter. If we are one spirit with Him, that means our spirits are joined to His Spirt (1 Cor 6:17). And His exit from our hearts would be catastrophic. So I don't see how it's possible to believe on one hand that God's Spirit literally resides in our hearts and believe on the other hand that His exit from our hearts does not undo everything that His presence creates. In my mind, the only thing that reconciles those two beliefs is if oneness with God is something like "oneness in purpose" or "having the same mind" or "aliging ourselves with Him" or something along those lines.

 

[fhansen]

it has, amazing, the truth shall set us free=faith, and law was what we needed to be set free from.

True, properly understood. We're free from the idea, the curse, that mere external observance of the commandments (=legalism), will actually make one holy. We're no longer under the law, IOW. We still must obey the commandments but in a new way that God has provided, His way, by the Holy Spirit. under grace.

 

[fhansen]

The point is that it is not a slow fade. If Jesus were to exit our hearts, none of those things would continue to be true.

• We would not be one with the Father and the Son (Jn 17:22),
• We would not be in Him and He would not be in us (Jn 17:23),
• We would not be joined to the Lord and would not be one Spirit with Him (1 Cor 6:17),
• We would not have eternal life because life is in Jesus and Jesus would not be in us (1 Jn 5:11–12),
• We would not escape judgement because we had passed from life into death (Jn 5:24),
• With an veiled face, we would not behold the glory of the Lord and would not be transformed into the same image (2 Co 3:18),
• We would not be have the firstfruits of the Spirit, and we would not groan within ourselves, or eagerly await our adoption (Ro 8:23),
• We would not be earnestly desire clothing from above and would not have the Spirit as a guarantee (2 Co 5:1–5),
• We would not have the mind of Christ (1 Co 2:16),
• We would not know Him because He was not living in our hearts (Jn 14:19-23),
• He will have left us and forsaken us (Heb 13:5), and
• We would no longer be partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4).

And since you think it would be a slow fade, and not an instantaneous loss, I think it points to a difference of opinion on the residency of Jesus in a person's heart. And what I mean by that is that oneness with God is a spiritual matter. If we are one spirit with Him, that means our spirits are joined to His Spirt (1 Cor 6:17). And His exit from our hearts would be catastrophic. So I don't see how it's possible to believe on one hand that God's Spirit literally resides in our hearts and believe on the other hand that His exit from our hearts does not undo everything that His presence creates. In my mind, the only thing that reconciles those two beliefs is if oneness with God is something like "oneness in purpose" or "having the same mind" or "aliging ourselves with Him" or something along those lines.

It's simpler than this. We simply enter a state of justice as we turn to God in faith-which is "just" because we were made for the union that results and being apart from God is a gross injustice for creation, for us. That justice consisits of the remsision of sin and a new heart and spirit with which to overcome sin, to be holy. If we remain there, in Him, if we don't seriously return to the flesh, we will remain in and grow in holiness. We can also turn back away from Him. Nearness to God=holiness as nearness to God=love. to put it anoither way. If we begin to persistenty engage in unloving acts, acts of the more nefarious and ugly kind, then we're most likely not His, or not remaining in Him. We're not forced to remaiin, He's not creating puppets.

 

[Abraham1st]

True, properly understood. We're free from the idea, the curse, that mere external observance of the commandments (=legalism), will actually make one holy. We're no longer under the law, IOW. We still must obey the commandments but in a new way that God has provided, His way, by the Holy Spirit. under grace.

Actually to be saved you believe in God raising HIs Son from the dead, and what happens is you receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and are filled with the love of God.

The commandments to obey ( of the law) where given to people with no belief, no Holy Spirit, no love of God, and that was why the commandments of the law were given, because people have to be taught as with a school master ( the law) how to love, but that could never be understood until Jesus Christ came, then the school master is put away, as all childish things are, ( which is the law for those with no Son of God in them.) and the law of faith now applies, it also cant be taught by any man, it is your own faith, so all law teaching is heretical.

Here is a good deal, you dont teach me and i wont teach you.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

It's simpler than this. We simply enter a state of justice as we turn to God in faith-which is "just" because we were made for the union that results and being apart from God is a gross injustice for creation, for us. That justice consisits of the remsision of sin and a new heart and spirit with which to overcome sin, to be holy. If we remain there, in Him, if we don't seriously return to the flesh, we will remain in and grow in holiness. We can also turn back away from Him. Nearness to God=holiness as nearness to God=love. to put it anoither way. If we begin to persistenty engage in unloving acts, acts of the more nefarious and ugly kind, then we're most likely not His, or not remaining in Him. We're not forced to remaiin, He's not creating puppets.

That explains it. You think oneness with God is living in "a state of justice" which was created by remission of sin and a new heart and spirit with which we can overcome sin and be holy. You think we stay in that state of justice by not sinning too seriously, and if we do, then we remain near to God, His holiness, and His love. This view of oneness with God, as I speculated, is wholely divorced from Jesus' residency in our hearts and the benefits (see list above) that are solely dependent on His presence. Without this aspect of the Christian life, the good part is missing.

 

[The Liturgist]

Sorry you missed the point of that or felt the need to post your post. Take care

Oh I got the point you were trying to make, but since you based it on a cliche that was literally inapplicable to the name of Christ, and since the point is also theologically questionable, I felt obliged to explain the problem with it.

 

[fhansen]

That explains it. You think oneness with God is living in "a state of justice" which was created by remission of sin and a new heart and spirit with which we can overcome sin and be holy. You think we stay in that state of justice by not sinning too seriously, and if we do, then we remain near to God, His holiness, and His love. This view of oneness with God, as I speculated, is wholely divorced from Jesus' residency in our hearts and the benefits (see list above) that are solely dependent on His presence. Without this aspect of the Christian life, the good part is missing.

I don't know why, since Jesus is God. And yes, that union or communion is a state of justice/righteousness. It removes us from the unjust alienation from Him that Adam initiated for humankind. This is basic Christianity. And turning seriously back to the flesh marks a point of not remaining in Him; it certainly isn't a mark of His child.

 

[The Liturgist]

I don't know why, since Jesus is God. And yes, that union or communion is a state of justice/righteousness. It removes us from the unjust alienation from Him that Adam initiated for humankind. This is basic Christianity. And turning seriously back to the flesh marks a point of not remaining in Him; it certainly isn't a mark of His child.

This is the kind of elegant Christological soteriology I like to see: incarnational and Trinitarian.

 

[Abraham1st]

I don't know why, since Jesus is God. And yes, that union or communion is a state of justice/righteousness. It removes us from the unjust alienation from Him that Adam initiated for humankind. This is basic Christianity. And turning seriously back to the flesh marks a point of not remaining in Him; it certainly isn't a mark of His child.

Here is an interesting thought, the mark of a child of Jesus Christ, to be someone that is approved on a forum, or disapproved of, OR, it is by reality, and by if we did have the love of God in ourselves, to love others with the way the love of God is perceived/believed by us, so we know that it was freely given to us, so we freely give to them.



1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, BECAUSE HE LAYED HIS LIFE DOWN FOR US: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

 

[fhansen]

Actually to be saved you believe in God raising HIs Son from the dead, and what happens is you receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and are filled with the love of God.

The commandments to obey ( of the law) where given to people with no belief, no Holy Spirit, no love of God, and that was why the commandments of the law were given, because people have to be taught as with a school master ( the law) how to love, but that could never be understood until Jesus Christ came, then the school master is put away, as all childish things are, ( which is the law for those with no Son of God in them.) and the law of faith now applies, it also cant be taught by any man, it is your own faith, so all law teaching is heretical.

Here is a good deal, you dont teach me and i wont teach you.

Fair enough, except that I liked what you were saying here. To the extent that we remain in Him, we will have received that love and it will remain and grow, especially as we express or act upon it. From that point, we won't be breaking the commandments whether or not we've ever heard them. In this way the requirement for holiness in order to enter life found in Rom 6:23 and elswhere is satisfied.

 

[The Liturgist]

you seem to be questioning for nothing much, what Jesus Christ brought was grace, and sin was what was before what Christ brought, and truth is what was not brought before, as there is no truth in death which was on all the world, so sin did change, the command to repent was given to all the world, and the preaching of the cross is what causes that repentance, as men can then believe in life and no longer death.

Sin was all there was, along, and binding, then eternal life came, which is Jesus Christ coming in the flesh which the antichrist spirit denies, so confession of this alone is the overcoming of sin, which could not be overcome before, so sin did change, it was defeated, it was replacing death by life, sin in its strength to weakness and gone, nailed to the cross of Christ, for us to also be risen away from sin up into heaven with Him.

The problem with this anomialist argument is that it presupposes sin to be a false construct and seems to miss the point agreed upon by the early church, that sin was real, that sin is real, that sin remains a real problem for Christians even after they profess faith, and is a means by which some, if possible, might even fall away from the faith (Calvinists and others might take different views on whether they had a real faith or not to begin with, but nonetheless, a falling away can occur and a vector by which this occurs seems to be through different categories of sIn).

Thus I stand by my assesment of the earlier post as exquisite; this extreme sort of nuda fide argument would I suspect make Martin Luther very uncomfortable (indeed I would rather enjoy seeing the commentary of @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis or @Ain't Zwinglian on this issue), despite the great effort Luther put into the idea of the law vs. gospel dichotomy.

 

[Abraham1st]

Fair enough, except that I liked what you were saying here. To the extent that we remain in Him, we will have received that love and it will remain and grow, especially as we express or act upon it. From that point, we won't be breaking the commandments whether or not we've ever heard them. In this way the requirement for holiness in order to enter life found in Rom 6:23 and elswhere is satisfied.

but this is not about liking whats said is it, its about liking what we can do through that love and faith in us.

 

[Abraham1st]

The problem with this anomialist argument is that it presupposes sin to be a false construct and seems to miss the point agreed upon by the early church, that sin was real, that sin is real, that sin remains a real problem for Christians even after they profess faith, and is a means by which some, if possible, might even fall away from the faith (Calvinists and others might take different views on whether they had a real faith or not to begin with, but nonetheless, a falling away can occur and a vector by which this occurs seems to be through different categories of sIn).

Thus I stand by my assesment of the earlier post as exquisite; this extreme sort of nuda fide argument would I suspect make Martin Luther very uncomfortable (indeed I would rather enjoy seeing the commentary of @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis or @Ain't Zwinglian on this issue), despite the great effort Luther put into the idea of the law vs. gospel dichotomy.

love works no ill


Romans 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

 

[fhansen]

but this is not about liking whats said is it, its about liking what we can do through that love and faith in us.

Geez, whatever. I follow Jesus because I like what He says but...whatever. Might as well make an argument out of it if we can.

 

[Abraham1st]

Geez, whatever. I follow Jesus because I like what He says but...whatever. Might as well make an argument out of it if we can.

sure, lets see if your gamble to talk instead of to lay the life down for our friends is the better option, or just agree to whats told of the greatest love and we do it, or dont agree whats it matter to me, your decisions im sure

 

[fhansen]

sure, lets see if your gamble to talk instead of to lay the life down for our friends is the better option, or just agree to whats told of the greatest love and we do it, or dont agree whats it matter to me, your decisions im sure

If we truly love, then it should matter to us. Either way so far all's I've heard from either one of us is talk since that's the nature of the forums and that may be all it is:talk. Now, if you're out there doing a good job of loving then you're one of His. But that's all I've been saying all along.

 

[Abraham1st]

If we truly love, then it should matter to us. Either way so far all's I've heard from either one of us is talk since that's the nature of the forums and that may be all it is:talk. Now, if you're out there doing a good job of loving then you're one of His. But that's all I've been saying all along.

then say just that, nothing else, and i dont understand why you have seemed to have joined in with law discussions, approving of them

 

[fhansen]

then say just that, nothing else, and i dont understand why you have seemed to have joined in with law discussions, approving of them

It's simple. There's nothing to fear with the law for those who love. And if we're not loving well then the law serves as a reminder of that fact. And until we're"perfected in love", presumably not fully complete until the next life, then we have the possibility of failing at it.

So the churches have always upheld the commandment because they reflect or testifies to what love "looks like" in some basic terms, even if we know that the only authentic way of fulfilling it is by communion with God, by the Holy Spirit, by the love He pours into our hearts (Rom 5:5).

 

[Abraham1st]

It's simple. There's nothing to fear with the law for those who love. And if we're not loving well then the law serves as a reminder of that fact. And until we're"perfected in love", presumably not fully complete until the next life, then we have the possibility of failing at it.

So the churches have always upheld the commandment because they reflect what love "looks like" or testifies to in some basic terms, even if we know that the only authentic way of fulfilling it is by communion with God, by the Holy Spirit, by the love He pours into our hearts (Rom 5:5).

No the law is gone, it serves as only a reminder of weakness, not of strength, and the only reminder we have to be saved is to believe in Jesus Christ laying down HIs life for our sins, as He LOVED US.

i dont know what churches do, they are not with me.