The law, the commandments, and Christians.

fhansen said:

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

Click to expand...

• 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).

Abraham1st said:

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

Click to expand...

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

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.

Click to expand...

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

HIM said:

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

Click to expand...

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

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.

Click to expand...

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

Abraham1st said:

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.

Click to expand...

Abraham1st said:

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.

Click to expand...

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Liturgist said:

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.

Click to expand...

Abraham1st said:

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

Click to expand...

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

Abraham1st said:

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

Click to expand...

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

Abraham1st said:

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

Click to expand...

fhansen said:

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).

Click to expand...

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...