WHEN WAS THE LAW TAKEN AWAY. AND GRACE BEGAN. ??

eleos1954 · Dec 21, 2025

Hentenza said:
What you are missing is the actual legal effect of Justification. The believer is declared righteous through Christ’s work not ours. We can’t get justified by keeping the law. During the life long process of sanctification the believer progressively becomes more obedience via imitating the love of Christ (hence two love commandments). We are still sinful so the spirit now convicts us of our sin and brings us to repentance which is something that the law could never do.

Agreed.

For the unbeliever this is true. For the believer the Spirit has that role.

For the unbeliever this is true but not for the believer since we are a new creation in Christ,.

For the un believer this is true but for the believers we have already accepted the gospel by the grace of God through faith in the Son. Holiness will not happen in this earth since that is glorification which fully removes our sinful nature. Sanctification gets us closer but our sinful nature remains.

As Paul says we run the race

2 Timothy 4:7: Paul reflects, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith," a powerful statement of perseverance.

The race isn't about competition but about training our bodies and minds to finish strong, with God as the Coach, for the prize of eternal life.

Jesus will finish His work in us. Jesus will take us over the finish line when He returns.

Philippians 1:6
AMPC
And I am convinced and sure of this very thing, that He Who began a good work in you will continue until the day of Jesus Christ [right up to the time of His return], developing [that good work] and perfecting and bringing it to full completion in you.

Hentenza · Dec 21, 2025

eleos1954 said:
As Paul says we run the race

2 Timothy 4:7: Paul reflects, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith," a powerful statement of perseverance.

The race isn't about competition but about training our bodies and minds to finish strong, with God as the Coach, for the prize of eternal life.

Jesus will finish His work in us. Jesus will take us over the finish line when He returns.

I am in agreement with you here but how does this relate to following the law?

eleos1954 said:
Philippians 1:6
AMPC
And I am convinced and sure of this very thing, that He Who began a good work in you will continue until the day of Jesus Christ [right up to the time of His return], developing [that good work] and perfecting and bringing it to full completion in you.

Keep reading. The love is what increases not the law.

“And this I pray, that your love may overflow still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may discover the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and blameless for the day of Christ; having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, for the glory and praise of God.”
‭‭Philippians‬ ‭1‬:‭9‬-‭11‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Philippians 1:9-11 (NASB2020) - And this I pray, that your love may | YouVersion

And this I pray, that your love may overflow still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may discover the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and blameless fo

bible.com

eleos1954 · Dec 21, 2025

Hentenza said:
I am in agreement with you here but how does this relate to following the law?

Keep reading. The love is what increases not the law.

“And this I pray, that your love may overflow still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may discover the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and blameless for the day of Christ; having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, for the glory and praise of God.”
‭‭Philippians‬ ‭1‬:‭9‬-‭11‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Philippians 1:9-11 (NASB2020) - And this I pray, that your love may | YouVersion

And this I pray, that your love may overflow still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may discover the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and blameless fo

bible.com

the Ten Commandments are considered the Law of Love, summarizing the two greatest commands: love God and love your neighbor, with the first four commandments focusing on God and the last six on people, forming a blueprint for a life of love and freedom from sin's bondage. They aren't just rules, but expressions of God's loving character and guidance for a fulfilled life, demonstrating love in action.

Hentenza · Dec 21, 2025

eleos1954 said:
the Ten Commandments are considered the Law of Love, summarizing the two greatest commands: love God and love your neighbor, with the first four commandments focusing on God and the last six on people, forming a blueprint for a life of love and freedom from sin's bondage. They aren't just rules, but expressions of God's loving character and guidance for a fulfilled life, demonstrating love in action.

It’s the other way around. The two love commandments summarize all of the law and the prophets (Matt. 22:40). Nothing is left of the law for the believer since the law is no longer the believer’s guardian (Gal. 3:25). Believers now walk in the Spirit (Rom. 8:2-4). The Spirit now convicts the believer of our sins (John 16:8) and bring us to repentance (Acts 20:21-22). No need for the law.

HIM · Dec 25, 2025

Hentenza said:
No one is saved by keeping the law.

They did not say that in the quote you quoted. You have a bad habit of saying people say things they haven't.

Hentenza said:
It’s the other way around. The two love commandments summarize all of the law and the prophets (Matt. 22:40).

Thus saith you not Matt 22:40. For it is written, On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Nowhere in the definition of hang is the word summarized used! If something is hanging on something it is supported by it. It depends on it.

In other words, the Law is supported by Love of God and man.

This is simple to see and understand. Stop twisting things!

Hentenza said:
Nothing is left of the law for the believer since the law is no longer the believer’s guardian (Gal. 3:25).

Because we are dead but live, yet not us, but Christ lives in us and the life we now live in the flesh we live by the FAITH OF THE Son of God who gave Himself for us. The Law is for the sinner which we are not if we are dead and living by the Faith Of the Son of God through the Spirit. We can not do the the things that we would.

Hentenza said:
Believers now walk in the Spirit (Rom. 8:2-4).

That the Righteousness of the Law be fulfilled in us.

Hentenza said:
The Spirit now convicts the believer of our sins (John 16:8) and bring us to repentance (Acts 20:21-22). No need for the law.

No need for the Law because the Law is for the sinner.

Hentenza · Dec 25, 2025

HIM said:
They did not say that in the quote you quoted. You have a bad habit of saying people say things they haven't.

The poster that I responded made the following comment: “ Grace isn't freedom fromGod's law but power to keep it.” Hence my comment. If you work for grace then grace is no longer grace.

You have a bad habit of missing the argument.

HIM said:
Thus saith you not Matt 22:40. For it is written, On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

It’s pretty simple really because that is exactly what it says.

“Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22‬:‭40‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Matthew 22:40 (NASB2020) - Upon these two commandments hang th | YouVersion

Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”

bible.com

HIM said:
Nowhere in the definition of hang is the word summarized used! If something is hanging on something it is supported by it. It depends on it.

It doesn’t have to say summarize. The word kremannumi can be translated as depend or summed up.

HIM said:
In other words, the Law is supported by Love of God and man.

This is simple to see and understand. Stop twisting things!

You are the one redefining words to suit your pet doctrine.

HIM said:
Because we are dead but live, yet not us, but Christ lives in us and the life we now live in the flesh we live by the FAITH OF THE Son of God who gave Himself for us. The Law is for the sinner which we are not if we are dead and living by the Faith Of the Son of God through the Spirit. We can not do the the things that we would.

The law is for the sinner that is yet to come to Christ since they are yet to believe. The law shows the unbeliever the need for a savior. You really need to study the meaning of justification.

HIM said:
That the Righteousness of the Law be fulfilled in us.

That has already happened through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. And that is the problem with legalists like you that don’t understand the awesome result of Jesus sacrifice for the believer.

HIM said:
No need for the Law because the Law is for the sinner.

Yep. The sinner that is yet to believe in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ. Do you understand the actual meaning of redemption?

Hint:
“For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1‬:‭13‬-‭14‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Colossians 1:13-14 (NASB2020) - For He rescued us from the domain o | YouVersion

For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

bible.com

HIM · Friday at 6:40 AM

Hentenza said:
The poster that I responded made the following comment: “ Grace isn't freedom fromGod's law but power to keep it.” Hence my comment. If you work for grace then grace is no longer grace.

You have a bad habit of missing the argument.

It’s pretty simple really because that is exactly what it says.

“Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22‬:‭40‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

It doesn’t have to say summarize. The word kremannumi can be translated as depend or summed up.

You are the one redefining words to suit your pet doctrine.

What? The word is used 7 times in the NT. Nowhere can the phrase summed up be used and the verse have the same meaning. As a matter of fact, if you used summed up in 6 of them it wouldn't even make sense. Here are the 6: Matt 18:6, Luk 23:39, Acts 5:30, 10:39, 28:4, and Gal 3:13.

Hentenza · Friday at 7:11 AM

HIM said:
What? The word is used 7 times in the NT. Nowhere can the phrase summed up be used and the verse have the same meaning. As a matter of fact, if you used summed up in 6 of them it wouldn't even make sense. Here are the 6: Matt 18:6, Luk 23:39, Acts 5:30, 10:39, 28:4, and Gal 3:13.

The definition is the definition. You can’t change it just because it does not “make” sense to you.

Even in the Thayer lexicon it states:

Matthew 22:40, where the meaning is, all the Law and the Prophets (i.e. the teaching of the O.T. On morality) is summed up in these two precepts.

HIM · Friday at 7:30 AM

Hentenza said:
The definition is the definition. You can’t change it just because it does not “make” sense to you.

Even in the Thayer lexicon it states:

Matthew 22:40, where the meaning is, all the Law and the Prophets (i.e. the teaching of the O.T. On morality) is summed up in these two precepts.

Your post is a prime example of The danger of not knowing.
Thayer huh? What is behind the 1 and 2 are the definitions. Not the a and b. The a and b are how Thayer sees the word being used. Not how the word is defined. Key word in his summation in a and b is the word used.

Here is Thayer's
- Definition:
1. to hang up or suspend
2. to be suspended, to hang
a. used of one hanging on a cross
b. used of the law and prophets, they is summed up or hanging on two precepts

The a and b that follows the second citation is not how the word is defined. It is how Thayer seen them being used, his commentary in respect to the text to which the word is used. Suspend and hang are synonyms. They are what define the word Summed up does not fit. Summed up and hanging are not synonyms. Summed up and suspend are not synonyms.

Hentenza · Friday at 8:03 AM

HIM said:
Your post is a prime example of The danger of not knowing.
Thayer huh? What is behind the 1 and 2 are the definitions. Not the a and b. The a and b are how Thayer sees the word being used. Not how the word is defined. Key word in his summation in a and b is the word used.

Here is Thayer's
- Definition:
1. to hang up or suspend
2. to be suspended, to hang
a. used of one hanging on a cross
b. used of the law and prophets, they is summed up or hanging on two precepts

The an and b that follows the second citation is not how the word is defined. It is how Thayer seen them being used, his commentary in respect to the text to which the word is used. Suspend and hang are synonyms. They are what define the word Summed up does not fit. Summed up and hanging are not synonyms. Summed up and suspend are not synonyms.

Then go argue with Thayer. Apparently you are a Greek scholar with years of experience.

HIM · Friday at 8:06 AM

Something else must be said. Not many people read these posts. But all who do should be telling you of your error here. Even those who believe as you do.

Hentenza said:
Then go argue with Thayer. Apparently you are a Greek scholar with years of experience.

That is your argument when shown something and have no real rebuttal.
You resort to this a lot.

See my signature.
Take care.

Hentenza · Friday at 8:22 AM

HIM said:
Something else must be said. Not many people read these posts. But all who do should be telling you of your error here. Even those who believe as you do.

That is your argument when shown something and have no real rebuttal.
You resort to this a lot.

See my signature.
Take care.

Nah. Your problem is attempting to define what you are not qualified to define. My doctorate is in history not languages so when I am researching an ancient artifact I enlist experts to help in the research. In fact when researching an ancient artifact there is usually a team of researchers which are experts in a variety of disciplines.

I have seen many people like you that think that they are good enough to do it on their own only to fall because of some kind of bias. In your case your bias is your unbendable belief which you attempt to conform into the evidence even when the evidence points to a different direction. You should apply your signature to yourself.

HIM · Friday at 8:32 AM

Hentenza said:
Nah.

Yes as seen in your immediate replies. If you had any argument you would have posted it. You didn’t.

I am done with you in respect to this.

Hentenza · Friday at 8:44 AM

HIM said:
Yes as seen in your immediate replies. If you had any argument you would have posted it. You didn’t.

I am done with you in respect to this.

So I see that you just ignored the rest of my post. I’m not surprised.

HIM · Friday at 8:48 AM

Hentenza said:
So I see that you just ignored the rest of my post. I’m not surprised.

It isn’t relevant. Just like your reply here above isn’t. None of it addresses the posts that reveal your lie in respect Matt. By…

Hentenza · Friday at 8:53 AM

HIM said:
It isn’t relevant. Just like your reply here above isn’t. None of it addresses the posts that reveal your lie in respect Matt. By…

It is very relevant and addressed the post perfectly. You are contesting Thayers lexicon but you are not qualified to contest it so all you are saying is that you disagree with it. Your opinion is not evidence.

BTW- accusing others of lying shows your inability of addressing the argument so you resort to ad Homs. Civil conversation does not include ad Homs.

HIM · Saturday at 4:47 AM

Hentenza said:
It is very relevant and addressed the post perfectly. You are contesting Thayers lexicon but you are not qualified to contest it so all you are saying is that you disagree with it. Your opinion is not evidence.

No I am contesting your ability to use it and am trying to show you how to use it properly

Hentenza · Saturday at 7:39 AM

HIM said:
No I am contesting your ability to use it and am trying to show you how to use it properly

Using it is simple. All you do is read since they have done the linguistic work for you. I’m not sure why you find that so difficult.

Hentenza · Saturday at 7:43 AM

@HIM

Here is the definition from another lexicon.

89.2 κρέμαμαι: to be in a relation of dependency upon something—‘to depend upon.’ ἐν ταύταις ταῖς δυσὶν ἐντολαῖς ὅλος ὁ νόμος κρέμαται καὶ οἱ προφῆται ‘the entire Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments’ Mt 22:40.

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. 1996.

throughfierytrial · Saturday at 7:45 AM

The Law was taken away at the cross.
Colossians 2:14

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

WHEN WAS THE LAW TAKEN AWAY. AND GRACE BEGAN. ??

God is Love

I will fear no evil for You are with me

God is Love

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Friend

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Friend

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Friend

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Friend

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Friend

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Friend

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Friend

I will fear no evil for You are with me

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Truth-Lover

Similar threads