Does the Bible teach that obedience is expected after salvation?

[Frogster]

wow...okay, I showed you that you were wrong in what the elementary teachings are and you ignore that to talk about my original point that we are to move beyond that, as if I never said that. You know, moving beyond into righteousness....

Then, to make matters even worse, you keep talking about this puppy that you don't like being equated to because he obeys because he is disciplined into obedience, so I show how the son is disciplined into obedience, how Christ was taught obedience, and I'm not listening to you because the puppy is still a puppy....

So if I am the one not listening, then show me what I missed given the summary of our discussion in this post. Otherwise, I will assume you misspoke and move on to someone willing to listen and respond to me.

everyone knows, Heb 5-6 was telling them to leave the elementary things, it is clear as day, so you are wrong, with all due respect.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yes, amen, and works are wonderful, and if we think about it, should they be called works of obedience, or just doing what comes natural? If one has to be obedient to do a task, it may indicate that one does not really want to do it. If one just does it, great, but if everything is so obedience orientated, it makes me wonder. Some people are so caught up with living obediently, I think there dogmatism may indicate something. I say may indicate, maybe, maybe not, but quite possibly it does.

It is as though they are arguing with themselves, when they keep telling everyone, how they, the other people must be obedient. The naturally obedient ones are thinking.."well...ummmm..yeah, ok, fine no big deal, where is the argument?"


The argument might just be in the soul of the obedience people, they may be arguing with themselves, convincing themselves. Maybe...I say maybe...

as I read this post, I kept thinking that you must not have ever experienced someone sinning against you if your attitude is "no big deal". Take it from someone who has been the victim of sin, that sin is a huge deal. And no, I am not just talking about when others hurt me, I am talking about when I hurt others as well. Sin is a huge deal! which is why obedience is to necessary, because obedience demonstrates the Love of God to those who do not know that Love with an alive soul.

 

[razzelflabben]

I just feel that the people who are so centered on obedience, invariably must be under a merit system because if they do not do something, they will be punished within by fear or guilt, so then when they do it, there must then be an inner reward, all indicating a law life, where rules are everything, and the merit system of law prevails. Good guy, bad guy mindset.

It's elementary, my dear Watson.

woof, woof...

Personally, I see absolutely nothing in this that resembles what I hear people saying about obedience.

 

[Frogster]

Gal. 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.


Gal. 2:19 "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.


Notice that in both passages the dieing is to self and our selfish, prideful desires and will, not to the law itself. It is according to Gal. 2:19 through the law that I die, not the law that I am dying to. the power is over sin and death....I Cor. 15:57...not over the law but rather the power to fulfil the law....Matt. 5:17

well..ummm..yes. we died, I don't see your point, but the emphasis is, the law was died to, then Paul went onto live by the higher way, by faith. There is a sequence there, just like in Gal 4, the child grew, and then became anheir, leaving the childhood obedience classes. It is als seen in chaprer 3, no more grade school, bye bye to the tutor, hello Spirit. Chronologies in the text are important to note, because they show spiritual evolvement, growth, change, leaving the elementals already, like Heb 5;12.

That has been my premise all along, leave the elementals.

When we WERE children, it says, were....past tense...in 4:3.

No more>>>> stirct pedagogues.


Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,


No more govenors or guardians, or mangaers, they are for children..


4:2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father.

 

[Frogster]

are you confusing legalism with obedience? I am seriously trying to figure out what the heck you don't understand and this currently seems to be my best guess.

obedience can be fused with legalsim. How do you take obedience out of legalism?

 

[razzelflabben]

everyone knows, Heb 5-6 was telling them to leave the elementary things, it is clear as day, so you are wrong, with all due respect.

Honey, listen a moment...you told me that the fundamental things talked about were the Jewish traditions that they were suppose to leave behind. I took you to the text and showed you that the elementary teachings that we are to move forward with are not Jewish at all, but rather the basics of the cross. IOW's the Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Christ, therefore the elementary teachings cannot be the Jewish traditions. To which you keep going on about things you don't understand.

I seriously need you to respond to me, or just stop talking to me at all. The courtesy of responding to my posts by reflecting what I am saying is a small thing to ask of you.

 

[Frogster]

Kinda reminds me of that time when I divided church history up into the days of creation with Jesus ending the "third day" . People who drank the water of the word and breathed the holy spirit as living waters didn't like much being characterized as fish .. though i was trying to make a point that some people can exist in environments that are spiritually toxic or deadly for others .

well said bro! In debates, certain phrases, words, or analogies drive home a point. Jesus used an "offensive" word, to raise a point, and make her think.

Mark 7:Jesus told her, "First I should feed the children--my own family, the Jews. It isn't right to take food from the children and throw it to the dogs."

 

[razzelflabben]

well..ummm..yes. we died, I don't see your point, but the emphasis is, the law was died to,

I thought you were listening to me and I was the one not listening to you? The law didn't die, the law was fulfilled. It was through the law that I died, aka my desires, will, etc. It's a huge and important difference.....in fact, on an average day, I look at some 600-700 passages and I don't ever recall seeing a single passage that says that the law died. In fact, obedience fulfills the law. Now, just to be painfully clear, that does not mean we are still under the law, but as the passage you are responding to says, it is through the law (that is the fulfillment of the law) that I die to myself and live in Christ.

then Paul went onto live by the higher way, by faith.

no one here seems to be questioning the importance of faith in the walk of obedience. Seems your just repeating that to make you sound more mature and knowledgeable than you really are. But, as you say, I must not be listening to you because you keep ignoring what I say and not responding to my points.

There is a sequence there, just like in Gal 4, the child grew, and then became anheir, leaving the childhood obedience classes. It is als seen in chaprer 3, no more grade school, bye bye to the tutor, hello Spirit.

this takes us back to the OT law verses the NT law. I mentioned it before with passage, and you did not respond, presumably because I have not been listening to you. The OT law was fulfilled by Christ, which gave way to the NT law of Love. I can post the passages again with extras if you decide to respond to what I am saying. this NT law of love is what we are talking about obeying, not the OT law of Abraham.

Chronologies in the text are important to note, because they show spiritual evolvement, growth, change, leaving the elementals already, like Heb 5;12.

I pointed that out when I first posted the passage, our disagreement is on what the elementary teachings are of which I took my understanding straight from both passages. Where did you get yours from?

That has been my premise all along, leave the elementals.

When we WERE children, it says, were....past tense...in 4:3.

No more>>>> stirct pedagogues.


Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,


No more govenors or guardians, or mangaers, they are for children..


4:2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father.

that has never been questioned, in fact that was the premise from the moment the passage first entered the discussion. The disagreement on the table is what are the elementary teachings?

 

[Frogster]

Honey, listen a moment...you told me that the fundamental things talked about were the Jewish traditions that they were suppose to leave behind. I took you to the text and showed you that the elementary teachings that we are to move forward with are not Jewish at all, but rather the basics of the cross. IOW's the Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Christ, therefore the elementary teachings cannot be the Jewish traditions. To which you keep going on about things you don't understand.

I seriously need you to respond to me, or just stop talking to me at all. The courtesy of responding to my posts by reflecting what I am saying is a small thing to ask of you.

They had to leave behind Judaism, the temple life, and it's rituals. That was the thrust on a whole, of the book..

In 5:12, the writer was saying, we don't need elementalism, yes, that particular part, of 6, was not about Judaism, but i was trying to say, to go on to maturity was at issue there, and yes, the book was about how they were not to revert to judaism, it is twofold.

But even here, it is about leaving the elementary also.


6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 and of instruction about washings,[a] the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

That has been my point, in my passages, it is about leaving the abc's.

 

[razzelflabben]

obedience can be fused with legalsim. How do you take obedience out of legalism?

wow...okay, the easiest way for me to evidence the difference is the Amish community. I live in an Amish community and know them pretty well. They are very legalistic. For example, our neighbors were allowed a phone in the barn for business purposes. They used it for anything but because of legalism it was not allowed in the house and not suppose to be used for private business. Everything from the kind of wheels on their tools to the way they dress is under the law. This is legalism. BY contrast, obedience isn't about the law, as I have repeatedly said, it is about Love. It is about doing what brings glory to God. So for example, when the Amish call and want a ride, I love them with a ride to the store. I refrain from judgment, not because the law says, don't judge but because the "law of Love" says that judging others is not pleasing to God. Etc. etc. etc.

We are no longer under the law, iow's we are not bound to the OT law that governed every aspect of our lives with legalistic type things like what we could and could not do on the Sabbath. But the OT law gave way to the NT law of Love by which we are to live in obedience, even this very moment of this very day. Not by splitting hairs with what the intent of the law is saying, but rather with an understanding of what the intent of the law is. Scripture tells us that love sums up all the law and prophets, that makes love the very intent of the law, no more legalism required, we know the intent and the intent is Biblical Love.

 

[Frogster]

I thought you were listening to me and I was the one not listening to you? The law didn't die, the law was fulfilled. It was through the law that I died, aka my desires, will, etc. It's a huge and important difference.....in fact, on an average day, I look at some 600-700 passages and I don't ever recall seeing a single passage that says that the law died. In fact, obedience fulfills the law. Now, just to be painfully clear, that does not mean we are still under the law, but as the passage you are responding to says, it is through the law (that is the fulfillment of the law) that I die to myself and live in Christ. no one here seems to be questioning the importance of faith in the walk of obedience. Seems your just repeating that to make you sound more mature and knowledgeable than you really are. But, as you say, I must not be listening to you because you keep ignoring what I say and not responding to my points. this takes us back to the OT law verses the NT law. I mentioned it before with passage, and you did not respond, presumably because I have not been listening to you. The OT law was fulfilled by Christ, which gave way to the NT law of Love. I can post the passages again with extras if you decide to respond to what I am saying. this NT law of love is what we are talking about obeying, not the OT law of Abraham. I pointed that out when I first posted the passage, our disagreement is on what the elementary teachings are of which I took my understanding straight from both passages. Where did you get yours from? that has never been questioned, in fact that was the premise from the moment the passage first entered the discussion. The disagreement on the table is what are the elementary teachings?

red above, I did not say the law died, Paul died to it, so did Jesus, Rom 7:4, Col 2:20.

red above, Abe did not have the law.

Gal 3:17, it came 430 years later, Rom 5:13, there was a time of no law, rom 4:15 also confirms this.

 

[razzelflabben]

They had to leave behind Judaism, the temple life, and it's rituals.

froggy dude, they already had done that or they would not have been believers. That is the point. The elementary things are not leaving behind Judaism, that was already done, it is to go beyond the cross....but that I know I clearly stated.

That was the thrust on a whole, of the book..

read the passages again.

In 5:12, the writer was saying, we don't need elementalism, yes, that particular part was not about Judaism, but i was trying to say, to go on to maturity was at issue there, and yes, the book was about how they were not to revert to judaoism, it is twofold.

I presented the passage to show that we were to move beyond the cross why keep harping about what we agree on and ignore what we disagree on? Our disagreement is on what the elementary teachings are and the text tells us plainly enough what they are....care to play the game and pick them out of the text for us, rather than just continue to assert what you want it to say?

But even here, it is about leaving the elementary also.


6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 and of instruction about washings,[a] the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

That has been my point, in my passages, it is about leaving the abc's.

so what does the passage list as the elementary teachings? I listed them and you disagreed with me, maybe if you list them from the passage itself you will finally hear what I am telling you.

 

[jiminpa]

wow...okay, I showed you that you were wrong in what the elementary teachings are and you ignore that to talk about my original point that we are to move beyond that, as if I never said that. You know, moving beyond into righteousness....

Then, to make matters even worse, you keep talking about this puppy that you don't like being equated to because he obeys because he is disciplined into obedience, so I show how the son is disciplined into obedience, how Christ was taught obedience, and I'm not listening to you because the puppy is still a puppy....

So if I am the one not listening, then show me what I missed given the summary of our discussion in this post. Otherwise, I will assume you misspoke and move on to someone willing to listen and respond to me.

It's not you.

 

[razzelflabben]

red above, I did not say the law died, Paul died to it, so did Jesus, Rom 7:4, Col 2:20.

red above, Abe did not have the law.

Gal 3:17, it came 430 years later, Rom 5:13, there was a time of no law, rom 4:15 also confirms this.

lol...you did say the law died...so are you now changing your opinion on the matter?

 

[Frogster]

I thought you were listening to me and I was the one not listening to you? The law didn't die, the law was fulfilled. It was through the law that I died, aka my desires, will, etc. It's a huge and important difference.....in fact, on an average day, I look at some 600-700 passages and I don't ever recall seeing a single passage that says that the law died. In fact, obedience fulfills the law. Now, just to be painfully clear, that does not mean we are still under the law, but as the passage you are responding to says, it is through the law (that is the fulfillment of the law) that I die to myself and live in Christ. no one here seems to be questioning the importance of faith in the walk of obedience. Seems your just repeating that to make you sound more mature and knowledgeable than you really are. But, as you say, I must not be listening to you because you keep ignoring what I say and not responding to my points. this takes us back to the OT law verses the NT law. I mentioned it before with passage, and you did not respond, presumably because I have not been listening to you. The OT law was fulfilled by Christ, which gave way to the NT law of Love. I can post the passages again with extras if you decide to respond to what I am saying. this NT law of love is what we are talking about obeying, not the OT law of Abraham. I pointed that out when I first posted the passage, our disagreement is on what the elementary teachings are of which I took my understanding straight from both passages. Where did you get yours from? that has never been questioned, in fact that was the premise from the moment the passage first entered the discussion. The disagreement on the table is what are the elementary teachings?

in other words, in 5-6 it was about leaving both, obviously they were t leave Judaism, but also the other elementals were seen as the basic stuff, that they were called to go on from, it is twofold.

 

[Frogster]

lol...you did say the law died...so are you now changing your opinion on the matter?

if i did, it was a mistake, what post?

 

[Andry]

Reading all this back and forth has been interesting. Begs a few questions for me though: can we be anymore righteous than we already are (the God-kind, as imputed by him, not the self-righteous kind)? And therefore, can our actions or behavior make us more righteous?

 

[Frogster]

It's not you.

i have been clear, leave the elementals, in any form, they were obviously to leave behind Judaism, and yes, the basics mentioned in chapter 6 also.

I have been clear, and to that point, I stressed stoicheion as the abc's.

Judaism was legalistic, it was abc's. heberews is about abc's in 5:12, so my usage is correct.

Same as Gal 4, and my usage, and what it is saying.

 

[Frogster]

and just for the record folks, the two words here could be temple references, as per judaism, again it is twofold. They layed hands on the lambs, and washings in the plural, would be more than baptism, as we know it, there were temple washings, no big deal, just bringing that out.

They had to leave legalistic Judaism, and that is the thrust of the book.


6 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

 

[Frogster]

Reading all this back and forth has been interesting. Begs a few questions for me though: can we be anymore righteous than we already are (the God-kind, as imputed by him, not the self-righteous kind)? And therefore, can our actions or behavior make us more righteous?

I agree.

I love my puppy even when he is disobedient.