Moralism failed me, so where is my righteousness?

Gary K · Jul 24, 2023

oikonomia said:
Do you think this gift of the law is the greatest gift God has given us?

Do you think there is any other gift that God has given us greater that the gift of the law and its instructions?

Do you feel that all other gifts God has given are not as important as the gift of the law?

Where do you get this idea? Jesus is the most important person in the universe to humanity but Jesus also gave us the 10 commandments and because we love Him we think it is not only our duty but out privilege to obey Him. He told us this Himself. If you love me keep my commandments.

All of His commandments are based upon the principle of God's love. If we love Him most of all we will keep the first four and we will love other as ourselves and thus keep the last six through His power to replace the selfishness inherent in our human nature with His love for others. That is not legalism any more than doing what your wife asks you to do because you love her.

oikonomia · Jul 24, 2023

Gary K said:
Where do you get this idea?

I asked Soyeng three genuine questions.
What do you mean by "Where do you get this idea?"
What do I mean by asking Soyeng the questions??

Gary K said:
Jesus is the most important person in the universe to humanity but Jesus also gave us the 10 commandments and because we love Him we think it is not only our duty but out privilege to obey Him. He told us this Himself. If you love me keep my commandments.

So you believe that when Jesus said keep His commandments He was refering to the ten commandments?
I believe that I told you before, the commandments of the indwelling Jesus are far too many, far too minute, far too intimate and personal, far too tailored made for each individual and on a specialized detail level to be codified, even in the Ten Commandments.

I do not agree with your concept that Jesus simplied told His disciples to go off and learn the Ten Commandments as His commandments, and keep them. I don't think you would say Jesus meant that when He said He gave His disciples a NEW commandment.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. (John 13:24)

Why didn't He just refer them to one of the OLD commandments of the Ten?

Gary K said:
All of His commandments are based upon the principle of God's love. If we love Him most of all we will keep the first four and we will love other as ourselves and thus keep the last six through His power to replace the selfishness inherent in our human nature with His love for others. That is not legalism any more than doing what your wife asks you to do because you love her.

There are many Orthodox Jews who would not DARE to utter that Jesus is the Son of God.
They say they love God and try to keep the first four plus six commandments of Torah.

There are Hasidic Jews by the thousands in Brooklyn New York who take very seriously the Ten Commandments.
They would not want to be with you as a Christian and probably would not even shake hands with you.

Ask one of them if they love Christ the Son of God and His disciples.
Ask them if they keep this "new commandment" Jesus commanded.

Gary K · Jul 24, 2023

oikonomia said:
I asked Soyeng three genuine questions.
What do you mean by "Where do you get this idea?"
What do I mean by asking Soyeng the question??

So you believe that when Jesus said keep His commandments He was refering to the ten commandments?
I believe that I told you before, the commandments of Jesus are far too many, far too minute, far to intimate and personal, far too tailored made for each individual and on a specialized detail level to be codified, even in the Ten Commandments.

I do not agree with your concept that Jesus simplied told His disciples to go off and learn the Ten Commandments as His commandments, and keep them. I don't think you would say Jesus meant that when He said He gave His disciples a NEW commandment.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. (John 13:24)

Why didn't He just refer them to one of the OLD commandments of the Ten?

There are many Orthodox Jews who would not DARE to utter that Jesus is the Son of God.
They say they love God and try to keep the first four plus six commandments of Torah.

There are Hasidic Jews by the thousands in Brooklyn New York who take very seriously the Ten Commandments.
They would not want to be with you as a Christian and probably would not even shake hands with you.

Ask one of them if they love Christ the Son of God and His disciples.
Ask them if they keep this "new commandment" Jesus commanded.

What do what your accusations have to do with reality? Jesus disciples were all Jews. They had been taught the 10 commandments since they were little. They were taught the commandments but just as the Pharisees didn't understand the basics of them that they were to love God and their fellow man.

Remember the lawyer told Jesus that the core of the 10 was to love God most of all and their neighbor as themself. He was a minority of 1 among the Pharisees as they hated Jesus, IOW, while they claimed to uphold the law they were in direct violation of it's principles. Read the sermon on the mount where Jesus expanded the meaning of the 10 to the unbelieving Pharisees and the people. Those are principles not an emotion and everyone is capable of following a principle. Especially so if we ask Jesus into our hearts and ask Him to make us capable of living by His principles.

I don't care if a Hasidic Jew hates me. Jesus said:

Mat_5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

oikonomia · Jul 24, 2023

Gary K said:
What do what your accusations have to do with reality?

They were questions not accusatins. Why don't you see how Soyeng answers and see then IF I respond?

Gary K said:
Jesus disciples were all Jews. They had been taught the 10 commandments since they were little.

I don't see what this has to do with my questions to which I AWAIT Soyeng's answer.

Gary K said:
They were taught the commandments but just as the Pharisees didn't understand the basics of them that they were to love God and their fellow man.

I know they learned those commandments. This does not erase the fact that Jesus gave them "a new commandment."
He did not say there that He was giving them one of the OLD commandments that they learned before from the Ten Commandments.

Gary K said:
Remember the lawyer told Jesus that the core of the 10 was to love God most of all and their neighbor as themself.

But even there the Lord added a new commandment. "And come follow Me."
He also told him to go sell his possessions (which we many) and he would be perfect.

Neither of those instructions can be found in the Ten Commandments.
This is why I said that the commandments of Jesus were tailor made and calibrated specifically to each disciple.
And it is much more so now that He is the living Spirit indwelling the disciples in His resurrected form.

Gary K said:
He was a minority of 1 among the Pharisees as they hated Jesus, IOW, while they claimed to uphold the law they were in direct violation of it's principles.

Not sure what IOW means. But they did not love God becomes a man in the Son of God. They refused to follow Him and He was God as a man. Nor would they obey to believe in Him or receive His commands to them. They did not have "the obedience of faith." (Rom. 1:5; 16:26)

Gary K said:
Read the sermon on the mount where Jesus expanded the meaning of the 10 to the unbelieving Pharisees and the people.

Now Jesus deepened and made more penetrating the morality of the commandments to the disciples. That sermon was to those
who asended up the mountain to hear Him.

And when He saw the crowds, He went up to the mountain. And after He sat down, His disciples came to Him.
And opening His mouth, He taught them, saying, (Matt. 5:1,2)

Gary K said:
Those are principles not an emotion and everyone is capable of following a principle. Especially so if we ask Jesus into our hearts and ask Him to make us capable of living by His principles.

I don't care if a Hasidic Jew hates me. Jesus said:

My point is not whether you care or not.
My point is that having and trying to live the Ten Commandments these are not in obedience to the commands of Jesus.

Ask Soyeng, why don't you, to answer my three questions.

Gary K · Jul 24, 2023

They were questionsnot accusatins. Why don't you see how Soyeng answers and see then IF I respond?

I don't see what this has to do with my questions to which I AWAIT Soyeng's answer.

I know they learned those commandments. This does not erase the fact that Jesus gave them "a new commandment."
He did not say there that He was giving them one of the OLD commandments that they learned before from the Ten Commandments.

But even there the Lord added a new commandment. "And come follow Me."
He also told him to go sell his possessions (which we many) and he would be perfect.

Neither of those instructions can be found in the Ten Commandments.
This is why I said that the commandments of Jesus were tailor made and calibrated specifically to each disciple.
And it is much more so now that He is the living Spirit indwelling the disciples in His resurrected form.

Not sure what IOW means. But they did not love God becomes a man in the Son of God. They refused to follow Him and He was God as a man. Nor would they obey to believe in Him or receive His commands to them. They did not have "the obedience of faith." (Rom. 1:5; 16:26)

Now Jesus deepened and made more penetrating the morality of the commandments to the disciples. That sermon was to those
who asended up the mountain to hear Him.

And when He saw the crowds, He went up to the mountain. And after He sat down, His disciples came to Him.
And opening His mouth, He taught them, saying, (Matt. 5:1,2)

My point is not whether you care or not.
My point is that having and trying to live the Ten Commandments these are not in obedience to the commands of Jesus.

Ask Soyeng, why don't you, to answer my three questions.

I see you ignored my comment on the the Pharisees nor the disciples understanding that love was the entire basis of the 10. That negates most of the rest of your comments.

The only one left is your comments on the hatred of the Hasidic Jews. They are like that because they follow the Talmud as closely as it i humanly possible to follow it. I'll give you a quote from it on Sabbath keeping and it will become clear why I say what I do.

GEMARA: We were taught (Shebuoth, IV. 2): "The acts
p. 2
of transfer on the Sabbath are two, respectively four." Why is this teaching here specified as two
respectively four on the inside, and two respectively four on the outside, and there no such
specification was made? Said R. Papa: Here the special subject of treatment is the Sabbath, and
the Mishna enumerated the cases which involve guilt and those which do not involve guilt;
while there the principal subject of treatment is a different one, and he mentions only the cases
that involve guilt, leaving the cases that do not involve guilt untouched. But the cases that
involve guilt are those by which acts of transfer are committed, and such are only two? Nay,
there are two acts of transfer from within and two from without. But the Mishna says,
"Yetziath" (which in a literal sense means transfer from within)? Said R. Ashi: The Tana calls
transfer from without by the same term. And for what reason? Because every act of removing a
thing from its place is called Yetziah. Said Rabbina: The Mishna also bears out this sense; for it
speaks of Yetziath and immediately illustrates its remark by citing a case from without. This
bears it out. Rabha, however, says: He (the Tana) speaks about divided premises (whose line of
division is crossed), and in this case there are only two (in each of which there may be four acts
of transfer).
Said R. Mathna to Abayi: Are there not eight, even twelve (instances of transfer over the line of
division)? 1 And he rejoined: Such transfers as involve the obligation of a sin-offering are
counted; but those that do not involve such an obligation are not counted.
"They are both free." Was not the act (of transfer) committed by both? Said R. Hyya bar Gamda:
The act of removing the thing was committed by the joint efforts of both, and they (the rabbis)
said: "It is written in the law, when a person did it" 2--i.e., when one person commits the act he
is culpable, but when an act is committed by the joint efforts of two persons, they are both free.
Rabh questioned Rabbi: If one were laden by his friend with eatables and beverages and carried
them outside (of the house), how is the law? Is the removing of his body tantamount to the
removing of a thing from its place, and therefore he is culpable, or is it not so?
p. 3
Said Rabbi to him: He is culpable. And this case is not like the case of removing his hand. Why
so? Because (in the latter case) the hand was not at rest, while (in the former) the body (before
and after removal) was entirely at rest. 1
Said Rabbi Hyya to Rabh: Descendant of nobles! Did I not tell thee that when Rabbi is engaged
with a certain tract ask him not about a subject (that is treated) in another tract, for he may not
have that subject in his mind! And if Rabbi were not a great man thou mightest cause him
shame, for he would give thee an answer which might not be right. In this instance, however, he
gave thee a correct answer; as we have learned in the following Boraitha: If one was laden with
eatables and beverages while it was yet light on the eve of Sabbath, and he carried them outside
after dark, he is culpable; for his case is not like that of removing the hand mentioned above.
Abayi said: From all that was said above it is certain to me that the hand of a man (standing on
the street) is not treated as public ground. 2 And I also see that (if a man stands on private
ground) his hand is not to be treated a-, private ground. Would it be correct, then, to regard the
hand as unclaimed ground? If so, would the penalty imposed by the rabbis in such a case,
namely, that one should not move his hand (containing a movable thing) back (during the
Sabbath day), apply in this case or not?
Come and hear the following Boraitha: If a man has his hand filled with fruit and he extends it
outside (of the premises where he stands), one said he is not permitted to draw it back, and
another Boraitha says he is allowed to do so. May we not assume that this is their point of
dispute: the former holds that the hand is treated as unclaimed ground, and the latter thinks that
it is not like unclaimed ground? Nay, it may be that both agree that the hand (as spoken of in our
Mishna) is like unclaimed ground, and yet it presents no difficulty. One of the Boraithas treats
of a man who had extended his hand unintentionally, and the other one treats of a man who had
put forth his hand intentionally. In the former case the rabbis did not
p. 4
fine him, and in the latter case they did. And if you wish, it may be said that they both speak of a
case when the act was done unintentionally, and their point of differing is as to the varying
premises, whether the hand may be drawn back to the ground where the man stands, or to other
(private) ground that adjoins it? As Rabha questioned R. Na'hman: If the hand of a man was
filled with fruit, and he extended it outside, may he draw it back to the same ground where he
stands? And he answered: He may. (And may he remove his hand) to other (private) ground?
Nay. And to the question, "What is the distinction?" he said: If thou wilt measure a whole kur of
salt and present me with it, I shall tell thee the answer. (See footnote, Erubin, p. 79.) In the
former case his design was not accomplished; in the latter, however, his design was
accomplished (and it is prohibited for fear that it should be repeated).

This quote is only a minute part of the Talmud and it has nothing to do with loving God or our neighbor. It is pure legalism

oikonomia · Jul 24, 2023

Gary K said:
I see you ignored my comment on the the Pharisees nor the disciples understanding that love was the entire basis of the 10. That negates most of the rest of your comments.

The only one left is your comments on the hatred of the Hasidic Jews. They are like that because they follow the Talmud as closely as it i humanly possible to follow it. I'll give you a quote from it on Sabbath keeping and it will become clear why I say what I do.

This quote is only a minute part of the Talmud and it has nothing to do with loving God or our neighbor. It is pure legalism

I did not intentionally ignore any of your comments.
Maybe I didn't notice something.

But I think I would really like to hear from Soyeng to whom the questions were directed.

Gary K · Jul 24, 2023

oikonomia said:
I did not intentionally ignore any of your comments.
Maybe I didn't notice something.

But I think I would really like to hear from Soyeng to whom the questions were directed.

So you're going to ignore everything I posted? Why?

oikonomia · Jul 25, 2023

Gary K said:
So you're going to ignore everything I posted? Why?

I did not ignore everything you posted Gary. (unless there is some technical problem I didn't see)

Re-quote "ignored" sentences you wrote and I'll get a notification in a reply to this post.
Then I'll see the specific sentences you say I ignored.

NewLifeInChristJesus · Jul 25, 2023

I thought this thread was dead, but I see it has revived. I have Covid along with the rest of my family. So, I'm not sure I'll have the stamina to keep up with you all.

oikonomia · Jul 25, 2023

B Griffin said:
I thought this thread was dead, but I see it has revived. I have Covid along with the rest of my family. So, I'm not sure I'll have the stamina to keep up with you all.

Take care of yourself. What you did I was edified by much and remember.

We pray the Lord grant you and your family a good recovery back to health.

NewLifeInChristJesus · Jul 25, 2023

4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. (Ro 7:4–6)

I honestly do not understand the fixation on the law. These verses tell us to move past the oldness of the letter (i.e., the law) and serve Him in the newness of the Spirit. It just seems wrong to deny we are dead to the law and to run back to the thing from which we were delivered and to do so in the name of serving in the newness of the Spirit. It just totaly destroys the meaning of these verses and the many others like these. Instead, we should seek first to understand them and then put them in practice.

Gary K · Jul 25, 2023

oikonomia said:
I did not ignore everything you posted Gary. (unless there is some technical problem I didn't see)

Re-quote "ignored" sentences you wrote and I'll get a notification in a reply to this post.
Then I'll see the specific sentences you say I ignored.

The entire quote from the Talmud and the only possible conclusions to draw from it. The way it appears you didn't even read it.

oikonomia · Jul 25, 2023

Gary K said:
The entire quote from the Talmud and the only possible conclusions to draw from it. The way it appears you didn't even read it.

From page seven where I posed three questions to Soyeng, I do not see a quotation from the Talmud on first review.
I see you speak about the lawyer who asked Jesus a question about the law.

Is that what you are referring to?
Do you mean the discussion between Jesus and that rich guy about the first commandments?

oikonomia · Jul 25, 2023

B Griffin said:
4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. (Ro 7:4–6)

I honestly do not understand the fixation on the law.

I would not see it in the NT if it were not for mosty Paul's letters. Acts and Revelation show some tension between the grace people and the law doers.

B Griffin said:
These verses tell us to move past the oldness of the letter (i.e., the law) and serve Him in the newness of the Spirit.

I think when some do not SEE any advancement to life in the Spirit their patience wears thin. They decide that what Christian brothers
need is a re-appreciation if law keeping.

B Griffin said:
It just seems wrong to deny we are dead to the law and to run back to the thing from which we were delivered and to do so in the name of serving in the newness of the Spirit. It just totaly destroys the meaning of these verses and the many others like these. Instead, we should seek first to understand them and then put them in practice.

The way some posters argue seems that Galatians is a book embarressing to them. Careful and meticuous reinterpretation they employ that you do not get a negative view of the Law keeping. It almost appears that some posters' empathy for the Judaizers surpasses sympathy for the poor bewitched Galatian churches.

The contrast between Law and Grace cannot be swept aside.
The law was given through Moses; grace and reality came through Jesus Christ. (John 1:17)
This is a unmistakable call to see the contrast between Moses and the Son of God.

The ministry of the old covenant may have been glorious. But it is a fading glory.
Some dear bible readers seem to want to forbid that this fading glory of the law keeping occur.

Gary K · Jul 25, 2023

oikonomia said:
From page seven where I posed three questions to Soyeng, I do not see a quotation from the Talmud on first review.
I see you speak about the lawyer who asked Jesus a question about the law.

Is that what you are referring to?
Do you mean the discussion between Jesus and that rich guy about the first commandments?

I'm referring to the following post.

Moralism failed me, so where is my righteousness?

Do you think this gift of the law is the greatest gift God has given us? Do you think there is any other gift that God has given us greater that the gift of the law and its instructions? Do you feel that all other gifts God has given are not as important as the gift of the law? Where do you...

www.christianforums.com

oikonomia · Jul 25, 2023

Gary K said:
I'm referring to the following post.

Moralism failed me, so where is my righteousness?

Do you think this gift of the law is the greatest gift God has given us? Do you think there is any other gift that God has given us greater that the gift of the law and its instructions? Do you feel that all other gifts God has given are not as important as the gift of the law? Where do you...

www.christianforums.com

==============================
Where do you get this idea? Jesus is the most important person in the universe to humanity but Jesus also gave us the 10 commandments and because we love Him we think it is not only our duty but out privilege to obey Him. He told us this Himself. If you love me keep my commandments.

All of His commandments are based upon the principle of God's love. If we love Him most of all we will keep the first four and we will love other as ourselves and thus keep the last six through His power to replace the selfishness inherent in our human nature with His love for others. That is not legalism any more than doing what your wife asks you to do because you love her.
=================================

I replied to this post. I will respond again differently.

1.) Jesus is indeed the most important person. And Jesus gave us JESUS.
The most important matter Jesus gave to man was HIMSELF- HIMSELF- HIMSELF.
NOTHING in existence surpasses the criticality of Jesus being OURS.

But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom to us from God: both righteousness and sanctification and redemption,
That as it is written, “He who boasts, let him boast in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 1:30,31)

2.) You say He gave the 10 commandments. Okay, because He is God we may say Christ gave us the commandments.
For Jesus is God after God became incarnated as a man.
The Apostle John was exceedingly close to Jesus. And he draws up this contrast.

For the law was given through Moses; grace and reality came through Jesus Christ. (John 1:17)

On one side of the contrast we have the Law given through the man of God Moses.
On the other side we have what CAME through Jesus as REALITY, as grace and REALITY.

That means that as wonderful as the Law given through Moses was (getting it from God) that law keeping
is now surpassed by receiving God Himself in Jesus. Reality from grace is now ours !

John 1:11-14 - He came to His own, yet those who were His own did not receive Him.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name,
Who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality.

3.) The Son of God was full of grace and reality. (v.14)
Grace and reality now indwell us who have RECEIVED Him.
We have gone from law keepers to living born SONS.

Yes, God gave the ten commandments.
But there was something lacking to us in TRUTH, in REALITY.
These are a living Person - Jesus Christ. There is no comparison to the former way of living and the new way of living.

4.) You write and I agree -

All of His commandments are based upon the principle of God's love. If we love Him most of all we will keep the first four and we will love other as ourselves and thus keep the last six through His power to replace the selfishness inherent in our human nature with His love for others.

And it is impossible apart from Him. Therefore all the law keepers lacked REALITY. They lacked the TRUTH.
The law was given through Moses. We have received grace upon grace upon grace in layers, in our living
and ever deepening experience of grace and reality which comes to us in the indwelling Jesus Christ.

5.) then you write -
That is not legalism any more than doing what your wife asks you to do because you love her.

The righteous requirements of the law are fufilled in us if we learn to walk by the living Spirit of life.

Romans 8:1-4 - There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.
For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death.
For that which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh, That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us,
who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit.

I think we may come to see eye to eye or meet each other half way.

If I understand that you MEAN living Jesus is the ONLY way the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled.
And you understand that because I speak of the Law Keeping in disparaging terms I do NOT mean we are free to live lawlessly, sinfully.

Romans 8:1 follows chapter 7 that CONDEMNATION, especially SELF CONDEMNATION is history, gone, over, to those who
are in Christ Jesus walking in a united way with Him.
There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

Gary K · Jul 25, 2023

oikonomia said:
==============================
Where do you get this idea? Jesus is the most important person in the universe to humanity but Jesus also gave us the 10 commandments and because we love Him we think it is not only our duty but out privilege to obey Him. He told us this Himself. If you love me keep my commandments.

All of His commandments are based upon the principle of God's love. If we love Him most of all we will keep the first four and we will love other as ourselves and thus keep the last six through His power to replace the selfishness inherent in our human nature with His love for others. That is not legalism any more than doing what your wife asks you to do because you love her.
=================================

I replied to this post. I will respond again differently.

1.) Jesus is indeed the most important person. And Jesus gave us JESUS.
The most important matter Jesus gave to man was HIMSELF- HIMSELF- HIMSELF.
NOTHING in existence surpasses the criticality of Jesus being OURS.

But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom to us from God: both righteousness and sanctification and redemption,
That as it is written, “He who boasts, let him boast in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 1:30,31)

2.) You say He gave the 10 commandments. Okay, because He is God we may say Christ gave us the commandments.
For Jesus is God after God became incarnated as a man.
The Apostle John was exceedingly close to Jesus. And he draws up this constrast.

For the law was given through Moses; grace and reality came through Jesus Christ. (John 1:17)

On one side of the contrast we have the Law given through the man of God Moses.
On the other side we have what CAME through Jesus as REALITY as grace and REALITY.

That means that as wonderful as the Law given through Moses was (getting it from God) that law keeping
is now surpassed by receiving God Himself in Jesus. Reality from grace is now ours !

John 1:11-14 - He came to His own, yet those who were His own did not receive Him.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name,
Who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality.

3.) The Son of God was full of grace and reality. (v.14)
Grace and reality now indwell us who have RECEIVED Him.
We have gone from law keepers to living born SONS.

Yes, God gave the ten commandments.
But there was something lacking to us in TRUTH, in REALITY.
These are a living Person - Jesus Christ. There is no comparison to the former way of living and the new way of living.

4.) You write and I agree -

All of His commandments are based upon the principle of God's love. If we love Him most of all we will keep the first four and we will love other as ourselves and thus keep the last six through His power to replace the selfishness inherent in our human nature with His love for others.

And it is impossible. Therefore all the law keepers lacked REALITY. They lacked the TRUTH.
The law was given through Moses. We have received grace upon grace upon grace in layers, in our living
and ever deepening experience of grace and reality which comes to us in the indwelling Jesus Christ.

5.) then you write -
That is not legalism any more than doing what your wife asks you to do because you love her.

The righteous requirements of the law are fufilled in us if we learn to walk by the living Spirit of life.

Romans 8:1-4 - There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.
For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death.
For that which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh, That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us,
who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit.

I think we may come to see eye to eye or meet each other half way.

If I understand that you MEAN living Jesus is the ONLY way the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled.
And you understand that because I speak of the Law Keeping in disparaging terms I do NOT mean we are free to live lawlessly, sinfully.

Romans 8:1 follows chapter 7 that CONDEMNATION, especially SELF CONDEMNATION is history, gone, over, to those who
are in Christ Jesus walking in a united way with Him.
There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.

You seem to think that I endorse the Talmud. Why? I do not know. I quoted it to show just how legalistic the Pharisees of Christ's day were, and how Jesus condemned their belief in the Talmud as he condemned their replacing the commandments of God with their traditions as even in Christ's day the Talmud was 600 years old.

oikonomia · Jul 25, 2023

"That is not legalism any more than doing what your wife asks you to do because you love her." - Gary

Yes, to live Christ we have to have faith in Him to be everything we need.
Faith works through love.

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision, but faith avails, operating through love. (Gal. 5:6)

Loving the Lord Jesus is the best way to go.

Gary K · Jul 25, 2023

oikonomia said:
"That is not legalism any more than doing what your wife asks you to do because you love her." - Gary

Yes, to live Christ we have to have faith in Him to be everything we need.
Faith works through love.

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision, but faith avails, operating through love. (Gal. 5:6)

Loving the Lord Jesus is the best way to go.

So now do you understand the meaning of Jesus' saying the following?

Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
Joh 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

NewLifeInChristJesus · Jul 25, 2023

Gary K said:
So now do you understand the meaning of Jesus' saying the following?

I guess your question is about Christians who sin? And you're wondering how that relates to Jesus' statement about sinners being slaves of sin?

Moralism failed me, so where is my righteousness?

an old small town kid

Well-Known Member

an old small town kid

Well-Known Member

an old small town kid

Well-Known Member

an old small town kid

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

an old small town kid

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

an old small town kid

Well-Known Member

an old small town kid

Well-Known Member

an old small town kid

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency