Not under law: Not under its condemnation or its commands?

[SkyWriting]

Hi Sky, I think you may have succeeded in doing so, but the question is, are there any who are truly outside of the law (yes, there are some .. see below*)?

I agree that the Lord will not impute guilt and judge someone according to what they do not know and/or do not understand, but everyone (*save the unborn, the infant, and some of those among the mentally infirmed*)

Any exceptions must come from God. Sorry. You make the case that you must be smart, and that fails.

 

[SkyWriting]

You will be judged by your conscience (Romans 2:14-15) at the judgment (Romans 2:16).

We are referring to unbelievers.

 

[SkyWriting]

OK, let's say that you are correct. So, what then is the ~basis~ for judging an ignorant unbeliever's "works" (as being either good or bad, instead of good or sinful) apart from some sort of law that defines what a "good" work and what a "bad" work actually is?

Also, if some of an ignorant unbeliever's works are judged to be "bad" works by God, what action, if any, will God take as the result of such a judgment of their works?

Finally, would the result/punishment be different for them, as an ~ignorant~ unbeliever, than it would be for a ~knowledgeable~ unbeliever (which is an unbeliever who knows and understands the Law .. see Romans 2:12)?

Thanks!

--David

If we knew that then you would be allowed to judge others. Which is not the case. Sin in others is invisible to you.

13The sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead, and each one was judged according to his deeds.

What Does the Bible Say About Judging Others?

 

[Clare73]

We are referring to unbelievers.

So am I.

Their "works" will manifest their unbelief, as their works will manifest others' belief (Matthew 26:31-46).

 

[Kilk1]

Luke 24:44
Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things that are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.

John 19:28
After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, in order that the Scripture would be fulfilled, said, “I am thirsty."

Obviously, the law and the prophets were fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

Thus, the law has become obsolete as was the old covenant.

Many church organizations will throw 600 of those laws in the bin.

Those two greatest commandments were in the law and the book of the law is no longer valid.

So what happens to those two greatest commandments in the law after Christ fulfilled them?

That's an interesting question. What is your answer, if you have one?

 

[Clare73]

Luke 24:44
Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things that are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.
John 19:28
After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, in order that

the Scripture would be fulfilled, said, “I am thirsty."
Obviously, the law and the prophets were fulfilled by Jesus Christ.
Thus, the law has become obsolete as was the old covenant.
Many church organizations will throw 600 of those laws in the bin.
Those two greatest commandments were in the law and the book of the law is no longer valid.
So what happens to those two greatest commandments in the law after Christ fulfilled them?

He then gave them to the body of Christ as his New Covenant commandments (Romans 13:8-10; Matthew 22:37-40).

 

[Kilk1]

In Romans 7:22, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God and in Romans 7:7, Paul said that the Law of God is not sinful. If Romans 7:5 were referring to the law of God, then please explain how it makes sense to you to think that Paul delighted a law that stirred up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death and that such a law is not sinful. When Romans 7:7-8 speaks about sin acting upon the Law of God, it is my interpretation that it is referring to the law of sin acting on the law of God because Paul described the law of sin as hindering him from doing the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do, so the law of sin works through the Law of God rather than being the Law of God. In Romans 7:21-25, Paul was making concluding statements about the law of God and the law of sin, which implies that the previous verses that he was concluding from also discussed the Law of God and the law of sin, so perhaps it would help if you were to explain which are verses that you interpret as referring to the law of sin.



The first thing that Paul did after the Jerusalem Council was to have Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3), so I don't think that it is correct to interpret Acts 15 as being a ruling against circumcision. The Apostles did not have any authority to tell Gentiles not to obey any of God's commands, so yes, I think that they would command physical circumcision for both Jews and Gentiles. For example, a Gentile needed to become circumcised in order to eat of the Passover Lamb (Exodus 12:48), and in Paul encouraged Gentiles to continue to observe Passover (1 Corinthians 5:6-8). In Acts 15:19-22, the expectation was that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing Him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.



In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so knowing Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith (Romans 10:4). In Galatians 3:26, it says that for in Christ we are all sons of God through faith, and this needs to be balanced with 1 John 3:4-6, where sin is the transgression of God's law, those who continue to practice seen have neither seen nor known him, and those who do nor practice righteousness in obedience to God's law are not sons of God. Again, Jesus being the living embodiment of God's law is what it means for him to be the Son of God, so he is the object of the faith that is expresses through obeying God's law, so Galatians 3:24-25 is speaking about before he came. If you agree that Christ is the only way to the Father and that what is listed in Hebrews 11 is example of people in the OT who had saving faith, then it follows that they therefore had faith in Christ, and they expressed that faith by obeying God, but the object of their faith had not yet come.

Wait a second, you believe that Paul would command Jew and Gentile to be circumcised? While Paul did have Timothy circumcised—likely to win all men (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) and because Timothy likely should already have been circumcised on the eighth day, considering he had Jewish descent (Acts of the Apostles 16:1-3)—it doesn't seem Paul bound it on everyone. Otherwise, he would've have Titus circumcised too, but he didn't: Titus was with Paul but not circumcised, and neither Paul nor the other apostles compelled Titus to do so (Galatians 2:1-3). It seems such compelling was brought about by "false brethren" who opposed the liberty of Christ (Galatians 2:4-5). Rather, Paul preached the gospel to the uncircumcised and Peter to the circumcised, and the other apostles had no problem with this (Galatians 2:7-10).

Doesn't Paul teach that to bind circumcision is to fall from grace (Galatians 5:1-4), and neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters (Galatians 5:6)?

 

[Clare73]

In Romans 7:22, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God and in Romans 7:7, Paul said that the Law of God is not sinful. If Romans 7:5 were referring to the law of God, then please explain how it makes sense to you to think that Paul delighted a law that stirred up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death and that such a law is not sinful. When Romans 7:7-8 speaks about sin acting upon the Law of God, it is my interpretation that it is referring to the law of sin acting on the law of God because Paul described the law of sin as hindering him from doing the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do, so the law of sin works through the Law of God rather than being the Law of God. In Romans 7:21-25, Paul was making concluding statements about the law of God and the law of sin, which implies that the previous verses that he was concluding from also discussed the Law of God and the law of sin, so perhaps it would help if you were to explain which are verses that you interpret as referring to the law of sin.



The first thing that Paul did after the Jerusalem Council was to have Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3), so I don't think that it is correct to interpret Acts 15 as being a ruling against circumcision. The Apostles did not have any authority to tell Gentiles not to obey any of God's commands, so yes, I think that they would command physical circumcision for both Jews and Gentiles. For example, a Gentile needed to become circumcised in order to eat of the Passover Lamb (Exodus 12:48), and in Paul encouraged Gentiles to continue to observe Passover (1 Corinthians 5:6-8). In Acts 15:19-22, the expectation was that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing Him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.



In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so knowing Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith (Romans 10:4). In Galatians 3:26, it says that for in Christ we are all sons of God through faith, and this needs to be balanced with 1 John 3:4-6, where sin is the transgression of God's law, those who continue to practice seen have neither seen nor known him, and those who do nor practice righteousness in obedience to God's law are not sons of God. Again,

Jesus being the living embodiment of God's law is what it means for him to be the Son of God, so he is the object of the faith that is expresses through obeying God's law,

This is the false hermeneutic of boot-strapping ("matching," linking) Scriptures outside their context to arrive at one's theology: faith --> law --> Son of God --> Jesus

Walla! . . . faith in the law is faith in the Son of God is saving faith in Jesus.

so Galatians 3:24-25 is speaking about before he came.

Agreed. . .they were under the law before he came.

Now that he has come, we are under faith and not the Old Covennt law.

If you agree that Christ is the only way to the Father and that what is listed in Hebrews 11 is example of people in the OT who had saving faith, then it follows that they therefore had faith in Christ, and they expressed that faith by obeying God, but the object of their faith had not yet come.

And in the New Covenant, that faith likewise moves us to obedience to his New Covenant commands of Matthew 22:37-40 which fulfill all the Old Covenant commands "and any other command there may be." (Romans 3:8-10).

For the Decalogue and Levitical laws were the condition of the Mosaic Covenant, which had been temporarily added (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20) to the Abrahamic Covenant of grace (Genesis 15:6, Genesis 15:18).
Those laws were given for the purpose of revealing sin (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7) and of leading to Christ (Galatians 3:24), they were not given to make righteous, because from the beginning with Abraham, righteousness had always been by faith (Genesis 5:6; Romans 4:3), never by law-keeping, for "all who rely on observing the law are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10).

Now that faith in Christ has come (the Mosaic law fulfilling its purpose and now being fulfilled in the NT law of Christ, Matthew 22:37-40), we are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant (Hebrews 8:13) nor under the supervision of the Mosaic law (Galatians 3:25).

The law (temporarily added to the Abrahamic Covenant of grace) has completed what it was given to do... the old covenant is now obsolete (Hebrews 8:13) as the law on which it was based is set aside (Hebrews 7:18-19; Romans 8:2-3). . .and we are back to a covenant of grace alone, (Ephesians 2:8-9) just as it was with Abraham.

It is for freedom (from the yoke of slavery to the law, Galatians 2:4, Galatians 5:1b) that Christ has set us free (Galatians 5:1a) and taken us back to a covenant of grace alone.

Keeping in mind that loving your neighbor as yourself is not new to the NT, but it was not part of the Mosaic law on which the temporary Mosaic Covenant was conditioned and, therefore, it remains in the New Covenant--as the law of Jesus Christ (Matthew 22:37-40), and which now fulfills that temporary Mosaic law "and any other commandment there may be." (Romans 13:8-10).

 

[klutedavid]

That's an interesting question. What is your answer, if you have one?

Read Clare73's post #46.

There is a vast difference between the old and the new covenant.

The old covenant predicted the future new covenant, the old covenant was the type, the blueprint.

The new covenant was endorsed by the sacrifice of our Lord, the old covenant was established with the blood of an animal.

In the old covenant, every male was physically circumcised, in the new covenant the circumcision was spiritual.

The old covenant condemned everyone but in the new covenant everyone was granted salvation as a free gift.

 

[klutedavid]

The Decalogue and Levitical laws were the condition of the Mosaic Covenant, which had been temporarily added (Galatians 3:19; Romans 5:20) to the Abrahamic Covenant of grace (Genesis 15:6, Genesis 15:18).
Those laws were given for the purpose of revealing sin (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7) and of leading to Christ (Galatians 3:24), they were not given to make righteous, because from the beginning with Abraham, righteousness had always been by faith (Genesis 5:6; Romans 4:3), never by law-keeping, for "all who rely on observing the law are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10).

Now that faith in Christ has come (the Mosaic law fulfilling its purpose and now being fulfilled in the NT law of Christ, Matthew 22:37-40), we are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant (Hebrews 8:13) nor under the supervision of the Mosaic law (Galatians 3:25).

The law (temporarily added to the Abrahamic Covenant of grace) has completed what it was given to do... the old covenant is now obsolete (Hebrews 8:13) as the law on which it was based is set aside (Hebrews 7:18-19; Romans 8:2-3). . .and we are back to a covenant of grace alone, (Ephesians 2:8-9) just as it was with Abraham.

It is for freedom (from the yoke of slavery to the law, Galatians 2:4, Galatians 5:1b) that Christ has set us free (Galatians 5:1a) and taken us back to a covenant of grace alone.

Keeping in mind that loving your neighbor as yourself is not new to the NT, but it was not part of the Mosaic law on which the temporary Mosaic Covenant was conditioned and, therefore, it remains in the New Covenant--as the law of Jesus Christ (Matthew 22:37-40), and which now fulfills that temporary Mosaic law "and any other commandment there may be." (Romans 13:8-10).

A small correction on this point of yours below.

Keeping in mind that loving your neighbor as yourself is not new to the NT, but it was not part of the Mosaic law on which the temporary Mosaic Covenant was conditioned and, therefore, it remains in the New Covenant--as the law of Jesus Christ (Matthew 22:37-40)

We are under the new covenant, we are under the new commandment.

John 13:34
A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

The old covenant commandment to love others as you love yourself, was the former shadow commandment. The unconditional love of Christ, is the way you love others now.

 

[Clare73]

A small correction on this point of yours below.

Keeping in mind that loving your neighbor as yourself is not new to the NT, but it was not part of the Mosaic law on which the temporary Mosaic Covenant was conditioned and, therefore, it remains in the New Covenant--as the law of Jesus Christ (Matthew 22:37-40)

We are under the new covenant, we are under the new commandment.
John 13:34
A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
The old covenant commandment to love others as you love yourself, was the former shadow commandment. The unconditional love of Christ, is the way you love others now.

Thanks!

Is that the brethren, or everyone?

"Brothers of mine (King Jesus) are believers (Matthew 25:40, Matthew 10:40, Matthew 10:42).

And I think you meant my post #48 (not #46) in your post #49.

 

[klutedavid]

Thanks!

Is that the brethren, or everyone?

"Brothers of mine (King Jesus) are believers (Matthew 25:40, Matthew 10:40, Matthew 10:42).

Since the love of Jesus Christ was an unconditional love, then our love is also unconditional and directed towards everyone else. Though the majority of your time will be spent with the brethren. So your love is mainly directed towards the brethren.

 

[Clare73]

Since the love of Jesus Christ was an unconditional love,

He didn't speak to his rejectors like he loved them unconditionally; e.g., John 8:44-47; Luke 11:50-51 (43-53).

then our love is also unconditional and directed towards everyone else. Though the majority of your time will be spent with the brethren.
So your love is mainly directed towards the brethren.

Was Jesus not speaking to the brethren about the brethren, not about the world?

 

[SkyWriting]

OK, let's say that you are correct. So, what then is the ~basis~ for judging an ignorant unbeliever's "works" ...

People are not qualified to judge the sin of others.
You got's to wait for Jesus to do that for you.
There are passages on that.

 

[Clare73]

People are not qualified to judge the sin of others.
You got's to wait for Jesus to do that for you.
There are passages on that.

We are to judge open sin in the body (1 Corinthians 5:1-2, 1 Corinthians 5:12).

 

[SkyWriting]

We are to judge open sin in the body (1 Corinthians 5:1-2, 1 Corinthians 5:12).

Only under the supervision of church leaders who have better training than the lay people.
Not flailing around in public forums.

 

[Clare73]

Only under the supervision of church leaders who have better training than the lay people.
Not flailing around in public forums.

It doesn't require special training to expel open sin.

 

[St_Worm2]

People are not qualified to judge the sin of others.
You got's to wait for Jesus to do that for you.
There are passages on that.

Very sorry about the confusion Sky, I was missing a very important word from the part of my post that you just quoted. I'll add it in here. That change makes paragraph one consistent with the other two paragraphs and with my intended meaning for the post from the get-go. (see the additional word in caps/bold type below). I'll also edit my original post to include it now. --David

OK, let's say that you are correct. So, what then is the ~basis~ for GOD judging an ignorant unbeliever's "works" (as being either good or bad, instead of good or sinful) apart from some sort of law that defines what a "good" work and what a "bad" work actually is?

Also, if some of an ignorant unbeliever's works are judged to be "bad" works by God, what action, if any, will God take as the result of such a judgment of their works?

Finally, would the result/punishment be different for them, as an ~ignorant~ unbeliever, than it would be for a ~knowledgeable~ unbeliever (which is an unbeliever who knows and understands the Law .. see Romans 2:12)?

Thanks!

--David

 

[SkyWriting]

Very sorry about the confusion Sky, I was missing a very important word from the part of my post that you just quoted. I'll add it in here. That change makes paragraph one consistent with the other two paragraphs and with my intended meaning for the post from the get-go. (see the additional word in caps/bold type below). I'll also edit my original post to include it now. --David

Hmm....what standards does God use to judge His children?
We, as children, cannot comprehend the answer as God's
mind and experience is larger than our Cosmos.

 

[klutedavid]

He didn't speak to his rejectors like he loved them unconditionally; e.g., John 8:44-47; Luke 11:50-51 (43-53).

Was Jesus not speaking to the brethren about the brethren, not about the world?

I thought Jesus forgave the people that crucified Him. Forgive them for they know what they are doing.

Jesus loved us so much that He became one of us and that was while we were His mortal enemies.

The entire universe and everything in it belongs to Jesus. We were created for Him. Of course He loves everyone.

If you have done something wrong and your mother loses her temper with you. Calls you names and administers punishment, and warns you strongly. That then means that your mother no longer loves you.

Saul was destroying the infant church and does that mean that Jesus hated Paul?