What must you do to inherit eternal life?

[Sentry]

Are you an antinomian? Jesus, Paul and John is speaking of the commandments given by Moses. Jesus did not do away with the Law. The Law given through Moses details how to love God and your neighbors. For example, as a Christian you cannot love God and break the First and Second Commandments by worshipping other gods and idols. This example applies to the whole Law.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the Law with its commandments and regulations. (Eph 2:15).

The Jews also thought that abolishing the Law also meant antinomianism. Paul had a hard time getting through to them on that matter and show them why they were so wrong about that notion. We do not follow a written code. We follow Christ who lives in us. That is hardly antinomian.

 

[Beoga]

So what you wish to do is nullify the passage from Luke by your own interpretation of another passage from Matthew right? Again your approach is a classic Calvinist way of obfuscating in order to avoid the plain truth and nullify the Scripture for the sake of your tradition.

I am starting to notice this little trick you like to pull. You present a verse, then someone else presents a verse that either clarifies the one you presented, or they demonstrate all the crazy interpretations one would get if they consistantly used your interpretation method elsewhere. You then like to make a big fuss so as to distract what is going on by saying "you wish to nullify x passage by y passage." Doesn't this same question apply to you? Doesn't your own interpretation of Luke nullify another passage in Matthew?

 

[Sentry]

Doesn't this same question apply to you? Doesn't your own interpretation of Luke nullify another passage in Matthew?

No, it validates what Matthew says.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the Law with its commandments and regulations. (Eph 2:15).

The Jews also thought that abolishing the Law also meant antinomianism. Paul had a hard time getting through to them on that matter and show them why they were so wrong about that notion. We do not follow a written code. We follow Christ who lives in us. That is hardly antinomian.

To say "abolish the Law" is a poor choice of words"

Matthew 5:17 (NLT)
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. ..."

A clearer translation of your verse will tell you the Law was not abolished but the racial discrimination was abolished:

Ephes. 2:15 (NLT)
By his death he ended the whole system of Jewish law that excluded the Gentiles. His purpose was to make peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new person from the two groups.

 

[Sentry]

To say "abolish the Law" is a poor choice of words"

No it isn't.

Matthew 5:17 (NLT)
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. ..."

He did fulfill it. Now it is abolished.

A clearer translation of your verse will tell you the Law was not abolished but the racial discrimination was abolished:

Ephes. 2:15 (NLT)
By his death he ended the whole system of Jewish law that excluded the Gentiles. His purpose was to make peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new person from the two groups.

LOL. That's pretty funny. To be a Jew is BY DEFINITION to be under the Law. The REASON the wall between jews and Gentiles was taken down is because the Law was gone. That is what Paul means when he says neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ.

Actually the Greek word means he voided the Law. The same message is all over Scripture. There are numerous passages.

At Matthew 5:17, Jesus meant that he did not just show up and tell people to just forget about the Law. He didn't forget about the Law. He FULFILLED the Law. The Law is a covenant, a contract. Once a contract is fulfilled it is voided. There is no more need for it.

 

[mlqurgw]

"Test everything" (1Th 5:21 NIV) "Hold on to the good."



My order of things:

God

Family

Country

Work



You test the creeds to see if indeed they are Scriptural. You'll find that most of the 'major' ones are. Stay away from people who won't put their 'creeds' in writing so that you can't check up on them. That's why they're important. So you can check them out. I know the Baptist tell you and show you what they believe, so will the Calvinist and the Lutheran and even the Roman Catholics will, but the Church of Christ--which borders on cult status, IMHO--does not. So you have to ask yourself the question; "Why, what are they hiding that they are too ashamed of that they can't write it down?" You see, that sends up HUGE WARNING FLAGS as they're definitely something to stay away from. (I was a member of their 'cult' for a few years in the 1970's, so I'm writing to you from experience here.)



And, you're here wanting written input aren't you?



Agape,

Russ

I don't have a problem with men writing things down but I do have a problem with men putting the creeds and confessions above Scripture. There is much in the creeds and confessions that I do agree with but, as I said, they are but the writings of men. I take them the same as I take any preacher. If they agree with the plain truths of Scripture great but where they are just interpretations I take them for what they are. I understand what you are saying and do not entirely disagree. We are taught by men who have been gifted by the Spirit for such but it still must never take the place of Scriptures. I have actually had people( more than one) who have told me they hold to the creed and don't care what the Bible says. John Gill happens to be one of my favorite theologians but I do think he sometimes stretches to make Scripture say what he believes. Authur Pink is another I think highly of but he sometimes does the same thing. The writings of men are just that and it must be understood that we are all capable of thrusting our beliefs into the Scriptures. Although it isn't a matter of private interpretation, that is if my understanding goes against what has been taught and believed by men who were raised up by God to teach us, then I do seek to find whether I am wrong or they are. I do not think I have it all wrapped up in a neat little package, such as a creed or confession, but do my best to find the truth and believe it. Then, of course, you have those who are absolutely impervious to truth and spout off such nonsence that it makes you wonder at the depth of blindness that a man can fall into. It really is amazing sometimes.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

No it isn't.



He did fulfill it. Now it is abolished.



LOL. That's pretty funny. To be a Jew is BY DEFINITION to be under the Law. The REASON the wall between jews and Gentiles was taken down is because the Law was gone. That is what Paul means when he says neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ.

Actually the Greek word means he voided the Law. The same message is all over Scripture. There are numerous passages.

At Matthew 5:17, Jesus meant that he did not just show up and tell people to just forget about the Law. He didn't forget about the Law. He FULFILLED the Law. The Law is a covenant, a contract. Once a contract is fulfilled it is voided. There is no more need for it.

The verse does not say he voided the Law. It say's he voided the "enmity" and he repeats it in v 16 "having slain the enmity" not the Law. He abolished the racism that kept the Jews as a distinct people only.

You will not find anywhere in Scripture that Jesus voided the Law as you say.

 

[kw5kw]

From the Original Greek on Eph ii. 15: ῾Ομοία γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδεσπότῃ, ὅστις ἐξῆλθεν ἅμα πρωῒ μισθώσασθαι ἐργάτας εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα αὐτοῦ.
τηνT-ASF (the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.)
εχθρανN-ASF (hostility; by implication a reason for opposition: - enmity, hatred.)
ενPREP (in, by, with etc.)
τηT-DSF (the definite article, “the” in its masculine, feminine or neuter gender)
σαρκιN-DSF (flesh)
αυτουP-GSM (himself, herself, themselves, itself)
τονT-ASM (the definite article, “the” in its masculine, feminine or neuter gender)
νομονN-ASM (anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command)
τωνT-GPF (the definite article, “the” in its masculine, feminine or neuter gender)
εντολωνN-GPF an order, command, charge, precept, injunction
ενPREP in, by, with etc.
δογμασινN-DPN doctrine, decree, ordinance
καταργησαςV-AAP-NSM to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative
ιναCONJ that, in order that, so that
τουςT-APM (the definite article, “the” in its masculine, feminine or neuter gender)
δυοA-NUI the two, the twain
κτισηV-AAS-3S to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island
ενPREP in, by, with etc.
εαυτωF-3DSM himself, herself, itself, themselves
ειςPREP into, unto, to, towards, for, among
εναA-ASM one
καινονA-ASM new
ανθρωπονN-ASM a human being
ποιωνV-PAP-NSM to make
ειρηνηνN-ASF a state of national tranquility


Putting this literally into English:
( this) (enmity, hatred.)(in, by, with etc.)( “the”)(flesh)(himself, herself, themselves, itself)( “the”) (anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command) ( “the”) (an order, command, charge, precept, injunction) ( in, by, with etc.) (doctrine, decree, ordinance) (to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative) (that, in order that, so that)( “the”) (the two, the twain) (to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island) (in, by, with etc.) (himself, herself, itself, themselves) (into, unto, to, towards, for, among) (one) (new) (a human being) (to make) (a state of national tranquility)


We must arrange this into an English format that we can understand:

having annulled the enmity in his flesh, the law of commandments in ordinances, that he might form the two in himself into one new man, making peace;

DevotiontoBible]

[/font]
Ephes. 2:15 (NLT)
By his death he ended the whole system of Jewish law that excluded the Gentiles. His purpose was to make peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new person from the two groups.

Which agrees with your version, we can both agree, right?
Now shall we try John i.1? You post your NLT of John i.1 (John 1:1) and we’ll try that, OK?
Agape,
Russ

 

[mlqurgw]

The verse does not say he voided the Law. It say's he voided the "enmity" and he repeats it in v 16 "having slain the enmity" not the Law. He abolished the racism that kept the Jews as a distinct people only.

You will not find anywhere in Scripture that Jesus voided the Law as you say.

That which seperated the Jew from the Gentile, the law, He abolished. The law is no longer binding on the believer as a rule of life. Parse, twist and pervert as you will it doesn't change the truth. The law's whole purpose is to teach us our need of Christ. Gal.3:19-25

 

[DevotiontoBible]

... The law is no longer binding on the believer as a rule of life...

I agree, where it says "even the law of commandments contained (or concerning) in ordinances" means as a ceremonial decree seperating the jews. But this is different than how Sentry states that the Law is abolished in total.

 

[mlqurgw]

I agree, where it says "even the law of commandments contained (or concerning) in ordinances" means as a decree over us. But this is different than how Sentry states that the Law is abolished in total.

How it pains me to agree with you. I must go take some stong pain reliever now.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

... the law, He abolished.

Then can you explain how "Thou shall have no other God's before me" is now abolished or voided?

 

[kw5kw]

I don't have a problem with men writing things down but I do have a problem with men putting the creeds and confessions above Scripture.

As so do I. Scripture is always first.

There is much in the creeds and confessions that I do agree with but, as I said, they are but the writings of men. I take them the same as I take any preacher.

Then find one that you do agree with. Search them out. They might teach you something, something that you’re not quite clear on and therefore it will “click-on” like a lamp in the night. Seek wisdom, ask for it, be in continual prayer.

If they agree with the plain truths of Scripture great but where they are just interpretations I take them for what they are. I understand what you are saying and do not entirely disagree. We are taught by men who have been gifted by the Spirit for such but it still must never take the place of Scriptures.

Unless you are a scholar of Biblical Hebrew and Greek, then they are all interpretations aren’t they? I’m not, but I have tools (aren’t computers great?) that help me understand. By my self I could not have done that post I did on Eph ii.15, never in a thousand years could I have. With the help of the computer I was able to do that in about 30 minutes.

I have actually had people( more than one) who have told me they hold to the creed and don't care what the Bible says.

Well, I’d stay away from those people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John Gill happens to be one of my favorite theologians but I do think he sometimes stretches to make Scripture say what he believes. Authur Pink is another I think highly of but he sometimes does the same thing.

You like Pink and Gill, then have you tried Spurgeon? www.spurgeon.org Look at his catechism, you can find it here: http://www.spurgeon.org/catechis.htm . While I have problems with many others, I kinda like what the Rev. Spurgeon had to say.

The writings of men are just that and it must be understood that we are all capable of thrusting our beliefs into the Scriptures.

This is true, but we need guidance—guidance from the Lord, and He can provide that guidance in many ways, one of those ways might just be from a written catechism. Right?

Although it isn't a matter of private interpretation, that is if my understanding goes against what has been taught and believed by men who were raised up by God to teach us, then I do seek to find whether I am wrong or they are.

I was taught from youth that it was better for a man to go to a harlot than let his ‘seed’ spill on the ground. Only by reading the Bible was I ever able to disprove that teaching. Doesn’t matter who, even some very Godly people can mis-understand some things and therefore teach wrongly. Everyone! That includes me, if I’m wrong then I humbly beg for your forgiveness. I like to watch Jack Graham on TV, but the other day he said something that I took as wrong – that Jesus’ wine that he produced in John ii was nothing more than watered down grape juice. It clearly states in John ii. 10 that it was the best wine of the day. So no matter who, some will have wrong teachings, it’s the nature for none of us has it 100% correct. Only Moses, Jesus and by revelation Paul had it all right, everyone else has had a problem here and there. I also like very much to listen to Hank Hannagraff (sp) and his “The Bible Answer Man” radio show. But I only agree with about 65-70% of what he says. Why do I keep listening? To clearly understand what I do know. Same reason that I read, to understand. I pray to Jesus every day to guide me, to show me the way, and I do believe that He does. You know?

I do not think I have it all wrapped up in a neat little package, such as a creed or confession, but do my best to find the truth and believe it. Then, of course, you have those who are absolutely impervious to truth and spout off such nonsense that it makes you wonder at the depth of blindness that a man can fall into. It really is amazing sometimes.

The Bible is one neat little package, and you believe that. But at times it becomes hard to keep it all straight. Commentaries, and I have Barnes, Matthew Henry, JFB and the NIC in print. I have 15 on my computer and access to many more via the web. I prefer the print versions. I just spent a bit over $200.00 for the 3 volume set of the JFB and for the 14 volume set of Barnes. Even with that I set down and read many commentaries before I decided on those two. I was going to spend like money for Calvin’s commentaries, and while some would consider me Calvinistic, I read some of his work and decided, instead, on Barnes. He’s very detailed and discusses the Greek in detail as does Jamisson, Faussett and Brown.

All of this helps me develop a ‘well-rounded’ interpretation of scripture. Most (95% or better) all agree with each other. It’s the 5% or so that I’m looking for to finish ‘rounding-out’ the final pieces.

Thanks for reading,
Agape
Russ

 

[mlqurgw]

As so do I. Scripture is always first.

Then find one that you do agree with. Search them out. They might teach you something, something that you’re not quite clear on and therefore it will “click-on” like a lamp in the night. Seek wisdom, ask for it, be in continual prayer.

Unless you are a scholar of Biblical Hebrew and Greek, then they are all interpretations aren’t they? I’m not, but I have tools (aren’t computers great?) that help me understand. By my self I could not have done that post I did on Eph ii.15, never in a thousand years could I have. With the help of the computer I was able to do that in about 30 minutes.

Well, I’d stay away from those people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You like Pink and Gill, then have you tried Spurgeon? www.spurgeon.org Look at his catechism, you can find it here: http://www.spurgeon.org/catechis.htm . While I have problems with many others, I kinda like what the Rev. Spurgeon had to say.

This is true, but we need guidance—guidance from the Lord, and He can provide that guidance in many ways, one of those ways might just be from a written catechism. Right?

I was taught from youth that it was better for a man to go to a harlot than let his ‘seed’ spill on the ground. Only by reading the Bible was I ever able to disprove that teaching. Doesn’t matter who, even some very Godly people can mis-understand some things and therefore teach wrongly. Everyone! That includes me, if I’m wrong then I humbly beg for your forgiveness. I like to watch Jack Graham on TV, but the other day he said something that I took as wrong – that Jesus’ wine that he produced in John ii was nothing more than watered down grape juice. It clearly states in John ii. 10 that it was the best wine of the day. So no matter who, some will have wrong teachings, it’s the nature for none of us has it 100% correct. Only Moses, Jesus and by revelation Paul had it all right, everyone else has had a problem here and there. I also like very much to listen to Hank Hannagraff (sp) and his “The Bible Answer Man” radio show. But I only agree with about 65-70% of what he says. Why do I keep listening? To clearly understand what I do know. Same reason that I read, to understand. I pray to Jesus every day to guide me, to show me the way, and I do believe that He does. You know?

The Bible is one neat little package, and you believe that. But at times it becomes hard to keep it all straight. Commentaries, and I have Barnes, Matthew Henry, JFB and the NIC in print. I have 15 on my computer and access to many more via the web. I prefer the print versions. I just spent a bit over $200.00 for the 3 volume set of the JFB and for the 14 volume set of Barnes. Even with that I set down and read many commentaries before I decided on those two. I was going to spend like money for Calvin’s commentaries, and while some would consider me Calvinistic, I read some of his work and decided, instead, on Barnes. He’s very detailed and discusses the Greek in detail as does Jamisson, Faussett and Brown.

All of this helps me develop a ‘well-rounded’ interpretation of scripture. Most (95% or better) all agree with each other. It’s the 5% or so that I’m looking for to finish ‘rounding-out’ the final pieces.

Thanks for reading,
Agape
Russ

I will have to get back with you later tonight. I am in a rush at the moment. Needless to say I have a personal library that consists of about 700 volumes of many men. I use them as well as the internet. I will get back to you though .

 

[mlqurgw]

kw5kw, I will Pm you with my reply and would love to discuss further with you such men as Spurgeon and others but it is off topic in this thread.

 

[LovesLife]

I Do not accept Calvins interpritation of election. Election is in scripture. However the subject of thos tread is how to obtain eternal life.

I keep the commands of Christ.
.

No mere man has EVER fully kept the commands of Christ.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

break one point, you break all

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Because NONE of us could keep the law or the commands of Christ, Christ came, kept them perfectly, then boar our penilty for sin on the cross. If we acept Him by faith, we recieve His rightiousnes. We recieve his credit for keeping the law


Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

If you beleve you can keep the law (including the new one Christ gave us, you are saying Christs death wasn't necisery.



Ga 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ isd ead in vain.



John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

We do good works because of the work he has done in our lives. Created in Christ jesus refers to our being new creatures in Christ which comes BEFORE the good works
2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Ga 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Christ didn't come to abolish the law, he came to keep it perfectly on our behalf (because we couldn't) and take OUR punishment for not keeping it.

 

[LovesLife]

OOPS! Ignore this, I acedently double posted!
(deleted)

 

[ChrisinMI]

I Do not accept Calvins interpritation of election. Election is in scripture. However the subject of thos tread is how to obtain eternal life.

No mere man has EVER fully kept the commands of Christ.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

break one point, you break all

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Because NONE of us could keep the law or the commands of Christ, Christ came, kept them perfectly, then boar our penilty for sin on the cross. If we acept Him by faith, we recieve His rightiousnes. We recieve his credit for keeping the law


Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

If you beleve you can keep the law (including the new one Christ gave us, you are saying Christs death wasn't necisery.



Ga 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ isd ead in vain.



John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

We do good works because of the work he has done in our lives. Created in Christ jesus refers to our being new creatures in Christ which comes BEFORE the good works
2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Ro 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Ga 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Christ didn't come to abolish the law, he came to keep it perfectly on our behalf (because we couldn't) and take OUR punishment for not keeping it.

I completely agree w/ you Loveslife! I am not good at pulling out scripture and you found many of those that I was thinking of while reading this tread!

 

[LovesLife]

I completely agree w/ you Loveslife! I am not good at pulling out scripture and you found many of those that I was thinking of while reading this tread!

A good bible program really helps. The one ai use is avaiable for free at
http://www.OnlineBible.net

Imagine how much work it would be looking up and typing all those verses!

 

[Legacyforlife]

inheritance refers to that which is the possession of the already saved (The Israelites had an inheritance in Canaan if they would just walk in victory and go take it),,ours comes now as we walk in victory over our enemies and in the age to come (millennium)
eternal life in this context should be translated "life for the age" as all the synoptic gospels deal with the kingdom of heaven , John deals with eternal life, if you can somehow accept they are not the same things fall into place,,people will think you are nuts but it is the key to understanding the matter