PDA

View Full Version : The Law



Meh Gerbil
10-04-2016, 06:06 AM
I was talking with my brother this weekend about 'Law vs. Grace'.
I feel like the more I explore this issue the more problems I develop with fundamentalism.

I don't know if it is possible to express how fully we need to divorce ourselves from the Law.
You. Are. Not. Under. The. Law.

1: The Law has one purpose: To prove us entirely incapable of meeting God's standard.
2: Adopting the Law on any level is to adopt a feature that is only capable of condemning.
3: Adopting the Law leads to pride and it divides people along 'sin lines'.
4: Our righteousness is entirely provided for in Jesus Christ apart from the Law.

I see many downsides to the Law and I don't see any upsides but control.
The Church uses the Law to control its people instead of setting them free with Grace.

There is this great fear of Grace in fundamentalism. "Oh, if you discard the law and run after Grace you'll lead the life of a hedonist". The thing is, trying to live the Law is just a different type of hedonism - a nice back massage for spiritual pride - getting life from that which can only deal out death. People are afraid of letting go of the Law because they'd feel lost. Maybe they are.

37818
10-04-2016, 06:34 AM
I was talking with my brother this weekend about 'Law vs. Grace'.
I feel like the more I explore this issue the more problems I develop with fundamentalism.

I don't know if it is possible to express how fully we need to divorce ourselves from the Law.
You. Are. Not. Under. The. Law.

1: The Law has one purpose: To prove us entirely incapable of meeting God's standard.
2: Adopting the Law on any level is to adopt a feature that is only capable of condemning.
3: Adopting the Law leads to pride and it divides people along 'sin lines'.
4: Our righteousness is entirely provided for in Jesus Christ apart from the Law.

I see many downsides to the Law and I don't see any upsides but control.
The Church uses the Law to control its people instead of setting them free with Grace.

There is this great fear of Grace in fundamentalism. "Oh, if you discard the law and run after Grace you'll lead the life of a hedonist". The thing is, trying to live the Law is just a different type of hedonism - a nice back massage for spiritual pride - getting life from that which can only deal out death. People are afraid of letting go of the Law because they'd feel lost. Maybe they are.

No. Biblical fundamentalism is about being save by grace (Ephesians 2:8, 9; Romans 4:5; Romans 6:23; Romans 11:6; Galatians 2:21.). And not being anti-Law (Romans 3:31; Romans 3;19; 1 Timothy 1:9-10).

Meh Gerbil
10-04-2016, 06:41 AM
No. Biblical fundamentalism is about being save by grace (Ephesians 2:8, 9; Romans 4:5; Romans 6:23; Romans 11:6; Galatians 2:21.). And not being anti-Law (Romans 3:31; Romans 3;19; 1 Timothy 1:9-10).Yeah, they say that.
Catholics will tell you the same thing.

They'll both tell you that while loading your backpack with long lists of obligations, rituals, calendars, norms, prescriptions, tasks, goals, shortcuts, disciplines, perspectives, and so forth.

It is a spiritual bait and switch.

Bill the Cat
10-04-2016, 07:56 AM
In my experience, there are 3 kinds of people. Ones who follow God and His Word, those who don't, and those who want God to follow them. Law. Grace. These are terms we use to figure out which one of those 3 we are going to be. Paul wrestles with the same thing that you seem to be in Romans 6.

Think of it like this. Trying to obey the Torah as a "badge of righteousness" falls into person #3. It says that God demands you obey Him perfectly, and falling is not an option. Leaning solely on grace as a "badge of freedom" is also person #3 in that there IS no falling, and that everything is permissible because God saved you, so there is no need to do anything else. We spend a lifetime teetering back and forth between the two. There is a fine balance in obedience and freedom, and that only comes when we follow His Word for what it says, not what we want it to say. We strive to not fail, and repent when we do. We can not divorce ourselves from God's standards, as the New Covenant has written them in our hearts. Nor can we divorce ourselves from the grace of Christ that is sufficient to forgive us.

The ultimate test is what is in your heart? Spirit or flesh? If Spirit, then obedience to God naturally follows, not as a legal requirement, but as a joyful lifestyle. If flesh, then neither grace nor law are of any profit to you.

Meh Gerbil
10-04-2016, 08:39 AM
In my experience, there are 3 kinds of people. Ones who follow God and His Word, those who don't, and those who want God to follow them. Law. Grace. These are terms we use to figure out which one of those 3 we are going to be. Paul wrestles with the same thing that you seem to be in Romans 6.

Think of it like this. Trying to obey the Torah as a "badge of righteousness" falls into person #3. It says that God demands you obey Him perfectly, and falling is not an option. Leaning solely on grace as a "badge of freedom" is also person #3 in that there IS no falling, and that everything is permissible because God saved you, so there is no need to do anything else. We spend a lifetime teetering back and forth between the two. There is a fine balance in obedience and freedom, and that only comes when we follow His Word for what it says, not what we want it to say. We strive to not fail, and repent when we do. We can not divorce ourselves from God's standards, as the New Covenant has written them in our hearts. Nor can we divorce ourselves from the grace of Christ that is sufficient to forgive us.

The ultimate test is what is in your heart? Spirit or flesh? If Spirit, then obedience to God naturally follows, not as a legal requirement, but as a joyful lifestyle. If flesh, then neither grace nor law are of any profit to you.

Jesus Christ is our righteousness (law fulfillment).
We aren't under the law but perfectly fulfill it through Christ.

If it is true that the requirements of the law have already been met in Christ and that we cannot meet those requirements anyways then what is the purpose of the law again?

There is a fear that person can embrace Too Much Grace but I've yet to see that happen; however, I've seen the terrible impact of Too Much Law. The people who embrace the law (even as a guide) still sin as much as those who embrace Too Much Grace. At best you can define different degrees of failure with an embrace of the law but Christ makes it clear that is an illusion. You break one, you've broken them all as surely as the wanton hedonist.

What is the purpose of the law again?

Meh Gerbil
10-04-2016, 08:46 AM
If you embrace the law even as a guide what benefit is it to you?
If you enjoy slapping Trout but read a law that says "Don't Slap Trouts" and then follow it have you generated some righteousness?

How does your righteousness fit into the all sufficient righteous Christ has provided to you?

Therein is the problem with fundamentalism is that it isn't actually sola-Christ, so to speak, but mixes law in with grace.
The message isn't explicitly stated but is implied with utmost clarity.

Bill the Cat
10-04-2016, 10:16 AM
If you embrace the law even as a guide what benefit is it to you?

Knowing what God approves of and what He doesn't. How can one obey Christ and keep His commands (John 14:15) if one does not know what He expects?


If you enjoy slapping Trout but read a law that says "Don't Slap Trouts" and then follow it have you generated some righteousness?

No. but if you truly love God, you will not slap Trout because God said not to slap him. It shows you love Him if you strive to keep His commands.


How does your righteousness fit into the all sufficient righteous Christ has provided to you?

Works have nothing to do with quantities of righteousness, nor does obedience. What it does show is your love for Him (2 John 1:6).


Therein is the problem with fundamentalism is that it isn't actually sola-Christ, so to speak, but mixes law in with grace.
The message isn't explicitly stated but is implied with utmost clarity.

When we speak of salvation, we say that there is no mixing law and grace. When we talk of sanctification, we say obedience makes us more like Him. Obeying the law does not save us, but it shows us what a sanctified life looks like (Christ Himself).

Meh Gerbil
10-04-2016, 10:28 AM
Knowing what God approves of and what He doesn't. How can one obey Christ and keep His commands (John 14:15) if one does not know what He expects?What good is knowing what He expects if one is incapable of doing it?
The law doesn't produce righteousness nor is it the Way, the Truth, or the Life.

Doing the law apart from love is meaningless - the law has no life, no healing, no meaning other than condemnation.


No. but if you truly love God, you will not slap Trout because God said not to slap him. It shows you love Him if you strive to keep His commands.
The correct reason to not slap Trout is because one loves Trout.
And no, simply attempting to keep the commandments says nothing about motive.
Fear has the same outward appearance.


Works have nothing to do with quantities of righteousness, nor does obedience. What it does show is your love for Him (2 John 1:6).
Love motivating behavior isn't the same as the behavior proving motivation.
BTW, you sinned today... don't you love Jesus?


When we speak of salvation, we say that there is no mixing law and grace. When we talk of sanctification, we say obedience makes us more like Him. Obeying the law does not save us, but it shows us what a sanctified life looks like (Christ Himself).
I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? After starting in the Spirit, are you now finishing in the flesh? - Galatians 3

I'd submit for your consideration that the distinction between Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification is a construct of the legalists.
It doesn't exist in Scripture.

Meh Gerbil
10-04-2016, 10:34 AM
The Bible says God has given us a new nature.
If that is true, then doing good is merely acting out what we already are.

See the difference?

I'm not trying to act better; I'm learning to live what is already fully 100% true.

One is a path to freedom and joy.
The other is the path to repeated failure, discouragement, and defeat.

Meh Gerbil
10-04-2016, 10:41 AM
The law 100% condemns you every single time you run to it.
To say it does anything less is to disrespect it - it cannot save you, it cannot improve you, it cannot guide you.

Bill the Cat
10-04-2016, 11:06 AM
What good is knowing what He expects if one is incapable of doing it?

We are capable of choice. We are not capable of perfect obedience, but we are not excused from trying. That's why we are told to be more like Him.



The law doesn't produce righteousness nor is it the Way, the Truth, or the Life.

I know that. What it does is show how we get to sanctification. After all, sanctification is the crucifying of our flesh and the act of becoming more like Him. And we can not become sanctified by sinning. And the Law defines what God considers sin.


Doing the law apart from love is meaningless - the law has no life, no healing, no meaning other than condemnation.

Apart from love, yes. Together with it? That brings sanctification.



The correct reason to not slap Trout is because one loves Trout.

But what if Trout needs to be slapped to bring him out of anaphylactic shock? And why is slapping Trout not a loving act? Who says it isn't? Defining something as loving and not loving is a law unto itself.


And no, simply attempting to keep the commandments says nothing about motive.
Fear has the same outward appearance.

But not inward. And that is where the Law is written for us New Covenanters.


Love motivating behavior isn't the same as the behavior proving motivation.

Never said it was.


BTW, you sinned today... don't you love Jesus?

Of course I do. That's why I don't use Him as an excuse to sin. And that's how I know what sin is in the first place. And that's how I know what to repent FROM.



I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? After starting in the Spirit, are you now finishing in the flesh? - Galatians 3

Again, this speaks of righteousness, not obedience. Paul is writing to the Galatians to not allow the Jews to force circumcision on them as an act of righteousness. Circumcision, and by proxy the law itself, can not make you righteous, nor does blind obedience provide any merit. Living by the Spirit (Gal 5:22) is living righteously, and thus is not breaking the Law. It's not out of loyalty to the law, but out of love. We are not under the law, but neither are we free to live after the flesh.



I'd submit for your consideration that the distinction between Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification is a construct of the legalists.
It doesn't exist in Scripture.

I'd consider that you are wrong here. Justification is a legal term that is instantaneous. Sanctification is a process. Justification comes from God, external to us, while sanctification comes from within us. Scripture is clear on those two facts.

Meh Gerbil
10-04-2016, 11:12 AM
I'd consider that you are wrong here. Justification is a legal term that is instantaneous. Sanctification is a process. Justification comes from God, external to us, while sanctification comes from within us. Scripture is clear on those two facts.If we have a righteousness provided by Christ which is by faith then what additional righteousness of our own could be required?
How much sanctification do I have to do to be saved?

I think the reason so many Christians start out as 'on fire' upon initial salvation is because the reality of Grace has hit them hard.
Only after a couple of years of learning about this twisted version of sanctification are they left tired, discouraged, and burned out.
Small wonder, that.

Bill the Cat
10-04-2016, 11:14 AM
If we have a righteousness provided by Christ which is by faith then what additional righteousness of our own could be required?

None in order to be justified. But should we continue to sin so that grace may abound more?


How much sanctification do I have to do to be saved?

They are different things.

Meh Gerbil
10-04-2016, 11:17 AM
None in order to be justified. But should we continue to sin so that grace may abound more?
You'll know you're talking about grace when your mind rebels against it with this question.
You'll know you're talking grace when you think "that cannot possibly be true".

That is why Paul had to address the issue.


They are different things.
So if a person participates in absolutely no sanctification they're still saved?

Meh Gerbil
10-04-2016, 11:20 AM
Here is a quicky definition:
Sanctification is the act or process of acquiring sanctity, of being made or becoming holy.

Do you agree with that definition?

Bill the Cat
10-04-2016, 11:28 AM
You'll know you're talking about grace when your mind rebels against it with this question.
You'll know you're talking grace when you think "that cannot possibly be true".

That is why Paul had to address the issue.

Exactly. Because the flesh still has a fight inside us until we see in full and are glorified. But again, what does a carnal Christian show others? Why bother obeying Christ? Why bother acting in love? Why did Paul even care to tell the Corinthians and Galatians to grow up? Sanctification serves a purpose.



So if a person participates in absolutely no sanctification they're still saved?

The thief on the cross certainly didn't.

Bill the Cat
10-04-2016, 11:29 AM
Here is a quicky definition:
Sanctification is the act or process of acquiring sanctity, of being made or becoming holy.

Do you agree with that definition?

Yes. And every time we sin, we move further away, and every time we repent or act in love, we move closer to complete sanctification.

Meh Gerbil
10-04-2016, 11:39 AM
Exactly. Because the flesh still has a fight inside us until we see in full and are glorified. But again, what does a carnal Christian show others? Why bother obeying Christ? Why bother acting in love? Why did Paul even care to tell the Corinthians and Galatians to grow up? Sanctification serves a purpose.
Grow up into doing a better job of gutting it out each day or grow up into leaning more on the love of Jesus Christ?

I want to capitalize on this phrase: What does a carnal Christian show others?
How is this different than Kanye telling Kim how to dress because what does your dress show others?

^--- it is the exact same worldly system.

It has everything to do with organizing my appearance so that it looks the right way to other people.
This is the invariable perspective evident in someone who embraces the law - it always becomes about appearance.

Maybe all you have to do is allow yourself to be the new creature you already are right now.

Meh Gerbil
10-04-2016, 11:41 AM
Yes. And every time we sin, we move further away, and every time we repent or act in love, we move closer to complete sanctification.
So you aren't holy right now?
If not, then what happened to the new creation?

Bill the Cat
10-04-2016, 11:44 AM
Grow up into doing a better job of gutting it out each day or grow up into leaning more on the love of Jesus Christ?

I want to capitalize on this phrase: What does a carnal Christian show others?
How is this different than Kanye telling Kim how to dress because what does your dress show others?

^--- it is the exact same worldly system.

It has everything to do with organizing my appearance so that it looks the right way to other people.
This is the invariable perspective evident in someone who embraces the law - it always becomes about appearance.

Maybe all you have to do is allow yourself to be the new creature you already are right now.

I believe James answers the objection you have pretty well:

James 2

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.


I am also a believer in apostasy, so that also molds my beliefs on the issue.

Bill the Cat
10-04-2016, 11:46 AM
So you aren't holy right now?

Holy? Yes. Because of Christ's holiness. Perfect? No. Not until I die and He resurrects me unto perfection.



If not, then what happened to the new creation?

The remnant of the flesh we fight.

Meh Gerbil
10-04-2016, 11:56 AM
Holy? Yes. Because of Christ's holiness. Perfect? No. Not until I die and He resurrects me unto perfection.
So you're a new creation now but you'll be a new new creation later?

I think we've managed to stumble upon another problem with the current fundamentalist approach to the Christian walk, that is, it forces us to deny what has already been won on our behalf. We cannot be new creatures now and then be new creatures again later. How many times are we going to get remade now? I find the idea that the whole thing has been won at the cross to be invigorating and exciting. Sounds to me that you're advocating a struggle with the flesh which was crucified already - fighting a battle for redemption that has already been won.

What if you're already holy, Bill?
What if you're just learning to live out what is already true about you?

Meh Gerbil
10-04-2016, 12:20 PM
Bill,
None of that is to sound arrogant.
I'm still in the middle of working through these issues.
I appreciate a sounding board.

-Meh Gerbil

Bisto
10-04-2016, 01:58 PM
Hi.

I was just reading the thread so far and I gotta ask: what is the disagreement between what you two are saying again? I have argued both of your approaches at some point and I don't see them as contradictory, but just two ways of saying (meaning) the same thing :shrug:. You guys sure it's not just semantics? Check out the plot I made; it's an awful metaphor, but doesn't it say what you're both affirming?

(To clarify, to me it doesn't look like Mr. Bill is one of the fundamentalists Mr. Gerbil has been aiming at throughout the thread...?)

ETA: thinking it over, I'm pretty sure the plot should have reached higher in the post-death/Heaven part. Oh well...

Bill the Cat
10-05-2016, 07:57 AM
So you're a new creation now but you'll be a new new creation later?

Yeah. Paul's now/not yet is a well-known theme. My spirit is a new creation when I become saved. When I get resurrected, my whole being will become a new creation, flesh and all.


I think we've managed to stumble upon another problem with the current fundamentalist approach to the Christian walk, that is, it forces us to deny what has already been won on our behalf. We cannot be new creatures now and then be new creatures again later. How many times are we going to get remade now? I find the idea that the whole thing has been won at the cross to be invigorating and exciting. Sounds to me that you're advocating a struggle with the flesh which was crucified already - fighting a battle for redemption that has already been won.

If we look at our spirit and our flesh as separate parts of our whole being, we can both be redeemed and still have the ability to sin. But it's wonderful to know that my spirit no longer belongs to satan, and it's wonderful to know that eventually, neither will my body fight against my spirit. The war has been won, but the battle inside me still rages.


What if you're already holy, Bill?

Then I wouldn't be tempted by alcohol... :sad:


What if you're just learning to live out what is already true about you?

That's what sanctification is :smile:

Bill the Cat
10-05-2016, 07:59 AM
Bill,
None of that is to sound arrogant.
I'm still in the middle of working through these issues.
I appreciate a sounding board.

-Meh Gerbil

Oh, I didn't take it as anything but you working things out, just like me. :smile:

37818
10-05-2016, 06:18 PM
Therein is the problem with fundamentalism is that it isn't actually sola-Christ, so to speak, but mixes law in with grace.
Maybe that is how you want to frame it. Historicly beginning in 19th-20th century that is not the case. It has always been grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The Law serving its purpose to convict of sin and the need for the Savior.

Meh Gerbil
10-09-2016, 06:14 AM
Oh, I didn't take it as anything but you working things out, just like me. :smile:
There has to be a problem with the way we (the church at large, perhaps not you specifically) is presenting grace or people wouldn't be leaving the church in droves, in large part, because it is too judgmental.

I know fundamentalists like to claim it is because they've standards but people are naturally drawn to standards.
The main complaints - judgmental/intolerant etc - are not characteristic of people who understand grace.

This behavior is symptom of people still living under the law.
You may have the words correct in your presentation, but the flock ain't catching it.

Meh Gerbil
10-09-2016, 06:15 AM
Maybe that is how you want to frame it. Historicly beginning in 19th-20th century that is not the case. It has always been grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The Law serving its purpose to convict of sin and the need for the Savior.That is what is said.
That isn't what is taught (or heavily implied).

Meh Gerbil
10-09-2016, 11:43 AM
Here is a rundown of things that really, really bother me about the law vs. grace discussion:

1: For all of the attention that our theology pays to the law it doesn't have the power to do anything but condemn.
Romans 8:2 For in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the Law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the righteous standard of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.… The law only condemns.

2: The law is no longer our standard for living. Period. Read Corinthians 13, Read 1 John - our standard of behavior is love. I ask you this: If our churches are teaching love then why do our churches fail every test of Corinthians 13? Why are churches known as hotbeds of impotent, impatient windbags? How does that happen in churches that are teaching love as the standard? We either have to admit the Word is powerless or the Word isn't being taught. Pick one.

3: It is the fundamentalist that has a low view of the law - a disrespectful, dismissive view of the law - not the grace orientated person. People who are operating on grace realize the extent to which the law utterly crushes even their largest effort. The grace orientated person has seen the standard, and understood the standard to the extent that they've no choice but to admit defeat. It is the person who thinks that they can manipulate the law or make progress against it that has a low view of the standard. James 2:10: Break one law, guilty of all of it. If you were short with your wife today you also had drug fueled sex with a goat behind a bar - you are equally condemned, equally guilty of all of it. It isn't a partial standard against which you can make progress. You don't 87.5% abide by the law today and gut it out and law abide 90% tomorrow. You 100% break the standard every day. Thinking you can make progress against the law is a very low view of the law.

4: Our churches don't show signs of people who know how to live by grace but rather quite the opposite. How can people sit in church for 50 years and still be so cold and judgmental? Why aren't those pricks running for the door and the broken, weak, and suffering beating a path to the door? Why are Pharisees so comfortable in our churches? Why are sinners so uncomfortable? The theology is wrong and so is the fruit - it is so easy to see any yet nobody wants to deal with this elephant in the center of the room.

Meh Gerbil
10-09-2016, 11:48 AM
This makes me sad because with the people I'm involved with if any of them were to become Christians I wouldn't have a church I could connect them with because I don't want any new converts turned into theology spewing, polyester wearing, mind numbed zomboids. I'm not going to be a part of setting someone free just so they can get shackled up again.

Jedidiah
10-09-2016, 04:47 PM
That is what is said.
That isn't what is taught (or heavily implied).

I think you are way over stating your case. True there are those who push rules and regulations, but they are the minority in my experience. (Actually they were less than a minority as you will see.) I will get to that experience later.

First I would like to correct your definition of sanctification: Sanctification is the process of being made able to act in accord with your new nature. I does not involve what you do making you holy, but rather what you do in obedience to what you already are.

What good, you ask, is knowing what He expects if one is incapable of doing it? It is good because it gives you a direction in which to respond to the inner direction of your new nature. If you do not know you can not do. You are well aware that it is not a matter of doing something to be saved, but of doing something because you are saved. Love motivating behavior, you say, isn't the same as the behavior proving motivation. But that is not really true. Where does love come from? Your love for Trout is a result of your new nature, thus it is exactly a matter of that love showing your change in nature.

Now my experiences:

My daughter, at the tender age of 16, became pregnant out of wedlock. Of course my fundamentalist Southern Baptist church harshly condemned her. No wait that is not what happened. They loved her and welcomed her in every way - nasty fundamentalists that they were. This is why I see your case as a radical over statement. If do not see this sort of love in your church you need to find a real Christian church. Rules are not always bad. They can be a good guide.

Let me tell of a young man who happened to make a living selling illegal drugs. He was saved but continued making a living as he had been accustomed to do. He was arrested in due time. His church, not mine, stood by him and helped him to understand that selling drugs was harming him and others. He was seriously amazed at that realization, and responding to the prompting of his new nature he found another way to make a living. The "law" did serve very well as a guide to him in spite of your view point.

I have only been a part of a very few church congregations, but in every case tolerance and guidance were the rule, not condemnation or claims that the guilty were not "Christians."

KingsGambit
10-09-2016, 05:01 PM
If the law is an inherently negative thing, what do you make of Psalm 119, the longest chapter in the Bible? It is a love letter to the Law praising how wonderful it is.

Meh Gerbil
10-09-2016, 05:18 PM
If the law is an inherently negative thing, what do you make of Psalm 119, the longest chapter in the Bible? It is a love letter to the Law praising how wonderful it is.I never claimed it was inherently negative.
It is a standard that does its job with great efficiency.

I appreciate the law more than I ever have.

Meh Gerbil
10-10-2016, 06:24 AM
I think you are way over stating your case.
First, I'm grateful that your daughter had a supportive community within the church.

Secondly, here is a bit of research to back my claims:
https://www.amazon.com/unChristian-Generation-Really-Christianity-Matters/dp/0801072719

I spend a majority of my free time with non-Christians.
I've a pretty good handle on what they think.

Meh Gerbil
10-10-2016, 06:27 AM
Have you noticed that when a person first gets saved they seem all enthusiastic and then after a couple of years they're burnt out and discouraged?

I think that is because when they're first saved they've been sold on grace - they grasp it at that moment - and after that they go to church and are immediately shackled with the soul crushing burden of the law, growing ever more tired as grace is effaced from their experience.

Jedidiah
10-10-2016, 09:16 AM
First, I'm grateful that your daughter had a supportive community within the church.

Secondly, here is a bit of research to back my claims:
https://www.amazon.com/unChristian-Generation-Really-Christianity-Matters/dp/0801072719

I spend a majority of my free time with non-Christians.
I've a pretty good handle on what they think.

I do not question the fact that unbelievers have this negative opinion of Christianity. I question the accuracy of that opinion. I base my opinion on personal experience, not research. I can only say that if I were a part of a church body who pushed obedience to rules so hard I would move on.

Keep in mind that I expect the surrounding society to have a more and more negative image of Christianity as time goes by (being a futurist). This regardless of the validity of that opinion.

Meh Gerbil
10-10-2016, 01:55 PM
I do not question the fact that unbelievers have this negative opinion of Christianity. I question the accuracy of that opinion. I base my opinion on personal experience, not research. I can only say that if I were a part of a church body who pushed obedience to rules so hard I would move on.

Keep in mind that I expect the surrounding society to have a more and more negative image of Christianity as time goes by (being a futurist). This regardless of the validity of that opinion.
I understand your hesitation because I once felt the same misgivings.
I then started to listen and found that these people were seeing something I missed because of a huge blind spot, a product of my self-righteousness.

And no, I'm not implying that you've that same blind spot.
I'm not interested in evaluating other people's spirituality over the internet.
That would take at least a 5 minute phone call.

Bill the Cat
10-11-2016, 08:22 AM
There has to be a problem with the way we (the church at large, perhaps not you specifically) is presenting grace or people wouldn't be leaving the church in droves, in large part, because it is too judgmental.

I honestly find that word useless. It's a word unbelievers use to try to usurp the moral high ground, which they simply don't possess. Their sin of not accepting Jesus Christ as their savior has already judged them.

As to why people are leaving the church in droves? I find it is mostly because of their personal narcissism or hedonism.



I know fundamentalists like to claim it is because they've standards but people are naturally drawn to standards.
The main complaints - judgmental/intolerant etc - are not characteristic of people who understand grace.

I find those complaints hollow though. People under the grip of sin typically do not want to be convicted, and they have no connection with the one who convicts them of sin.



This behavior is symptom of people still living under the law.
You may have the words correct in your presentation, but the flock ain't catching it.

Is that the fault of the speaker who speaks truth, or the hearer who loves their own life more than they love God?

One Bad Pig
10-11-2016, 10:43 AM
Have you noticed that when a person first gets saved they seem all enthusiastic and then after a couple of years they're burnt out and discouraged?

I think that is because when they're first saved they've been sold on grace - they grasp it at that moment - and after that they go to church and are immediately shackled with the soul crushing burden of the law, growing ever more tired as grace is effaced from their experience.
You're way late on this observation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9lyT8UUw_I


IMO, however, in this thread you're doing a bang-up job of conflating law with discipline.

Meh Gerbil
10-11-2016, 04:08 PM
I honestly find that word useless. It's a word unbelievers use to try to usurp the moral high ground, which they simply don't possess. Their sin of not accepting Jesus Christ as their savior has already judged them.Jesus didn't come to condemn us; he came to save us. - John 3:17
Judgment belongs only to God - it isn't what we're supposed to be doing.

As to why people are leaving the church in droves? I find it is mostly because of their personal narcissism or hedonism.
Most of the people I talk to are hurting.
They may lash out but that happens when one is in pain.

BTW, they are dead in their sins, correct?
Maybe we shouldn't expect so much from those in that condition.


I find those complaints hollow though. People under the grip of sin typically do not want to be convicted, and they have no connection with the one who convicts them of sin.Rejecting the local church and rejecting God aren't the same thing anymore than Christ's rejection of the Pharisees was a rejection of God.


Is that the fault of the speaker who speaks truth, or the hearer who loves their own life more than they love God?
If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I am but a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.
I have to ask myself why sinners were attracted to Jesus Christ and the same are repelled by the Church.
Something is amiss.

I'm a little confused why grace is so thoroughly rejected but then on the other hand I understand.
The fear of losing control, losing a schedule, losing the contract that guarantees reward for hours worked - all stuff that is for the capable.
If you can do it then by all means go for it.

Bill the Cat
10-11-2016, 04:29 PM
Jesus didn't come to condemn us; he came to save us. - John 3:17

Because those that reject Him are condemned already. John 3:18


Judgment belongs only to God - it isn't what we're supposed to be doing.

When it comes to salvation, yes. When it comes to sin, no. We are supposed to judge sin as a righteous judgment. We are not to tolerate evil people - Rev 2:2


Most of the people I talk to are hurting.

About what? Are they hurting because they want to continue sinning and want the church to accept their sin? Are they hurting because they are offended by a message of obedience? Why are they hurting, and why are they not surrendering their hurt to Christ?



They may lash out but that happens when one is in pain.

There are many sources of pain.


BTW, they are dead in their sins, correct?

We all were before mercy smiled on us. But we must submit to Jesus' Lordship over our lives and identify with His righteousness, not ask Him to accept ours because we are free through grace.


Maybe we shouldn't expect so much from those in that condition.

I know I don't expect much from people, except to respond to the call of mercy. I realize their sinful nature is in command, and being vicious to them is pointless if they are not actively trying to devour the church.


Rejecting the local church and rejecting God aren't the same thing anymore than Christ's rejection of the Pharisees was a rejection of God.

Of that, I have little doubt.



If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I am but a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.
I have to ask myself why sinners were attracted to Jesus Christ and the same are repelled by the Church.
Something is amiss.

But are they attracted to their own idea of what they want Jesus to be, or are they interested in truly making Him Lord of their lives?


I'm a little confused why grace is so thoroughly rejected but then on the other hand I understand.

I don't think it is rejected. I think it is abused by people who want their cake and eat it too. It's cheap grace without the cross. Without crucifying your flesh.


The fear of losing control, losing a schedule, losing the contract that guarantees reward for hours worked - all stuff that is for the capable.
If you can do it then by all means go for it.

I'm not sure it has anything to do with control. Discipleship is the core of the Great Commission. The Lord commanded we teach truth to those in need of truth. Grace to those in need of grace. Mercy to those in need of mercy. Repentance to those in need of repentance.

Meh Gerbil
10-11-2016, 04:51 PM
Because those that reject Him are condemned already. John 3:18
Right. That's done, so let's move onto the mission of Jesus Christ.


When it comes to salvation, yes. When it comes to sin, no. We are supposed to judge sin as a righteous judgment. We are not to tolerate evil people - Rev 2:2
Revelations 2:2 doesn't say what you're claiming it says - and even if it did it has been narrowed to the rejection of false apostles.


About what? Are they hurting because they want to continue sinning and want the church to accept their sin? Are they hurting because they are offended by a message of obedience? Why are they hurting, and why are they not surrendering their hurt to Christ?They're dead in sin - of course they want the church to accept sin as they've found themselves to be powerless over it. How are they supposed to surrender hurt to Christ when they cannot get in the front door without being judged? Would you go up to a corpse and say, "Hey why don't you straighten your hair and ask me to bandage that wound?". They're dead, Bill. Dead.


We all were before mercy smiled on us. But we must submit to Jesus' Lordship over our lives and identify with His righteousness, not ask Him to accept ours because we are free through grace.Lordship? Did the disciples exhibit this when they betrayed Christ? Does Paul exhibit this when he says sin kicks the crap out of him all of the time? Was your daughter lost when she became preggers or was she saved but still learning, still relying on Christ's righteousness?


I know I don't expect much from people, except to respond to the call of mercy. I realize their sinful nature is in command, and being vicious to them is pointless if they are not actively trying to devour the church.The grace life is about exhibiting that mercy - taking it from an abstract theological concept to something people can relate to. I think God has to teach us that by leading us through our sin and failure and proving to us time and time again that it is finished.


But are they attracted to their own idea of what they want Jesus to be, or are they interested in truly making Him Lord of their lives?
Why not let them start there?
Isn't that what we all do?


I don't think it is rejected. I think it is abused by people who want their cake and eat it too. It's cheap grace without the cross. Without crucifying your flesh.
I completely understand your point here but as I think through my experiences I've yet to run into anyone who actually acts this way.
I don't know anyone who has actually had a grace experience who thinks of it as cheap.
In fact, the more I get into it the more horrified I am over the whole thing.

Think about this (ignore the rest of my post if you must): Grace is the most unbelievable/feared thing on the planet.

Someone dents your car and you tell them, "Hey, accidents happen. Have a nice day... or better yet, let me buy you lunch."

^----- Know anyone that wouldn't alarm?

Now imagine this response: "I'll kill you for denting my car".

^----- Now we're in our comfort zone. THIS we understand.



I'm not sure it has anything to do with control. Discipleship is the core of the Great Commission. The Lord commanded we teach truth to those in need of truth. Grace to those in need of grace. Mercy to those in need of mercy. Repentance to those in need of repentance.Yes, discipleship into walking according the Spirit, which often parallels, but isn't equal, to walking in the Law.

Jedidiah
10-11-2016, 04:57 PM
BTW, they are dead in their sins, correct?
Maybe we shouldn't expect so much from those in that condition.I have to agree with this. Too often we want to control what people do and say to make their actions more like those of Christians. The fact is if they are not Christians making them obey our rules out in the world is foolish. If it is this sort of thing you are speaking (writing against) I am with you. If on the other hand you are saying that we should not challenge new believers to follow the patterns laid out in scripture, you are wrong as I see it. We have an obligation to encourage and lift up new believers.


If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I am but a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.
I have to ask myself why sinners were attracted to Jesus Christ and the same are repelled by the Church.
Something is amiss.Is this really what is happening. I do not think so, at least not in my experience. Can you point me to some actual comments by these folks explaining why they are repelled by the church. I am not interested in a study, but clear brief statements explaining their views.


I'm a little confused why grace is so thoroughly rejected but then on the other hand I understand.
The fear of losing control, losing a schedule, losing the contract that guarantees reward for hours worked - all stuff that is for the capable.
If you can do it then by all means go for it.I am a little confused by this statement. Who here has rejected grace at all, let alone thoroughly? I have not seen it.

Meh Gerbil
10-11-2016, 05:09 PM
Is this really what is happening. I do not think so, at least not in my experience. Can you point me to some actual comments by these folks explaining why they are repelled by the church. I am not interested in a study, but clear brief statements explaining their views.
The book I cited contains questions and people's responses to them.
Just understand, I don't know you so I don't intend to claim any of this is your problem or a problem at your church.


I am a little confused by this statement. Who here has rejected grace at all, let alone thoroughly? I have not seen it.
Clinging to the law would be a rejection of grace.
I think grace is pretty scary - I personally have a pretty good grip on the law still.
It is hard to let go.

Jedidiah
10-11-2016, 08:30 PM
The book I cited contains questions and people's responses to them.

I am not about to read a whole book on the subject. How about you quote some of the situations and peoples responses to them.


Clinging to the law would be a rejection of grace.
I think grace is pretty scary - I personally have a pretty good grip on the law still.
It is hard to let go.
But this does not answer my question about who here as rejected grace.

Forgive me for being blunt, but I think you are off track here.

Meh Gerbil
10-11-2016, 10:50 PM
I am not about to read a whole book on the subject. How about you quote some of the situations and peoples responses to them.
That's okay.
Not everyone is interested in the topic.


But this does not answer my question about who here as rejected grace.
Forgive me for being blunt, but I think you are off track here.
Law and Grace are incompatible.
To the extent the Law has been embraced as the standard for sanctification Grace has been rejected.

I think it varies in each of us and our lives are learning how to move off Law and onto Grace.

Meh Gerbil
10-12-2016, 06:12 AM
Pro Tip: Only read one of my posts per day, with coffee, like it is a devotional. :wink:

One Bad Pig
10-12-2016, 07:44 AM
Revelations 2:2 doesn't say what you're claiming it says - and even if it did it has been narrowed to the rejection of false apostles.

It's Revelation, not Revelations! :rant:

/peeve

Meh Gerbil
10-12-2016, 07:53 AM
It's Revelation, not Revelations! :rant:

/peeve
You'll have to take that up with Bill The Cat.
Everyone knows Rev is short for Revelations.

Sparko
10-12-2016, 07:58 AM
You'll have to take that up with Bill The Cat.
Everyone knows Rev is short for Revelations.nuh-uh. It is short for "reverse"

Meh Gerbil
10-12-2016, 08:13 AM
nuh-uh. It is short for "reverse"
That doesn't surprise me.
Bill uses a different Bible than the rest of us.

Bill the Cat
10-12-2016, 08:19 AM
That doesn't surprise me.
Bill uses a different Bible than the rest of us.

The Prince Justin Case New Intergalactic Standardized Testing Version with footnotes and commentary by Trout himself. :smug:

Meh Gerbil
10-12-2016, 08:28 AM
The Prince Justin Case New Intergalactic Standardized Testing Version with footnotes and commentary by Trout himself. :smug:
I wanted to read that one but every time I touch it my hands are burned.
It is too holy for me. :D

Bill the Cat
10-12-2016, 09:26 AM
I wanted to read that one but every time I touch it my hands are burned.
It is too holy for me. :D

I heard Trout "dings" when he smiles...

19110

Meh Gerbil
10-12-2016, 10:33 AM
I heard Trout "dings" when he smiles...

19110
He would if he had teeth.

Jedidiah
10-12-2016, 12:50 PM
That's okay.
Not everyone is interested in the topic.
I would still like to see some real examples of situations and peoples responses that fit what you are saying.



Law and Grace are incompatible.
To the extent the Law has been embraced as the standard for sanctification Grace has been rejected.

I think it varies in each of us and our lives are learning how to move off Law and onto Grace.

This is where I think you have gone wrong. Where has the law been embraced as the standard for sanctification? The law can in some parts and some ways be a way to evaluate your growth, but it has never, in my experience, been touted as the standard.

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 06:20 AM
I would still like to see some real examples of situations and peoples responses that fit what you are saying.
ExChristian.net has tons of deconversion testimonies.
See: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/72983-lost-seeker/#.V_-IzuQzUy8

Some highlights:
"I was slowly introduced to all the disastrous and bitter battles in the evangelical church over female pastors, homosexuality, Biblical translations, end-times theology, etc. - and all the RULES."

"Until about three years ago, I became more and more fundamentalist, closed-minded, submissive-to-husband, silent-in-church, Bible-thumping, head-covering, and sure that I was right about everything - all, I believed, because I loved Jesus. I lost a good friend from university because of how I reacted when she came out as gay. I had another friend who was leading me towards the writings of the Pearls and all the terrifying subjugation of women and abuse of children that goes along with that."


This is where I think you have gone wrong. Where has the law been embraced as the standard for sanctification? The law can in some parts and some ways be a way to evaluate your growth, but it has never, in my experience, been touted as the standard.
See this quote by Bill:

Yes. And every time we sin, we move further away, and every time we repent or act in love, we move closer to complete sanctification.

Bill the Cat
10-13-2016, 06:29 AM
I need to ask Gerbz... once we are saved, is there anything we do that is sinful, and what should we do about it if so?

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 06:51 AM
I need to ask Gerbz... once we are saved, is there anything we do that is sinful, and what should we do about it if so?
My current understanding is that all sin: past, present, future, has already been forgiven.
So when I sin I don't ask for forgiveness (it is finished) but rather thank God for the forgiveness I already have obtained.

Sin cannot stand between me and God anymore because it has been all forgiven.

To the extent you imagine that sin stands between you and God is the extent to which you're giving into Satan (The Accuser).
He likes to work off our tendency to judge ourselves.
He likes to convince us we are unworthy of God's attention.
He likes to convince us we have additional hoops to jump through to handle the sin problem, a problem which has already been thoroughly handled.

So the current fundamentalist approach to the law traps people into constantly answering the sin problem when it is a problem that was completely and forever handled on the cross. Instead of living a life of rejoicing in the grace we've received we constantly turn inward and focus on the task of constantly cleaning up our lives - still wrestling with righteousness that has already been 100% provided.

Edited to Add: The reason the church is so judgmental today is because church members haven't stopped judging themselves. When you hold yourself to the Law you cannot help but hold other people to it. We've large bodies of Christians who don't understand that they MUST stop judging themselves FIRST and then they'll be able to be gracious to other people. You cannot dispense grace until you've received it.

One Bad Pig
10-13-2016, 07:05 AM
ExChristian.net has tons of deconversion testimonies.
See: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/72983-lost-seeker/#.V_-IzuQzUy8

Some highlights:
"I was slowly introduced to all the disastrous and bitter battles in the evangelical church over female pastors, homosexuality, Biblical translations, end-times theology, etc. - and all the RULES."
You mean, Christians can't do whatever they want? Oh, the horror.


"Until about three years ago, I became more and more fundamentalist, closed-minded, submissive-to-husband, silent-in-church, Bible-thumping, head-covering, and sure that I was right about everything - all, I believed, because I loved Jesus. I lost a good friend from university because of how I reacted when she came out as gay. I had another friend who was leading me towards the writings of the Pearls and all the terrifying subjugation of women and abuse of children that goes along with that."
Reading these tend to make me want to remain a Christian, if only because I don't want to be them.

Bill the Cat
10-13-2016, 07:08 AM
My current understanding is that all sin: past, present, future, has already been forgiven.
So when I sin I don't ask for forgiveness (it is finished) but rather thank God for the forgiveness I already have obtained.

So, theoretically, you could live like the world, sin to your heart's content, and be just fine?


Sin cannot stand between me and God anymore because it has been all forgiven.

So, there's no need for repentance once we are saved either?


To the extent you imagine that sin stands between you and God is the extent to which you're giving into Satan (The Accuser).
He likes to work off our tendency to judge ourselves.
He likes to convince us we are unworthy of God's attention.
He likes to convince us we have additional hoops to jump through to handle the sin problem, a problem which has already been thoroughly handled.

But how do you know what sin even is any more if it is completely powerless, handled, and already forgiven? How will we be distinct from the world if we are doing the exact same things they are doing? What of holiness? How are we holy if we are living in perpetual sin? How are we being disciples if we are doing what He commanded we not do?



So the current fundamentalist approach to the law traps people into constantly answering the sin problem when it is a problem that was completely and forever handled on the cross.

I find it beyond difficult to believe that Jesus hung on the cross just so I can live like hell.


Instead of living a life of rejoicing in the grace we've received we constantly turn inward and focus on the task of constantly cleaning up our lives - still wrestling with righteousness that has already been 100% provided.

One can't be rejoicing in grace while actively and intentionally sinning, expecting Jesus to conform to our lifestyle instead of us conforming to His. There is no renewing of our mind or transforming of our living with a grace lets us sin to our heart's content mentality. That's the danger of cheap grace. No obedience, no discipleship, heck, no sin...


Edited to Add: The reason the church is so judgmental today is because church members haven't stopped judging themselves. When you hold yourself to the Law you cannot help but hold other people to it. We've large bodies of Christians who don't understand that they MUST stop judging themselves FIRST and then they'll be able to be gracious to other people. You cannot dispense grace until you've received it.

You simply can't have a view that God's grace is your excuse to live like the world. It's dangerous and offers nothing for someone to desire to come to Jesus and pick up their cross.

One Bad Pig
10-13-2016, 07:18 AM
My current understanding is that all sin: past, present, future, has already been forgiven.
So when I sin I don't ask for forgiveness (it is finished) but rather thank God for the forgiveness I already have obtained.

Sin cannot stand between me and God anymore because it has been all forgiven.

To the extent you imagine that sin stands between you and God is the extent to which you're giving into Satan (The Accuser).
He likes to work off our tendency to judge ourselves.
He likes to convince us we are unworthy of God's attention.
He likes to convince us we have additional hoops to jump through to handle the sin problem, a problem which has already been thoroughly handled.

So the current fundamentalist approach to the law traps people into constantly answering the sin problem when it is a problem that was completely and forever handled on the cross. Instead of living a life of rejoicing in the grace we've received we constantly turn inward and focus on the task of constantly cleaning up our lives - still wrestling with righteousness that has already been 100% provided.

Edited to Add: The reason the church is so judgmental today is because church members haven't stopped judging themselves. When you hold yourself to the Law you cannot help but hold other people to it. We've large bodies of Christians who don't understand that they MUST stop judging themselves FIRST and then they'll be able to be gracious to other people. You cannot dispense grace until you've received it.
I do believe you've managed to get this exactly backwards. I don't even know where to start in responding to it. From personal experience, unconfessed sin absolutely stands between me and God. Even as a Protestant, there were times it felt like my prayers were bouncing off the ceiling. It wasn't until I would examine myself, let God show me where the problem was, and confess the problem that it felt like my prayers were going through again. Self-examination is not easy, and neither is confession, but words cannot describe how much better I feel afterwards.

Bill the Cat
10-13-2016, 07:29 AM
Paul addressed this problem in Romans 6:

12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.
13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.
14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 07:41 AM
You mean, Christians can't do whatever they want? Oh, the horror.
Reading these tend to make me want to remain a Christian, if only because I don't want to be them.
I don't think mischaracterizing people's suffering is a good thing, Pig.

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 07:47 AM
I do believe you've managed to get this exactly backwards. I don't even know where to start in responding to it. From personal experience, unconfessed sin absolutely stands between me and God. Even as a Protestant, there were times it felt like my prayers were bouncing off the ceiling. It wasn't until I would examine myself, let God show me where the problem was, and confess the problem that it felt like my prayers were going through again. Self-examination is not easy, and neither is confession, but words cannot describe how much better I feel afterwards.
I've highlighted the words that may be problematic.
Jesus said: "I will never leave you nor forsake you."

Consider this: Maybe you felt better afterwards because you allowed yourself to believe something that had always been true, that is, you're forgiven. The reality that you were already forgiven had not changed; rather, you decided to finally rest in what was already true. Satan accuses us - he's called the accuser. The accusations in your mind do not come from the Holy Spirit - The Holy Spirit won't throw up sin as a roadblock to God because God no longer recognizes your sin. It's gone.

Trout
10-13-2016, 07:51 AM
My feelings are liars. Sometimes I feel like you guys are my friends.

Trout
10-13-2016, 07:57 AM
Reading these tend to make me want to remain a Christian, if only because I don't want to be them.

"There were two who went up to the temple to pray"

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 08:05 AM
So, theoretically, you could live like the world, sin to your heart's content, and be just fine?
When you ask this question you are beginning to understand Grace.
If you do not reach this state of incredulity than you've yet to approach Grace.

Paul preached Grace to the point that people asked this question.
If people in your church aren't pushing Grace to the point where this is the objection then Grace isn't being preached there.


So, there's no need for repentance once we are saved either?
You've received all the forgiveness you're going to get.


But how do you know what sin even is any more if it is completely powerless, handled, and already forgiven? How will we be distinct from the world if we are doing the exact same things they are doing? What of holiness? How are we holy if we are living in perpetual sin? How are we being disciples if we are doing what He commanded we not do?
When we judge people we are doing what the world is doing.

From the time you were born you were weighed, measured, evaluated and criticized. This continued throughout school, college, marriage, employment. The world's system is entirely one of judgment. Every single part of your body and mind - I mean every single part - has been weighed and compared - judged and held up against a standard.

People leave the church because of judgment - they're rejecting a system with which they're already familiar.


I find it beyond difficult to believe that Jesus hung on the cross just so I can live like hell
I find it beyond difficult to believe Jesus hung on the cross just so that I could manufacture my own righteousness.
Paul agrees: "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” - Gal 2:21


One can't be rejoicing in grace while actively and intentionally sinning, expecting Jesus to conform to our lifestyle instead of us conforming to His. There is no renewing of our mind or transforming of our living with a grace lets us sin to our heart's content mentality. That's the danger of cheap grace. No obedience, no discipleship, heck, no sin...
First, you have to understand that adoption of the Law is an abuse of Grace.
Second, I cannot imagine anyone actually understanding Grace who could then set out to abuse it.


You simply can't have a view that God's grace is your excuse to live like the world. It's dangerous and offers nothing for someone to desire to come to Jesus and pick up their cross.
You sin every day, Bill. (as do I)
Every. Single. Day.
You rely on 100% on Grace every day because you sin enough every single day to earn 100% condemnation.

How is your life different than the hypothetical gratuitous sinner you keep talking about?

Bill the Cat
10-13-2016, 08:19 AM
My feelings are liars. Sometimes I feel like you guys are my friends.

See Gerbz... Mention his name 3 times and he shows up...

Adrift
10-13-2016, 08:23 AM
Meh Gerbil, if you don't mind me asking, what is the primary issue you feel that the church unjustly judges you for. Is there one or two things in particular?

Where do you currently go to church? If you are not going to church, who are you currently listening to or reading that is influencing your particular perspective on the law, judgement, and grace right now?



As an aside, and maybe it's my imagination, but it seems to me that you and Trout post at around the same times. Like, I won't see you post for weeks and then I'll see a rash of posts from you, and then Trout will come out of nowhere and join in. Am I imagining that, or is there really something to that? I'm assuming you guys are friends in real life, is that true? Are you guys roommates or live in the same town or something? I believe I've asked about this before, but I was never given a non-jokey answer. Not a big deal or anything, just something that's had me scratching my head sometimes. Again, could be just my imagination.

One Bad Pig
10-13-2016, 08:25 AM
"There were two who went up to the temple to pray"
Thank you for that awesome contextless snippet of scripture.

Hint: I'm not the one here saying we shouldn't examine ourselves.

Trout
10-13-2016, 08:28 AM
"There were two who went up to the temple to pray"


Thank you for that awesome contextless snippet of scripture.

Hint: I'm not the one here saying we shouldn't examine ourselves.
You're pretty thankful you're not like me, huh?

One Bad Pig
10-13-2016, 08:37 AM
I've highlighted the words that may be problematic.
Jesus said: "I will never leave you nor forsake you."
Sure.


Consider this: Maybe you felt better afterwards because you allowed yourself to believe something that had always been true, that is, you're forgiven. The reality that you were already forgiven had not changed; rather, you decided to finally rest in what was already true.
Except that's not what's happened, Gerbz. I told you my thought processes.

Satan accuses us - he's called the accuser.
True.

The accusations in your mind do not come from the Holy Spirit - The Holy Spirit won't throw up sin as a roadblock to God because God no longer recognizes your sin. It's gone.
I wouldn't call them "accusations" as they happened to be quite true. It was me who was grieving the Holy Spirit, not the Holy spirit "throwing up sin as a roadblock."

And John disagrees with you:
5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

Sin is still sin, and it still gets between us and God. The Cross took away the permanence of that separation, but we still must repent - and continue to repent, because we still sin.

One Bad Pig
10-13-2016, 08:38 AM
You're pretty thankful you're not like me, huh?
:eh: I'm just like you, fish-boi.

Bill the Cat
10-13-2016, 08:44 AM
When you ask this question you are beginning to understand Grace.
If you do not reach this state of incredulity than you've yet to approach Grace.

I think we are talking about different things using the same language, Gerbz. I think you hit the nail on the head below though.


Paul preached Grace to the point that people asked this question.
If people in your church aren't pushing Grace to the point where this is the objection then Grace isn't being preached there.

Paul was the one who asked the question. He saw the Romans using cheap grace as an excuse for their hedonism and had to remind them that by their actions, they showed who they were serving. John also addresses this:

1 John 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.



You've received all the forgiveness you're going to get.

Not true. He forgives us daily. John, talking to his fellow believers in Christ says:

1 John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.



When we judge people we are doing what the world is doing.

I disagree.

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

If we are righteous because of Christ's righteousness, we can judge based on what is righteous.


From the time you were born you were weighed, measured, evaluated and criticized. This continued throughout school, college, marriage, employment. The world's system is entirely one of judgment. Every single part of your body and mind - I mean every single part - has been weighed and compared - judged and held up against a standard.

Correct. And for us Christians, God is our plumb line. He is our standard. We will never measure up to Him, but we are never to stop trying for that mark. Grace allows us to miss while trying. It does not allow us to quit.


People leave the church because of judgment - they're rejecting a system with which they're already familiar.

People leave the church for a host of reasons. I find most of them I've heard to be hedonistic or narcissistic.



I find it beyond difficult to believe Jesus hung on the cross just so that I could manufacture my own righteousness.

Never implied that He did.


Paul agrees: "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” - Gal 2:21

No one is claiming we can manufacture our own salvific grace through obedience to the law. The law is our schoolmaster. It shows us we are incapable of perfection. Grace shows us who is.



First, you have to understand that adoption of the Law is an abuse of Grace.

Only insofar as you are talking about the law being of salvific benefit.


Second, I cannot imagine anyone actually understanding Grace who could then set out to abuse it.

Exactly! If you understand grace, you understand that sin is never your goal. That grace is not yours to use as an excuse for your sin. it is the remedy for it.



You sin every day, Bill. (as do I)
Every. Single. Day.
You rely on 100% on Grace every day because you sin enough every single day to earn 100% condemnation.

But it's not the aim of my life to say that my sin isn't really sin. That's the difference. I realize my sin is present, but I also know it is not my goal nor who I serve. It is a hindrance to my living a life of grace and sanctification.


How is your life different than the hypothetical gratuitous sinner you keep talking about?

Because I know my sin is sin, and I know God is not ok with it. The gratuitous intentional sinner doesn't agree with God that their sin is sinful and they need to repent from it. They wish to make God conform to them, not the other way around.

rogue06
10-13-2016, 08:48 AM
My feelings are liars. Sometimes I feel like you guys are my friends.
Aw... :hug:


mossy has been teaching me how to stick a knife in the back while hugging :yes:

Jedidiah
10-13-2016, 08:53 AM
"There were two who went up to the temple to pray"

Yeah, one told himself that he was a good man regardless, and the other recognized his need for repentance. Which one was seen as the better man?

Jedidiah
10-13-2016, 09:01 AM
This whole controversy seems to me to rest on misunderstanding one another.

Jedidiah
10-13-2016, 09:10 AM
OK, so we both agree that the issue does in fact exist. In regards to the prevalence of the error(s), well, "judaizing" has been around since the first century in varying forms. We had a member on Tweb a short time ago who held to this error. I have known people in "real life" who held to this error who were otherwise "running a good race" (see Gal. 5:7). More modern examples include Jim Staley of 'Passion for Truth' ministries - who has drawn disciples away from churches that devote themselves to the "apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." (Acts 2:42).

Furthermore, the issue of the law and it's application in the life of the believer is debated in scholarly circles and continues to be a source of confusion for many bible-believing Christian's. See, for example, the "Radical Perspective on Paul" which argues that Jews are saved under the auspices of the Mosaic Covenant, etc. The fact of the matter is that there is a significant number of believer's out there who accept foundational Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the necessity of faith in the Messiah, etc. who wander off into Sabbath-keeping and observing dietary laws, from which point they can descend into downright heresy surrounding issues of the law.

In the blog thread you posted the above bringing Galatians 5:7. To honor your decision to stop posting there I am responding here.

Galatians 5:7 "You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?" What is involved in obeying the truth?

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 09:48 AM
As an aside, and maybe it's my imagination, but it seems to me that you and Trout post at around the same times. Like, I won't see you post for weeks and then I'll see a rash of posts from you, and then Trout will come out of nowhere and join in. Am I imagining that, or is there really something to that? I'm assuming you guys are friends in real life, is that true? Are you guys roommates or live in the same town or something? I believe I've asked about this before, but I was never given a non-jokey answer. Not a big deal or anything, just something that's had me scratching my head sometimes. Again, could be just my imagination.Trout is a friend I met here at TWEB.
We live on opposite sides of the country.
I once flew out to meet him.
It was scary.

Adrift
10-13-2016, 10:03 AM
Trout is a friend I met here at TWEB.
We live on opposite sides of the country.
I once flew out to meet him.
It was scary.

Oh, ok. Thanks! Do you just casually mention that you're posting here, and that's why he seems to pop in when he does, or do you both just lurk the forum a lot?

Bill the Cat
10-13-2016, 10:04 AM
Trout is a friend I met here at TWEB.
We live on opposite sides of the country.
I once flew out to meet him.
It was scary.

Was he wearing his yellow pants?

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 10:08 AM
Paul was the one who asked the question. He saw the Romans using cheap grace as an excuse for their hedonism and had to remind them that by their actions, they showed who they were serving. John also addresses this

1 John 1:
8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Is this passage a daily prescription or a one time plan of Salvation?
If read as the presentation of the plan of Salvation than it is a one time deal.

How do you read this passage?:
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. - Rom 10: 9
My guess is you read it as a one time deal.

Don't read Salvation passages as instructions for daily rituals.



I disagree.
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
If we are righteous because of Christ's righteousness, we can judge based on what is righteous.

Well, give Matthew 7:1-3 : Judge not lest you be judged we've a bit of a problem here.

Also Romans 2:1-3: You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?

The passage you cite is Jesus talking to the unsaved and asking them to judge him (make an assessment about him) which they immediately begin to do in the verses that follow.

So no, you don't get to judge anyone - that is the world's system.


Correct. And for us Christians, God is our plumb line. He is our standard. We will never measure up to Him, but we are never to stop trying for that mark. Grace allows us to miss while trying. It does not allow us to quit.The whole point of the cross is that we have his righteousness. We do measure up to Him.

You wrote some other worthwhile things but I'm at work.
Thanks for your contributions.

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 10:09 AM
Oh, ok. Thanks! Do you just casually mention that you're posting here, and that's why he seems to pop in when he does, or do you both just lurk the forum a lot?I send him messages like this on Facebook:

"Trout,
The infidels at TWEB are picking on me again.
Little help?

-Meh Gerbil"

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 10:11 AM
Was he wearing his yellow pants?
When I found him the yellow pants were hanging over the dumpster he puked in just before he passed out.
I helped him detox for a couple of days and then flew home.

Worst vacation ever.

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 10:19 AM
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
If we are righteous because of Christ's righteousness, we can judge based on what is righteous.
I want to make one other comment about this line of thought: Given the position that all Christians are judges (based on righteousness) then I should think the unbeliever's claim that the church is judgmental would be spot on, wouldn't it?

Adrift
10-13-2016, 10:25 AM
Is this passage a daily prescription or a one time plan of Salvation?
If read as the presentation of the plan of Salvation than it is a one time deal.

How do you read this passage?:
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. - Rom 10: 9
My guess is you read it as a one time deal.

Don't read Salvation passages as instructions for daily rituals.

A lot of Christians believe in "once saved always saved" (with the exception, perhaps, of blaspheming the Holy Spirit), and they also believe that making Christ Lord means repenting of sin, and judging sin they see in the church. You seem to be painting an either/or dichotomy here, and that's not how most Christians that I've interacted with see it.



Well, give Matthew 7:1-3 : Judge not lest you be judged we've a bit of a problem here.

But he goes on:

"For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

Most commentators would point out that Jesus here isn't forbidding judgement, he's forbidding hypocrisy. Later he says in Matthew,

“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault when the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have regained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, so that at the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.

Meh Gerbil, what do you think Jesus meant by this, if what he meant earlier in Matthew 7 was not to judge? Do you believe that the above is not a form of judgment?


Also Romans 2:1-3: You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?

In 1st Cor 5, Paul writes,

It is actually reported that sexual immorality exists among you, the kind of immorality that is not permitted even among the Gentiles, so that someone is cohabiting with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you have been deeply sorrowful instead and removed the one who did this from among you? 3 For even though I am absent physically, I am present in spirit. And I have already judged the one who did this, just as though I were present. 4 When you gather together in the name of our Lord Jesus, and I am with you in spirit, along with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast affects the whole batch of dough? 7 Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch of dough—you are, in fact, without yeast. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 So then, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of vice and evil, but with the bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. 10 In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 But God will judge those outside. Remove the evil person from among you.

Do you imagine that perhaps Paul contradicted himself between Romans and 1 Corinthians, or that maybe there's more to the picture?

Adrift
10-13-2016, 10:30 AM
I send him messages like this on Facebook:

"Trout,
The infidels at TWEB are picking on me again.
Little help?

-Meh Gerbil"

Ah, I see. That makes a bit more sense. Were you not comfortable or interested in answering the other questions I asked? If not, that's okay.

Thanks again!

Bill the Cat
10-13-2016, 10:33 AM
I want to make one other comment about this line of thought: Given the position that all Christians are judges (based on righteousness) then I should think the unbeliever's claim that the church is judgmental would be spot on, wouldn't it?

Yes. However, there is a stigma attached to that line of accusation these days... that frankly isn't fair. Why is it wrong to call sin out as sin?

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 10:46 AM
But he goes on:

"For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

Most commentators would point out that Jesus here isn't forbidding judgement, he's forbidding hypocrisy.
Given the fullness with which the law condemns us at what point do you have the beam removed from your eye?
You'd have to get to that point to worry about a speck in someone else's eye.


In 1st Cor 5, Paul writes,
It is actually reported that sexual immorality exists among you, the kind of immorality that is not permitted even among the Gentiles, so that someone is cohabiting with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you have been deeply sorrowful instead and removed the one who did this from among you? 3 For even though I am absent physically, I am present in spirit. And I have already judged the one who did this, just as though I were present. 4 When you gather together in the name of our Lord Jesus, and I am with you in spirit, along with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast affects the whole batch of dough? 7 Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch of dough—you are, in fact, without yeast. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 So then, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of vice and evil, but with the bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. 10 In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 But God will judge those outside. Remove the evil person from among you.

Do you imagine that perhaps Paul contradicted himself between Romans and 1 Corinthians, or that maybe there's more to the picture?

Excellent passage.

I'd say we'd have to take this into account:
But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come (1 Cor. 4:3-5)

^--- That is located in the same book.

Clearly the word 'judge' is being used differently throughout the book (and certainly throughout other books).
Looks like a word study is in order.

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 10:51 AM
Yes. However, there is a stigma attached to that line of accusation these days... that frankly isn't fair. Why is it wrong to call sin out as sin?I'd say from my own personal experience that the vast majority of people already know they're doing wrong.
I think they need proof of a safe place to handle it.

Jed has a good example of this in his daughter.
I doubt anyone had to pull her aside and point out her sin.
My guess is she needed to know it was safe to deal with it.

At any rate I've got to do a bit more study on this topic.
I'm appreciative of people's responses here.
It helps motivate me to dig up more material.

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 10:53 AM
Ah, I see. That makes a bit more sense. Were you not comfortable or interested in answering the other questions I asked? If not, that's okay.
The other questions were of a personal nature which I felt would distract from the conversation.
Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 02:06 PM
Something else that occurred to me:

There is a great deal of fluff about people abusing Grace via intentional sinning. The idea is some wanton Trout runs off and sins on purpose using the excuse, "Grace covers it." Somehow that is seen as particularly bad; however, I ask you this: Does the Law differentiate between 'intentional sin' and 'try and fail sin'? I submit for your consideration the Law doesn't give a rip either way.

That places the 'intentional sin' and 'try and fail sin' in the same camp.

I think that distinction is an attempt to sugar coat our own failings.
I don't see "At least I tried" as accomplishing any level of righteousness.

Bill the Cat
10-13-2016, 02:14 PM
Something else that occurred to me:

There is a great deal of fluff about people abusing Grace via intentional sinning. The idea is some wanton Trout runs off and sins on purpose using the excuse, "Grace covers it." Somehow that is seen as particularly bad; however, I ask you this: Does the Law differentiate between 'intentional sin' and 'try and fail sin'? I submit for your consideration the Law doesn't give a rip either way.

I disagree. The punishments in Torah for intentional sin is always far worse than unintentional sin.



That places the 'intentional sin' and 'try and fail sin' in the same camp.

Only in that both are sin.


I think that distinction is an attempt to sugar coat our own failings.
I don't see "At least I tried" as accomplishing any level of righteousness.

But it suffers far less consequences.

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 03:34 PM
But it suffers far less consequences.
The point was that both violate the Law 100% and both require Grace 100%.

Look at it like this:
1: I sin but I'm really trying hard to be obedient.
2: I sin and I like to plan it out and enjoy it.

VS.

1: I'm a sinner 100% dependent upon Grace.
2: I'm a sinner 100% dependent upon Grace.

^--- While I'd agree intent is important the fact is you are still left with two sinners who have 100% violated the Law and who are still 100% dependent upon Grace.

I think mitigating circumstances are something we recognize; whereas, when it comes to determining a need for a Savior they're irrelevant.

Bill the Cat
10-13-2016, 03:41 PM
The point was that both violate the Law 100% and both require Grace 100%.

Look at it like this:
1: I sin but I'm really trying hard to be obedient.
2: I sin and I like to plan it out and enjoy it.

VS.

1: I'm a sinner 100% dependent upon Grace.
2: I'm a sinner 100% dependent upon Grace.

^--- While I'd agree intent is important the fact is you are still left with two sinners who have 100% violated the Law and who are still 100% dependent upon Grace.

I think mitigating circumstances are something we recognize; whereas, when it comes to determining a need for a Savior they're irrelevant.

Determining the need for a savior was never in disagreement that I could tell. It's AFTER salvation that we are apparently having a problem agreeing on.

Meh Gerbil
10-13-2016, 04:00 PM
Determining the need for a savior was never in disagreement that I could tell. It's AFTER salvation that we are apparently having a problem agreeing on.Right.

The objection to Grace that some express is the fear that someone would misinterpret Grace and intentionally sin.
I would agree that is bad and it is certainly a possibility.

That said, at the end of any given day the one who intentionally sins and the one who fails while trying to be obedient still violate the Law 100% and still need Grace 100%.

The end need for Grace is identical - so what is the real panic here?
We're okay with people misunderstanding our judgementalism but it is the whole Grace thing that gets people upset?

One Bad Pig
10-13-2016, 06:58 PM
You're pretty thankful you're not like me, huh?
Perhaps I could explain why "There were two who went up to the temple to pray" is an inapt response, since you don't seem interested in explaining why you think it is.

The rodent averred that we should not judge ourselves, lest we judge others also. The publican in your reference, who went away justified, WAS judging himself.

Further, I in no way, shape, or form consider myself better than those commentators at ex-christian.net, nor am I proud to be a Christian instead of an ex-Christian. Nonetheless, I do not want to be them. Please attempt to grok the distinction.

Jedidiah
10-13-2016, 07:04 PM
I am very disappointed in this whold discussion.

Adrift
10-13-2016, 07:35 PM
Given the fullness with which the law condemns us at what point do you have the beam removed from your eye?
You'd have to get to that point to worry about a speck in someone else's eye.

I imagine when you stop sinning in that particular area of your life. If I have a problem drinking too much, perhaps I should not go about telling other Christians to stop drinking. That would make me a hypocrite. You seem to be imagining that a person only has one beam in their eye. I think it's possible for a Christian to have multiple beams, or perhaps none at all for short periods of time.

But going by your reading, what do you think Jesus meant in Matthew 18 then? Do you think that Matthew 7 and 18 canceled one another out, and that he never meant for anyone to go to their brother who sins, and to show them their fault?


Excellent passage.

I'd say we'd have to take this into account:
But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come (1 Cor. 4:3-5)

^--- That is located in the same book.

Clearly the word 'judge' is being used differently throughout the book (and certainly throughout other books).
Looks like a word study is in order.

Yes, it's one of my favorite passages, especially the bit about not judging those outside of the church. So was Paul contradicting himself? What do you think Paul meant that we should judge those on the inside, and remove the evil persons from among us if earlier he was saying that we should judge nothing until the Lord comes? I think I know, but here's Craig Keener to provide a bit of context,

In 3:5-4:5, Paul emphasizes again the folly of the Corinthians' division over himself and Apollos. He points out the inadequacy of present human evaluations and that only the final judgment will arbitrate decisively what was in the hearts of God's servants (4:3-5). As Judaism (and a few Greek thinkers) taught, future judgment provided incentive for obedience in the present (cf. 15:32-34; 2 Cor 5:10-11).

Thus, the Corinthians should not follow their teachers the way worldly disciples did, like celebrities' fans or "groupies" (1:12), or the way some Christians follow denominations or popular speakers today. Rather, the teachers belonged to the Corinthians, as their servants before God (3:5, 21-22). Household "stewards" or managers (4:1-2) were often servants (4:1); Paul is but a servant manager over God's house (i.e., his temple; see comment on 3:10-17).

Incest was illegal under both Roman law and God's law, but Paul expected the church to exercise discipline rather than relegating it to secular authorities (6:1-2). . . . Rome often allowed communities of resident aliens, including synagogues, to judge their own members for violations of their own laws (cf. Acts 18:15); Paul expects the church, which apparently began in a synagogue (Acts 18:7-8), to function as synagogue communities did. Later in the passage Paul quotes biblical law for executing offenders (5:13). Rome reserved capital jurisdiction for its own agents, but Jewish courts could practice excommunication for any crime for which the biblical sentence was death (such as consensual incest). This left the physical part of the sentence to be carried out by God, as here (5:5).

Like the Qumran community and later rabbinic courts, Paul presumably believed in various levels of exclusion (2 Thess 3:14-15). The crime in question, however, merited full banishment from the Christian community, a "handing over to Satan" (5:5). God "handed" Job over to Satan for his testing (Job 2:6 LXX; T. Job 20:3), but the image here appears harsher than testing alone. When an Athenian court sentenced one to death in absentia, they instructed their priests and priestesses to curse the offender (Plutarch Alc. 22.3-4). Greeks sometimes cursed people by handing them over to destructive deities; for early Christians, something placed under a ban for destruction (to use OT language) could be handed over to Satan as the agent of destruction (1 Tim 1:20). Outside the sphere of protection by the paschal lamb's blood (5:7), one remained susceptible to "the destroyer" (cf. Ex 12:23; 1 Cor 10:10). The purpose here, however, is restorative: so the offender would be brought to repentance and his spirit "saved" in the end (as in 1 Tim 1:20; Matt 18:15-22).

Adrift
10-13-2016, 07:38 PM
The other questions were of a personal nature which I felt would distract from the conversation.
Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

Ok, that's fair. I just figured knowing a bit about where you're coming might help us all to relate better. But I understand how you think it might serve to distract instead.

Trout
10-13-2016, 08:47 PM
Perhaps I could explain why "There were two who went up to the temple to pray" is an inapt response, since you don't seem interested in explaining why you think it is.

The rodent averred that we should not judge ourselves, lest we judge others also. The publican in your reference, who went away justified, WAS judging himself.

Further, I in no way, shape, or form consider myself better than those commentators at ex-christian.net, nor am I proud to be a Christian instead of an ex-Christian. Nonetheless, I do not want to be them. Please attempt to grok the distinction.

Pig, I've no idea if you read through the deconversion stories linked at ex Christian, your post seems to express that you have.


"But Reading these tend to make me want to remain a Christian, if only because I don't want to be them."

Your response -at first blush - sounds a bit Phariseeical.

My comment was simply an attempt to point out what I saw.

I'm sure you didn't mean to place yourself in that camp.

Meh Gerbil
10-14-2016, 03:34 AM
Good Stuff
Adrift, I think you've brought up some good things on the topic of judgement - an area that I've not done much research in at all.
I'll have to look into the topic more before I'd be able to discuss at this level of detail.

I'm more concerned about our relationship with the Law at this point.
I'm confident that one's relationship with the Law would, at the very least, change one's approach to judgement should such a thing be necessary.

Meh Gerbil
10-14-2016, 03:37 AM
I am very disappointed in this whold discussion.
I have no idea why you'd be disappointed.
I feel as if I've learned some things and I'd like to hope others are as well.

Bill the Cat
10-14-2016, 06:11 AM
Right.

The objection to Grace that some express is the fear that someone would misinterpret Grace and intentionally sin.
I would agree that is bad and it is certainly a possibility.

That said, at the end of any given day the one who intentionally sins and the one who fails while trying to be obedient still violate the Law 100% and still need Grace 100%.

The end need for Grace is identical - so what is the real panic here?
We're okay with people misunderstanding our judgementalism but it is the whole Grace thing that gets people upset?

But does God extend grace to those who do not ask for it? IMO, one who sees no problem in their intentional sin doesn't ask for forgiveness and grace. Does God confer grace against our will?

Sparko
10-14-2016, 06:18 AM
I think someone who enjoys sinning and revels in it believing he is covered by grace, might want to examine himself to see if he is truly saved in the first place.

Meh Gerbil
10-14-2016, 06:28 AM
But does God extend grace to those who do not ask for it? IMO, one who sees no problem in their intentional sin doesn't ask for forgiveness and grace. Does God confer grace against our will?I think all peoples sins for all time have been forgiven.
It is a question of whether or not people live in that forgiveness.

^--- That is certainly up for debate and may be a game of semantics.

Here are some thoughts that come to mind while considering your question:

1: I've a little bit of an issue with the phrase intentional sin and I'm not sure how it is supposed to be different than unintentional sin. Paul claims that he does stuff that he doesn't want to do and doesn't do the stuff he intends to do. The phrase 'intentional' and 'unintentional' seems to imply a level of control that I'm not sure even exists. If you think we have that level of control then why would you have any sin in your life at all?

2: God does confer Grace against our will. The Bible says He sends rain to the just and the unjust. We have tons of blessings in our day to day lives that we certainly haven't earned and these gifts are received daily despite the fact that we sin every single day. Also, when you're first saved you're taken from a state of being 'dead in sin' to 'alive in Christ' - the dead have no will, no control, no desire. Yeah, I think we get Grace against our will from start to finish.

3: I hope God confers Grace against our wills because I'm not sure we're even capable of wanting the right things until Grace has healed us enough to even want it.

That's just some random thoughts.
I'm not ready to go to war over any of it.

Meh Gerbil
10-14-2016, 06:37 AM
I think someone who enjoys sinning and revels in it believing he is covered by grace, might want to examine himself to see if he is truly saved in the first place.I've seen a pastor who is 200lbs overweight get up in church and brag about the meal he's gonna have at Sister Brenda's house after the service.
The man is obviously a glutton and his obsession with food is the subject of a joke in church and everyone laughs.
He's bragging about sin and getting applause.

Somehow nobody questions his salvation.

However, if the same pastor was a fit and trim fellow getting up on stage and bragging about the gay sex he was going to have that afternoon everyone would be horrified.

Somehow everybody questions his salvation.

Do you see the problem here?

Meh Gerbil
10-14-2016, 06:39 AM
I think someone who enjoys sinning and revels in it believing he is covered by grace, might want to examine himself to see if he is truly saved in the first place.I've sin in my life that I simply cannot handle right now.
It is there, it is daily, it is a problem.
I revel in the fact that Grace has covered it and will cover it until such time as the Spirit directs me to handle it.

I rely on that.

Sparko
10-14-2016, 06:41 AM
I've seen a pastor who is 200lbs overweight get up in church and brag about the meal he's gonna have at Sister Brenda's house after the service.
The man is obviously a glutton and his obsession with food is the subject of a joke in church and everyone laughs.
He's bragging about sin and getting applause.

Somehow nobody questions his salvation.

However, if the same pastor was a fit and trim fellow getting up on stage and bragging about the gay sex he was going to have that afternoon everyone would be horrified.

Somehow everybody questions his salvation.

Do you see the problem here?

Yeah I see the problem. Overeating isn't a sin.

Sparko
10-14-2016, 06:43 AM
I've sin in my life that I simply cannot handle right now.
It is there, it is daily, it is a problem.
I revel in the fact that Grace has covered it and will cover it until such time as the Spirit directs me to handle it.

I rely on that.

I too have sin in my life. I don't revel in it. I abhor it. Sin is bad. It is not something to embrace and enjoy. It is something to put up with until we are freed from it once and for all.

Meh Gerbil
10-14-2016, 06:52 AM
Yeah I see the problem. Overeating isn't a sin.
Gluttony is most certainly a sin, my friend.
It is nothing more than eating more than what you require which is evidenced by being overweight.

What do you think over weight people look like to people who are starving to death?

Bill the Cat
10-14-2016, 06:54 AM
I've sin in my life that I simply cannot handle right now.
It is there, it is daily, it is a problem.

And that's where it is different from what I am talking about. You realize it is a problem.


I revel in the fact that Grace has covered it and will cover it until such time as the Spirit directs me to handle it.

I rely on that.

We all who are growing in Christ do.

Sparko
10-14-2016, 06:57 AM
Gluttony is most certainly a sin, my friend.
It is nothing more than eating more than what you require which is evidenced by being overweight.

What do you think over weight people look like to people who are starving to death?really? can you show me where it is a sin to be fat?

Bill the Cat
10-14-2016, 07:08 AM
Gluttony is most certainly a sin, my friend.
It is nothing more than eating more than what you require which is evidenced by being overweight.

What do you think over weight people look like to people who are starving to death?

Overeating isn't gluttony. Being obese isn't gluttony. Culinary hedonism is. See Eating to Excess: The Meaning of Gluttony and the Fat Body in the Ancient World by Susan E. Hill


Contemporary Western culture, for instance, often makes an unquestioned assumption that being fat is the result of gluttony and therefore represents a lack of moral fortitude. Google images for “gluttony,” and almost every picture shows fat people, many of them eating. And, it is hard to imagine that it has not always been the case that being a glutton means being fat and lazy. Yet, an exploration of what fat bodies mean in the ancient world suggests a complex and multilayered understanding of fatness and gluttony that, on most occasions, makes a clear distinction between being fat and being a glutton. Food scholars note that the equation of gluttony with fatness is rarely made in the ancient world, and not simply because ancient people did not have an understanding of calories, body metabolism, and the nutritional content of various foods. Rather, people in the ancient world usually distinguish being fat from being a glutton because anyone can behave gluttonously, and fat people are not inevitably gluttonous. Indeed, a fat body in the ancient world often positively represents wealth, abundance, and luxury. Recognizing the distinction between being fat and being a glutton suggests that contemporary assumptions about the unquestioned connection between fatness and gluttony are, indeed, assumptions, and that the meaning of body size and eating practices has changed over time. Moreover, the distinction between being fat and being a glutton is dependent on specific historical circumstances and ideas. This suggests that the current moral discourse about fatness does not reflect an unavoidable truth about fat bodies or their behaviors. To examine fat bodies and gluttons from a historical perspective can thus offer alternative ways of thinking about the meaning of body size and food behavior over time.

Sparko
10-14-2016, 07:16 AM
Here is what I meant about sinning just because you can. Thinking that since you are forgiven, you can sin all you want, and revel in it.

1 John 3
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.

Now obviously John isn't talking about any sinning at all, since we all sin and he earlier says anyone who claims to be without sin is a liar. He is talking about purposeful sinning, enjoying sinning. Not even trying to stop. If you are doing that, then you need to question if you belong to Christ at all.

Being saved isn't a license to sin. Sin is bad and needs to be minimized and avoided.

Sparko
10-14-2016, 07:28 AM
Overeating isn't gluttony. Being obese isn't gluttony. Culinary hedonism is. See Eating to Excess: The Meaning of Gluttony and the Fat Body in the Ancient World by Susan E. Hill


Contemporary Western culture, for instance, often makes an unquestioned assumption that being fat is the result of gluttony and therefore represents a lack of moral fortitude. Google images for “gluttony,” and almost every picture shows fat people, many of them eating. And, it is hard to imagine that it has not always been the case that being a glutton means being fat and lazy. Yet, an exploration of what fat bodies mean in the ancient world suggests a complex and multilayered understanding of fatness and gluttony that, on most occasions, makes a clear distinction between being fat and being a glutton. Food scholars note that the equation of gluttony with fatness is rarely made in the ancient world, and not simply because ancient people did not have an understanding of calories, body metabolism, and the nutritional content of various foods. Rather, people in the ancient world usually distinguish being fat from being a glutton because anyone can behave gluttonously, and fat people are not inevitably gluttonous. Indeed, a fat body in the ancient world often positively represents wealth, abundance, and luxury. Recognizing the distinction between being fat and being a glutton suggests that contemporary assumptions about the unquestioned connection between fatness and gluttony are, indeed, assumptions, and that the meaning of body size and eating practices has changed over time. Moreover, the distinction between being fat and being a glutton is dependent on specific historical circumstances and ideas. This suggests that the current moral discourse about fatness does not reflect an unavoidable truth about fat bodies or their behaviors. To examine fat bodies and gluttons from a historical perspective can thus offer alternative ways of thinking about the meaning of body size and food behavior over time.

Gluttony can be doing anything to excess: binge watching TV can be gluttony. It is a form of greed.

Enjoying good food is not gluttony. Being fat is not gluttony. Even occasional overeating is not gluttony.

But that really wasn't the point I was making with Gerbz. He assumed a fat pastor was a glutton because he enjoyed food. That could or could not be true. But I don't see where that is even a law in the OT. It is frowned upon in proverbs and such but there is no specific law against overeating or gluttony. Even if there were, Christians are not under the OT Law.

One Bad Pig
10-14-2016, 07:35 AM
Overeating isn't gluttony. Being obese isn't gluttony. Culinary hedonism is. See Eating to Excess: The Meaning of Gluttony and the Fat Body in the Ancient World by Susan E. Hill


Contemporary Western culture, for instance, often makes an unquestioned assumption that being fat is the result of gluttony and therefore represents a lack of moral fortitude. Google images for “gluttony,” and almost every picture shows fat people, many of them eating. And, it is hard to imagine that it has not always been the case that being a glutton means being fat and lazy. Yet, an exploration of what fat bodies mean in the ancient world suggests a complex and multilayered understanding of fatness and gluttony that, on most occasions, makes a clear distinction between being fat and being a glutton. Food scholars note that the equation of gluttony with fatness is rarely made in the ancient world, and not simply because ancient people did not have an understanding of calories, body metabolism, and the nutritional content of various foods. Rather, people in the ancient world usually distinguish being fat from being a glutton because anyone can behave gluttonously, and fat people are not inevitably gluttonous. Indeed, a fat body in the ancient world often positively represents wealth, abundance, and luxury. Recognizing the distinction between being fat and being a glutton suggests that contemporary assumptions about the unquestioned connection between fatness and gluttony are, indeed, assumptions, and that the meaning of body size and eating practices has changed over time. Moreover, the distinction between being fat and being a glutton is dependent on specific historical circumstances and ideas. This suggests that the current moral discourse about fatness does not reflect an unavoidable truth about fat bodies or their behaviors. To examine fat bodies and gluttons from a historical perspective can thus offer alternative ways of thinking about the meaning of body size and food behavior over time.
On the other hand, both culinary hedonism and over-eating have traditionally been condemned within at least the Eastern Church.

Meh Gerbil
10-14-2016, 07:43 AM
Gluttony can be doing anything to excess: binge watching TV can be gluttony. It is a form of greed.

Enjoying good food is not gluttony. Being fat is not gluttony. Even occasional overeating is not gluttony.

But that really wasn't the point I was making with Gerbz. He assumed a fat pastor was a glutton because he enjoyed food. That could or could not be true. But I don't see where that is even a law in the OT. It is frowned upon in proverbs and such but there is no specific law against overeating or gluttony. Even if there were, Christians are not under the OT Law.
Being fat is as much a symptom of eating too much as being drunk is a symptom of drinking too much.

Being fat has been shown to be unhealthy so if you're eating to the point of suffering health consequences than your enjoyment of food has progressed to the point to where you're injuring your body. Eating to the point of injuring yourself, in world full of starving people, is the very definition of gluttony. Stop being ridiculous. If you doubt that go ask a starving kid what he thinks about your weight problem.

Seriously, I'm getting the same kinds of equivocation and nonsense one gets from the homosexual community when trying to show that the Bible forbids gay sex.

All of this blowback to avoid being placed in the camp of "I sin, I know I sin, and I enjoy it."
All this to avoid relying on Grace?

Sparko
10-14-2016, 07:48 AM
Being fat is as much a symptom of eating too much as being drunk is a symptom of drinking too much. uh no.

I am overweight. I don't eat too much. In fact I am on a strict 1200 calorie per day diet, I eat only lean meat, no bread and eat lots of salads and vegetables. Yet I am still overweight. I even exercise 30 minutes a day (walking, riding my stationary bike) - can't lose weight. Doctors say it is just genetics. My metabolism is slower than normal, or more efficient. I am certainly not a glutton.

Trout
10-14-2016, 06:11 PM
Can I eat this box of corn dogs or not?

Jedidiah
10-14-2016, 06:56 PM
Can I eat this box of corn dogs or not?

You may eat it, whether you can or not you will find out if you try.

One Bad Pig
10-15-2016, 11:17 AM
Can I eat this box of corn dogs or not?

Only if I don't eat them first.

rogue06
10-15-2016, 11:42 AM
Can I eat this box of corn dogs or not?

Only if I don't eat them first.
And the race is on.

My money is on the pig.

Carrikature
10-17-2016, 09:36 AM
uh no.

I am overweight. I don't eat too much. In fact I am on a strict 1200 calorie per day diet, I eat only lean meat, no bread and eat lots of salads and vegetables. Yet I am still overweight. I even exercise 30 minutes a day (walking, riding my stationary bike) - can't lose weight. Doctors say it is just genetics. My metabolism is slower than normal, or more efficient. I am certainly not a glutton.

:huh:

A 1200 calorie diet is putting your body into starvation mode, which is actually worse for losing weight. Who put you on that?

Jedidiah
10-18-2016, 09:46 AM
You do not seem to want to respond to my disagreements in the Objections to The Law, so I will try here. I am very much opposed to the no disagreement request in the Objections thread as I have stated. You give distorted and inaccurate arguments and refuse to respond to disagreement. This is a discussion forum, not a pat me on the back forum.



And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” The greek work for believe is derived from pistis, which refers not to belief in the existence of something, but being persuaded that what you 'believe' is true and reliable. My experience tells me that if you actually believe something you will act accordingly. Ergo, if you routinely act as though you do not really believe what you claim to believe, it is likely that you do not really believe. This seems to me to be the crux of this whole discussion.

That does not mean that you will never slip up, but it means that your routine, every day behavior will be in accord with what you believe. When you fail you turn back to what you know is right. If you willfully ignore the guidance of the Bible, and do so as a matter of course I would believe that you do not in fact believe (that is put your faith) in Jesus Christ.

I am not saying that you, Gerbil, are not truly a believer, but that the whiners you are listening to are rebelling because they do not honestly trust what they have been told.

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 10:16 AM
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” The greek work for believe is derived from pistis, which refers not to belief in the existence of something, but being persuaded that what you 'believe' is true and reliable. My experience tells me that if you actually believe something you will act accordingly. Ergo, if you routinely act as though you do not really believe what you claim to believe, it is likely that you do not really believe. This seems to me to be the crux of this whole discussion.

That does not mean that you will never slip up, but it means that your routine, every day behavior will be in accord with what you believe. When you fail you turn back to what you know is right. If you willfully ignore the guidance of the Bible, and do so as a matter of course I would believe that you do not in fact believe (that is put your faith) in Jesus Christ.

Leading a life that matches one's beliefs is really a prerequisite for any belief system.
For example: I think we can agree that if a person says that Trump would make the best President but then turns around and votes for Hillary it would lead a rational person to doubt that person's word.

I point out that obvious truth to highlight that it is obvious - and to make the point that talking about the obvious (self-evident truth) isn't really an argument.

Of course if a person believes in Jesus Christ his life will be changed.
That person is exchanging death for life - I'd say that it isn't just changing, he's getting life for the very first time.

None of that addresses whether or not the life is under the law or under the Spirit.


I am not saying that you, Gerbil, are not truly a believer, but that the whiners you are listening to are rebelling because they do not honestly trust what they have been told..You cannot make this judgment because you've no idea who I have been reading.
Let's not jump to motivation but rather just stick to the facts.

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 10:43 AM
You do not seem to want to respond to my disagreements in the Objections to The Law, so I will try here.
That is fine as long as you don't mind me pitching a few your way.
Would you please explain to the class why you willfully, intentionally, and joyfully violate the Sabbath every Sunday? (1)

Can a person who willfully, intentionally, and joyfully violates the law be a Christian or should we recognize Christians aren't under the law?










NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I'm assuming you aren't Seventh Day Adventist.

37818
10-18-2016, 12:13 PM
Christ Himself is my Sabbath. (Hebrews 4:10; Hebrews 6:1; Colossians 2:13-17; Romans 14:5.)

I hope that helps you.

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 12:24 PM
Christ Himself is my Sabbath. (Hebrews 4:10; Hebrews 6:1; Colossians 2:13-17; Romans 14:5.)

Hebrews 4:10
This verse actually supports the concept of observing the Sabbath.

Hebrews 6:1
Unrelated to the topic at hand.

Colossians 2:13-17
This verse supports my assertion that the Law is the past and no longer our guide for living.

Romans 14:5
This verse supports my assertion that we're not under the Law but we are to be guided by the Spirit.

These are good contributions in support of the idea that we are no longer under the Law.
Anyone who wants to hold that the Law is to be our measuring stick must still answer for the Sabbath - just as the early Christians were asked to do, by the way, and their answer was: We don't use the Law as a guide for our behavior.

Sparko
10-18-2016, 12:40 PM
Hebrews 4:10
This verse actually supports the concept of observing the Sabbath.

Hebrews 6:1
Unrelated to the topic at hand.

Colossians 2:13-17
This verse supports my assertion that the Law is the past and no longer our guide for living.

Romans 14:5
This verse supports my assertion that we're not under the Law but we are to be guided by the Spirit.

These are good contributions in support of the idea that we are no longer under the Law.
Anyone who wants to hold that the Law is to be our measuring stick must still answer for the Sabbath - just as the early Christians were asked to do, by the way, and their answer was: We don't use the Law as a guide for our behavior.

Not being under the Law and totally disregarding what it teaches are two different things. I agree we are not bound by the law, but the moral codes it espouses are still valuable and right. We might not be held accountable if we stole something, but does that mean that "do not steal" is something we should not bother trying to keep? That we should say "hey we are not under the law so I can steal whatever I want! Woohoo!"?

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 12:49 PM
Not being under the Law and totally disregarding what it teaches are two different things. I agree we are not bound by the law, but the moral codes it espouses are still valuable and right. We might not be held accountable if we stole something, but does that mean that "do not steal" is something we should not bother trying to keep? That we should say "hey we are not under the law so I can steal whatever I want! Woohoo!"?
What you've said here is this: "I get to pick and choose what Law I obey."

You claim the what the Law espouses is valuable and right (I agree); however, you are picking and choose between them.
The Sabbath goes out the window, along with dietary codes and a bunch of other inconvenient things, but you hold onto the prohibition against stealing.

If you pick and choose what Laws you follow then you're participating in an re-enactment of the first sin which was succumbing to the desire to decide good and evil for oneself.

Now for the 'Woohoo!' portion: The Gospel nor anyone of whom I'm aware, advocates the 'Whoohoo!'
Calm down, Pirate.

One Bad Pig
10-18-2016, 12:55 PM
What you've said here is this: "I get to pick and choose what Law I obey."

You claim the what the Law espouses is valuable and right (I agree); however, you are picking and choose between them.
The Sabbath goes out the window, along with dietary codes and a bunch of other inconvenient things, but you hold onto the prohibition against stealing.

If you pick and choose what Laws you follow then you're participating in an re-enactment of the first sin which was succumbing to the desire to decide good and evil for oneself.

Now for the 'Woohoo!' portion: The Gospel nor anyone of whom I'm aware, advocates the 'Whoohoo!'
Calm down, Pirate.
You appear to be willfully ignoring the distinction made between ceremonial and moral law. It is generally not difficult to make the distinction, and has little to do with the desire to decide good and evil for oneself.

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 12:57 PM
You appear to be willfully ignoring the distinction made between ceremonial and moral law. It is generally not difficult to make the distinction, and has little to do with the desire to decide good and evil for oneself.What would be your scriptural justification for such a distinction?
Bearing in mind that the Sabbath actually made it to the Big Ten, right up there with murder and such.

Sparko
10-18-2016, 01:05 PM
What you've said here is this: "I get to pick and choose what Law I obey." no that is not what I said. don't put words in my mouth.



You claim the what the Law espouses is valuable and right (I agree); however, you are picking and choose between them.

The Sabbath goes out the window, along with dietary codes and a bunch of other inconvenient things, but you hold onto the prohibition against stealing.The dietary laws, the ceremonial laws were never give to me. They were given to the hebrews to keep them separate from the other people of the earth. To teach them of the coming messiah. To show he was the sacrificial lamb that would save them from their sins. I don't need to be shown that, I don't sacrifice goats and rams because Jesus already sacrificed himself for me. I don't have to worry about not mixing cotton with rayon because I understand what being separate for God is all about. But I still need to live a moral life. Not because I will go to hell if I break a law, but because being moral is what Jesus wants me to be. He wants me to be moral and good and love my neighbor. He doesn't care if I eat shellfish or go to church on Sunday instead of Saturday. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Jesus said that. Who are you to say different?


If you pick and choose what Laws you follow then you're participating in an re-enactment of the first sin which was succumbing to the desire to decide good and evil for oneself.

Now for the 'Woohoo!' portion: The Gospel nor anyone of whom I'm aware, advocates the 'Whoohoo!'
Calm down, Pirate.

Ironically it seems you are the one who is trying to be completely legalistic here. Are you advocating we should just not follow any of the law? Or all of it? Make up your mind. Either way you are wrong. By being moral and doing what is right I am not "keeping the Law" I am not "not stealing" because there is a Law against that. I am "not stealing" because it is wrong to steal and Jesus said to love my neighbor. Stealing from him is not love.

Jedidiah
10-18-2016, 01:12 PM
Leading a life that matches one's beliefs is really a prerequisite for any belief system.
For example: I think we can agree that if a person says that Trump would make the best President but then turns around and votes for Hillary it would lead a rational person to doubt that person's word.My argument does not deal with prerequisite. That is indeed a law position. My argument rests upon what I consider the fact that we do behave in accord with what we really believe, but not in accord with what we claim to believe.


I point out that obvious truth to highlight that it is obvious - and to make the point that talking about the obvious (self-evident truth) isn't really an argument.

Of course if a person believes in Jesus Christ his life will be changed.
That person is exchanging death for life - I'd say that it isn't just changing, he's getting life for the very first time.

None of that addresses whether or not the life is under the law or under the Spirit.

You cannot make this judgment because you've no idea who I have been reading.
Let's not jump to motivation but rather just stick to the facts.
You posted a couple days ago:



Look at it like this:
1: I sin but I'm really trying hard to be obedient.
2: I sin and I like to plan it out and enjoy it.

VS.

1: I'm a sinner 100% dependent upon Grace.
2: I'm a sinner 100% dependent upon Grace.

^--- While I'd agree intent is important the fact is you are still left with two sinners who have 100% violated the Law and who are still 100% dependent upon Grace.
The law is not the point in my argument. Yes you have two sinners fully dependent on grace. The one who says, " I sin and I like to plan it out and enjoy it" has effectively rejected grace and remains under law. My point is directly to the fact that when a person trusts Christ he is a new creature. Sure it takes time to learn how to be obedient to the spirit which is where trying comes into play. If you do not even try you have not trusted Christ at all. Nothing to do with motivation, except the motive of loving Christ and trying to live in accord with it. Simply to say both are dependent upon grace says nothing. Every human being is dependent upon grace. Some accept and some don't - unless you are a universalist.

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 01:14 PM
no that is not what I said. don't put words in my mouth.
This is ironic given that you immediately go on to post justifications for deciding on some Law while ignoring other Law.


The dietary laws, the ceremonial laws were never give to me. They were given to the hebrews to keep them separate from the other people of the earth. To teach them of the coming messiah. To show he was the sacrificial lamb that would save them from their sins. I don't need to be shown that, I don't sacrifice goats and rams because Jesus already sacrificed himself for me. I don't have to worry about not mixing cotton with rayon because I understand what being separate for God is all about. But I still need to live a moral life. Not because I will go to hell if I break a law, but because being moral is what Jesus wants me to be. He wants me to be moral and good and love my neighbor. He doesn't care if I eat shellfish or go to church on Sunday instead of Saturday. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Jesus said that. Who are you to say different? You claim He doesn't care, what do you base that on?
Given that God gave us the example of the Sabbath rest before the Law was even given what possible explanation do you have for discarding one of the 10 commandments?


Ironically it seems you are the one who is trying to be completely legalistic here. Are you advocating we should just not follow any of the law? Or all of it? Make up your mind. Either way you are wrong. By being moral and doing what is right I am not "keeping the Law" I am not "not stealing" because there is a Law against that. I am "not stealing" because it is wrong to steal and Jesus said to love my neighbor. Stealing from him is not love."We are not under the Law, we are under Grace."

^---- That is in the Bible.
Unfortunately for you, I see nothing in there about a partial Law adherence.

Jedidiah
10-18-2016, 01:16 PM
That is fine as long as you don't mind me pitching a few your way.Bring 'em on.

Would you please explain to the class why you willfully, intentionally, and joyfully violate the Sabbath every Sunday? (1)

Can a person who willfully, intentionally, and joyfully violates the law be a Christian or should we recognize Christians aren't under the law?
I begin to see the problem. You do not really understand what it means to be under grace rather than under the law. I suspect you already know that the ceremonial law has never applied to non Jews. Your final question is meaningless. We are obligated to live in a way that is right, not in accord with the ceremonial law of the Jews.

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 01:18 PM
My argument does not deal with prerequisite. That is indeed a law position. My argument rests upon what I consider the fact that we do behave in accord with what we really believe, but not in accord with what we claim to believe.What does Romans 7:15 mean in light of your assertion?

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 01:20 PM
Bring 'em on.

I begin to see the problem. You do not really understand what it means to be under grace rather than under the law. I suspect you already know that the ceremonial law has never applied to non Jews. Your final question is meaningless. We are obligated to live in a way that is right, not in accord with the ceremonial law of the Jews.
Feel free to find a scriptural justification for the distinction between the two Laws.
Bear in mind that my rebuttal will be Jesus and Paul referring to the entire Law, they themselves not making this artificial distinction.

BTW, the Sabbath wasn't a ceremonial Law.

Sparko
10-18-2016, 01:23 PM
This is ironic given that you immediately go on to post justifications for deciding on some Law while ignoring other Law.

You claim He doesn't care, what do you base that on?
Given that God gave us the example of the Sabbath rest before the Law was even given what possible explanation do you have for discarding one of the 10 commandments?

"We are not under the Law, we are under Grace."

^---- That is in the Bible.
Unfortunately for you, I see nothing in there about a partial Law adherence.

wow you have really turned into quite a jackass. I am outta here.

Jedidiah
10-18-2016, 01:23 PM
What does Romans 7:15 mean in light of your assertion?

It ain't always easy.

Now you answer my post.

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 01:28 PM
It ain't always easy.
Now you answer my post.
Romans 7:15 isn't saying that "it ain't always easy".
Paul is claiming that he acts in a way contrary to what he believes.

I'm interested in how you reconcile that with your apparent claim that people always act according to how they believe or else they don't really believe it.

Jedidiah
10-18-2016, 01:30 PM
Feel free to find a scriptural justification for the distinction between the two Laws.
Bear in mind that my rebuttal will be Jesus and Paul referring to the entire Law, they themselves not making this artificial distinction.

BTW, the Sabbath wasn't a ceremonial Law.Who were the Ten Commandments given to?

And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before1 me."

As I, and others, have been saying the law does not apply to us, but the moral guidelines do indeed.

And now it is your turn. I will respond to further assertions when you respond to:

"The law is not the point in my argument. Yes you have two sinners fully dependent on grace. The one who says, " I sin and I like to plan it out and enjoy it" has effectively rejected grace and remains under law. My point is directly to the fact that when a person trusts Christ he is a new creature. Sure it takes time to learn how to be obedient to the spirit which is where trying comes into play. If you do not even try you have not trusted Christ at all. Nothing to do with motivation, except the motive of loving Christ and trying to live in accord with it. Simply to say both are dependent upon grace says nothing. Every human being is dependent upon grace. Some accept and some don't - unless you are a universalist. "

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 01:41 PM
As I, and others, have been saying the law does not apply to us, but the moral guidelines do indeed.
You'll have to explain that one since you seem to have several things going on here:
1: You are making a distinction between moral guidelines and ceremonial law, something for which I've yet to see a justification.
2: You seem to think changing the word 'Law' to 'Moral Guideline' makes it a different thing. I'd be interested in the difference between those.
3: How does the renamed Law (moral guideline) apply to us? What does 'Apply' mean there because it seems to still have the ability to condemn. If a moral guideline condemns like the law then is there a substantive difference?


"The law is not the point in my argument. Yes you have two sinners fully dependent on grace. The one who says, " I sin and I like to plan it out and enjoy it" has effectively rejected grace and remains under law."I don't see the distinction between 'willful sin' and 'unintentional sin' anywhere in Scripture.
I'm not saying it isn't there, I'm just saying I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making here given Romans 7:15.

I don't mind answering this, I'm not sure I'm understanding your point.

Jedidiah
10-18-2016, 04:12 PM
Gerbil, you have not answered at all. Saying I don't understand is not an answer, especially since most of us do not see a problem. The commandments are law, God says do this. Moral guidelines can be seen in my sig. Read all of Paul, don't nit pick certain things that seem to support your position.

Are you a universalist?" Do you believe that everyone will ultimately be ultimately restored to a right relationship with God, everyone will be saved?

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 04:46 PM
Gerbil, you have not answered at all. Saying I don't understand is not an answer, especially since most of us do not see a problem. The commandments are law, God says do this. Moral guidelines can be seen in my sig. Read all of Paul, don't nit pick certain things that seem to support your position.
Okay, I thought you were saying the Law was useful as a Moral Guideline.
I would see that as equating the two - or rather, the term 'Moral Guideline' as another name for the Law.

I thought you were claiming that the Law was a means to sanctification.
If you view the role of the Law ending with condemnation than we are both on the same page.

Jedidiah
10-18-2016, 04:53 PM
Okay, I thought you were saying the Law was useful as a Moral Guideline.
I would see that as equating the two - or rather, the term 'Moral Guideline' as another name for the Law.

I thought you were claiming that the Law was a means to sanctification.


If you view the role of the Law ending with condemnation than we are both on the same page.I have never seen any Christian on this forum claim the law was a means to sanctification.

Still no responded to:
"The law is not the point in my argument. Yes you have two sinners fully dependent on grace. The one who says, " I sin and I like to plan it out and enjoy it" has effectively rejected grace and remains under law. My point is directly to the fact that when a person trusts Christ he is a new creature. Sure it takes time to learn how to be obedient to the spirit which is where trying comes into play. If you do not even try you have not trusted Christ at all. Nothing to do with motivation, except the motive of loving Christ and trying to live in accord with it. Simply to say both are dependent upon grace says nothing. Every human being is dependent upon grace. Some accept and some don't - unless you are a universalist. "

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 05:38 PM
Still no responded to:
"The law is not the point in my argument. Yes you have two sinners fully dependent on grace. The one who says, " I sin and I like to plan it out and enjoy it" has effectively rejected grace and remains under law. My point is directly to the fact that when a person trusts Christ he is a new creature. Sure it takes time to learn how to be obedient to the spirit which is where trying comes into play. If you do not even try you have not trusted Christ at all. Nothing to do with motivation, except the motive of loving Christ and trying to live in accord with it. Simply to say both are dependent upon grace says nothing. Every human being is dependent upon grace. Some accept and some don't - unless you are a universalist. "
I don't have much to say about this because, as you can see with the bolded text, it really isn't addressing the topic of the thread.
I've answered the difference between 'willful' sin and 'trying but failing' several times already.

If you have a specific, thread related question I'd be happy to throw some text at it.

Jedidiah
10-18-2016, 06:15 PM
You have two sinners fully dependent on grace. The one who says, " I sin and I like to plan it out and enjoy it" has effectively rejected grace and remains under law. He remains lost and not saved. We are every one of us dependent on grace, some reject it and are not saved. These folks are not Christians so what they say or do does not have anything to do with Christians using law as a road to salvation.

Any comment on this?

Meh Gerbil
10-18-2016, 06:34 PM
You have two sinners fully dependent on grace. The one who says, " I sin and I like to plan it out and enjoy it" has effectively rejected grace and remains under law. He remains lost and not saved. We are every one of us dependent on grace, some reject it and are not saved. These folks are not Christians so what they say or do does not have anything to do with Christians using law as a road to salvation.

Any comment on this?

I don't think there are any Christians here who would say the Law is a road to Salvation.
I think that has been covered rather thoroughly with no disagreement among us.

I would agree that there are people who reject Grace; and are therefore, not Christians.

I don't agree necessarily with this statement:

The one who says, " I sin and I like to plan it out and enjoy it" has effectively rejected grace and remains under law.

I think this could be the attitude of a person who is rejecting Grace, sure.

However, I don't know what the difference is between someone who enjoys his sin and myself. I've set out to sin many times in my life and I certainly wouldn't be doing the sin unless I was getting some sort of pleasure out of it. Isn't that why all people sin, saved and unsaved, because they like it? So I don't understand the difference between accidental sins and the really damning ones that were planned. The distinction between sin lite (oppsies) and sin heavy (planned stuff) seems unscriptural to me, especially in the light of Paul claiming that he often did things different than he wanted. (If we aren't in control than it is effectively all the same)

The heavy duty planned sin seems to be an objection often raised in order to avoid embracing Grace over the Law.
I was only attempting to illustrate that there are no different levels of damned in the eyes of the law, it is either pass or fail.

Jedidiah
10-18-2016, 07:36 PM
I think this could be the attitude of a person who is rejecting Grace, sure.

However, I don't know what the difference is between someone who enjoys his sin and myself. I've set out to sin many times in my life and I certainly wouldn't be doing the sin unless I was getting some sort of pleasure out of it. Isn't that why all people sin, saved and unsaved, because they like it? So I don't understand the difference between accidental sins and the really damning ones that were planned. The distinction between sin lite (oppsies) and sin heavy (planned stuff) seems unscriptural to me, especially in the light of Paul claiming that he often did things different than he wanted. (If we aren't in control than it is effectively all the same)

The heavy duty planned sin seems to be an objection often raised in order to avoid embracing Grace over the Law.
I was only attempting to illustrate that there are no different levels of damned in the eyes of the law, it is either pass or fail.

If you reject grace you are rejecting Christ.

I think you are looking at this a bit differently than am I. I have never said to myself, I want to do this and I know it is wrong, but I will do it anyway. I am under grace so God has to let this on go. I have set out to do something that was wrong, but not the way I described it. If I realize what I am doing is wrong I will back off from it. What you describe seems to me sort of like, 'my sin will make grace abound all the more." I reject that approach. I suspect I am misreading what you are saying.

Meh Gerbil
10-19-2016, 03:52 AM
If you reject grace you are rejecting Christ.
I think this is true regarding Justification.
I think the argument springs up because I feel the exact same way about Sanctification.


I think you are looking at this a bit differently than am I. I have never said to myself, I want to do this and I know it is wrong, but I will do it anyway. I am under grace so God has to let this on go.I have to tell myself this every day, "I'm going to go out and sin today but God's Grace has already covered it."
I don't want to sin (all the time) but just the act of breathing is going to get me there in some form or another.

My guess is that real point of contention is that if a person is saved they're going to act a certain way - something is going to change - and for me that kind of is a tricky proposition and a bit theoretical because as a human being I'm not comfortable deciding what has to change in that person's life, how it has to change, or when it will change. This is because a person is supposed to live by the Spirit (not the Law) and so if we use the Law to measure that person's progress we'll get it wrong every time.

Here is an example: I heard a wonderful testimony of a new Christian who was also a homosexual. He lived with his boyfriend for years after becoming a Christian but as he grew in the faith and matured as a Christian he came to realize that his sexual sin was harmful to the man he professed to love. He ended up leaving the life-style because of love, not because of the Law. Would our churches have given this man enough room and time to grow or would he have been hammered with the gay thing so hard up front that the Spirit would have had no time to work it out? His change wasn't the result of gutting it out - it was the result of new guts. So he lived a life style that violated the Law for the first couple years of his Christian life BUT I think he was living by the Spirit the whole time. The Spirit is patient that way.

If we measure our progress (Sanctification) by the Law that is something different than measuring our progress by the Spirit.

Sparko
10-19-2016, 04:57 AM
When I don't murder someone, I am not doing it because the Law says "do not murder" - I am not murdering because murdering is wrong. It is immoral and not loving. That is the difference between being "under the Law" and having the law "written on your heart" and doing right because it is right to do so, not because you are trying to follow the Law to be saved. In other words, when you do the right thing, it will coincide with the Law, whether you even know the Law exists at all. It doesn't mean you are "following the Law" or "under the Law" - it just means that not sinning and doing right is the same thing the Law tries to tell us about, at least regarding moral principals.

Meh Gerbil
10-19-2016, 05:43 AM
When I don't murder someone, I am not doing it because the Law says "do not murder" - I am not murdering because murdering is wrong. It is immoral and not loving. That is the difference between being "under the Law" and having the law "written on your heart" and doing right because it is right to do so, not because you are trying to follow the Law to be saved. In other words, when you do the right thing, it will coincide with the Law, whether you even know the Law exists at all. It doesn't mean you are "following the Law" or "under the Law" - it just means that not sinning and doing right is the same thing the Law tries to tell us about, at least regarding moral principals.Something like murder is a bit theoretical for me.
I can say I don't murder because of love; however, in truth I don't murder because I detest manual labor.

Meh Gerbil
10-19-2016, 05:50 AM
I think I can summarize my views on the Law as the following:

1: The Law exists only to condemn.
2: The Law is a unit. The ceremonial/moral divide is artificial.
3: The Law is a pass/fail test.
4: The Law is neither useful for Justification, Sanctification, or Glorification.
5: The Law is not our standard for behavior.

I notice in Galatians that Paul contrasts the Fruit of the Flesh with the Fruit of the Spirit.
He doesn't contrast the Fruit of the Non-Law Abiding Crowd with the Fruit of the Law Abiding Crowd.
I think pulling the Law into our lives not only misidentifies the enemy but also misidentifies the solution.

37818
10-19-2016, 05:50 AM
BTW, the Sabbath wasn't a ceremonial Law.

To whom was the Sabbath obervance given to? Why was it given? [The Sabbath day under the Law remains on the 7th day of the week BTW]

Meh Gerbil
10-19-2016, 06:01 AM
To whom was the Sabbath obervance given to? Why was it given? [The Sabbath day under the Law remains on the 7th day of the week BTW]
It was given to the same people to whom all of the Law was given.
If you exclude the Sabbath observance because it was given to the Jews then you're left explaining why the other Laws still apply.

Sparko
10-19-2016, 06:15 AM
Something like murder is a bit theoretical for me.
I can say I don't murder because of love; however, in truth I don't murder because I detest manual labor.okaaay.

My point is that the motivation is different but the result is the same. If someone doesn't murder just because there is a law against it, that is quite a but different than someone not murdering because they think it is wrong. Take away the law and the first guy would start murdering people but the second would not. He would follow the "law" even if there was no longer a law.

That is where Christians are. Even though the Law is no longer in effect for them, they still do what the Law requires because the principals of the Law are good and right and they want to do what is good and right. They coincide. So the Christian will want to do what is right not because there is a Law that says he has to, but because it is right to do so. Not to BE saved but because he is saved and a changed person. He has the Holy Spirit indwelling him, guiding him and sanctifying him. He will not be perfect, but he is getting better.

You keep trying to say that if they do what the Law says then they are putting themselves under the Law and not Grace. That would be true only if they thought that obeying the Law was a condition of salvation. That you had to work for your salvation.

Meh Gerbil
10-19-2016, 06:16 AM
If you're new to Grace (1) then I'd recommend going through this entire thread and dropping me some Amens.
It would be good practice.



NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I'm looking your way, Jed.

Meh Gerbil
10-19-2016, 06:24 AM
That is where Christians are. Even though the Law is no longer in effect for them, they still do what the Law requires because the principals of the Law are good and right and they want to do what is good and right. They coincide. So the Christian will want to do what is right not because there is a Law that says he has to, but because it is right to do so. Not to BE saved but because he is saved and a changed person. He has the Holy Spirit indwelling him, guiding him and sanctifying him. He will not be perfect, but he is getting better.
I get what you're saying in principle here but I feel it still misses the mark.
The problem is that Christians don't generally feel the need to mark the Sabbath which apparently means the Spirit isn't targeting the Law as our standard of behavior.

So no, I wouldn't agree that the direction of the Spirit and the direction of the Law are parallel (if that is what you are claiming).
They only reason these two appear to run side by side is because Christians unjustifiably exclude about 99% of the Law from the evaluation.


You keep trying to say that if they do what the Law says then they are putting themselves under the Law and not Grace. That would be true only if they thought that obeying the Law was a condition of salvation. That you had to work for your salvation.
I think we've handled the Salvation issue.
The point of Galatians is that the people were putting themselves under the Law for Sanctification and Paul was urging them not to do that.

Sparko
10-19-2016, 06:59 AM
I get what you're saying in principle here but I feel it still misses the mark.
The problem is that Christians don't generally feel the need to mark the Sabbath which apparently means the Spirit isn't targeting the Law as our standard of behavior. The sabbath isn't morality. It is worshiping. Which Christians do on Sunday instead of Saturday because that is when Jesus resurrected. And since they are not under the Law, they are not under the various Sabbath regulations. But the principal is still there, celebrating and worshiping God on a special day.

Again, we are NOT under the LAW. We are simply doing the same thing as the law says but because it is the right thing to do, not because it is a condition of our salvation.

Colossians 2:16
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

And as Hebrews 4 teaches us, THIS is the Sabbath. Salvation through Christ. He gives us rest. Takes away our burden. Today is the Sabbath.

Meh Gerbil
10-19-2016, 07:36 AM
The sabbath isn't morality.
1: How is a commandment not a moral issue?


It is worshiping.
1: So is "Do not place other Gods before me"
2: So is "Do not use my name in vain"
3: The distinction between worship Law and moral Law is artificial.


And since they are not under the Law, they are not under the various Sabbath regulations.
Right.
We are not under the Law.

How are our opinions different?

Sparko
10-19-2016, 08:03 AM
1: How is a commandment not a moral issue?


1: So is "Do not place other Gods before me"
2: So is "Do not use my name in vain"
3: The distinction between worship Law and moral Law is artificial.


Right.
We are not under the Law.

How are our opinions different?

Our opinions are different because you keep trying to say we are placing ourselves under the Law by obeying God and doing what is right and moral. That is crap. You are twisting everything around to make a point that is built entirely on straw, and you are being an arrogant ass about it.

Jedidiah
10-19-2016, 08:39 AM
I think I can summarize my views on the Law as the following:

1: The Law exists only to condemn. [yes]
2: The Law is a unit. The ceremonial/moral divide is artificial. [no]
3: The Law is a pass/fail test. [yes]
4: The Law is neither useful for Justification, Sanctification, or Glorification. [yes]
5: The Law is not our standard for behavior. [yes and no]

I notice in Galatians that Paul contrasts the Fruit of the Flesh with the Fruit of the Spirit.
He doesn't contrast the Fruit of the Non-Law Abiding Crowd with the Fruit of the Law Abiding Crowd.
I think pulling the Law into our lives not only misidentifies the enemy but also misidentifies the solution.

My two cents.

Jedidiah
10-19-2016, 08:42 AM
Am I correct in seeing your major concern as Christians trying to force change in behavior of others because of what they see as sin?

Adrift
10-19-2016, 09:57 AM
What would be your scriptural justification for such a distinction?
Bearing in mind that the Sabbath actually made it to the Big Ten, right up there with murder and such.

This question has been coming up a lot lately on this forum. For a good briefer, I recommend this overview of the subject in the Jewish Encyclopedia: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4180-ceremonies-and-the-ceremonial-law

Symbolic rites and observances, expressive of certain thoughts or sentiments. As social life demands forms of etiquette (see Greetings), so every religious system has its peculiar ceremonies indicative of its own particular truths. The Biblical name for ceremonies appears to be "edut" ("testimonies," Deut. iv. 45; vi. 17, 20; see Naḥmanides on the last passage), in distinction to "mishpaṭim" ("judgments," "ordinances," Ex. xxi. 1, and elsewhere); while the term "ḥuḳḳim" ("statutes") is applied to both moral and ceremonial laws (Ex. xii. 14, 43; Lev. xviii. 4, and elsewhere). The Rabbis distinguish between mishpaṭim, moral laws—which are dictated by reason and common sense, such as laws concerning justice, incestuous marriages, and the like—and ḥuḳḳim, those divine statutes to which the "Yeẓer ha-Ra'" (the evil inclination) and the heathen object, such as the prohibition of pork or of wearing garments woven of wool and linen (Sifra, Aḥare Mot, xiii. on Lev. xviii. 5; Yoma 67b).

The Prophets laid the greatest stress upon the moral laws, while condemning mere ceremonialism (see Hosea vi. 6; Amos v. 21-24; Micah vi. 6-8; Isa. i. 13-17). The Psalmist (see Ps. xv.), and especially the Book of Wisdom, do not even refer to the ceremonial law. Whenever Judaism entered into relations with other nations and religions, the moral laws were accentuated, and the ceremonial laws were put into the background. Hellenistic Judaism, therefore (for Pseudo-Phocylides see Bernays, "Gesammelte Schriften," i. 227), Philo, and the entire propaganda literature to which the Didache belongs, take the same attitude toward the ceremonial laws. And, again, when the Jew came into contact with Arabic culture, this view of the ceremonial laws prevailed as being dictated by reason and common sense.

First Mention of Ceremonial Laws.
The discrimination between "laws based upon reason" and "laws demanding obedience to God's will" was adopted by Saadia ("Emunot we-De'ot," iii. 12; compare Ibn Ezra to Ex. xxi. and "Yesod Moreh," v.), and, with direct reference to the rabbinical passages quoted, by Maimonides ("Moreh Nebukim," iii. 2b; "Shemonah Peraḳim," vi.). Joseph Albo ("Iḳḳarim," iii. 25), if not Simon ben Ẓemaḥ Duran (see Zunz, "G. S." ii. 194), is the first who divides the Biblical laws into ceremonial, juridical, and moral laws. He admits, however, that he adopted this classification from a Christian controversialist; and, as a matter of fact, he forced himself in consequence to declare, with Maimonides (l.c. iii. 46), the sacrifices of the Mosaic law to be a concession to the pagan propensities of the people, and (in accordance with Sifre to Deut. xi. 13) prayer to be the true "service of the Lord"—a standpoint hardly to be reconciled with the belief in supernatural revelation and the permanence of the Mosaic law.

Biblical and Rabbinical Ceremonies.
The Mosaic law expressly states that certain ceremonies are to serve as "signs" and "memorials": (a) Circumcision is enjoined as "ot berit" ("a token of the covenant betwixt me and you," Gen. xvii. 11). (b) The Sabbath is to be "ot" ("a sign between me and you throughout your generations," Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; Ezek. xx. 17, 20). (c) The Passover feast "shall be for a sign [ot] unto thee upon thine hand and for a memorial between thine eyes" (Ex. xiii. 9). (d) Connected therewith is the redemption of the first-born to be a "token upon thine hands and for frontlets between thine eyes" (Ex. xiii. 16). According to rabbinical traditions, there are: (e) The putting on of the phylacteries or Tefillin prescribed in Deut. vi. 8, xi. 18, "Thou shalt bind them for a sign [ot] upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes." (f) The placing of Mezuzah upon the doors (Deut. vi. 9, xi. 20): "Thou shalt write them upon the doorposts of thine house." (g) The Ẓiẓit,the fringe upon the borders of the garment, is also enjoined for the purpose "that ye may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord" (Num. xv. 39).

(Emphasis mine, that will hopefully help give some context to the questions you asked)

37818
10-20-2016, 06:41 AM
It was given to the same people to whom all of the Law was given.
If you exclude the Sabbath observance because it was given to the Jews then you're left explaining why the other Laws still apply.

1) According to the Law it was limited to "within thy gates" (Deuteronomy 5:14; Exodus 20:10).

2) Jesus taught, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18.) And that happens at the Judgement (Revelation 20:11). see Romans 2:11-16.

Meh Gerbil
10-20-2016, 07:20 AM
Am I correct in seeing your major concern as Christians trying to force change in behavior of others because of what they see as sin?
As annoying as that is the fact is that most people are trying to get other people to change in some way or another.
It would drive a person nuts if he was to get worked up over that sort of thing.

My major concern is that my ability to live by the Spirit is going to be compromised if I'm attempting to live by the Law.
That is where it has the largest impact on my life.

Meh Gerbil
10-20-2016, 07:29 AM
*stuff*
I would agree that there are different categories of Law.

When I say that the difference is artificial I'm saying that when Jesus fulfilled the Law He fulfilled all of it.
When I say that the difference is artificial I'm saying that when the Gospel says we aren't under the Law it means we aren't under any of it.

So from the perspective of the Gospels and the Epistles I think it is pretty safe to say that the Law was viewed as a unit, hence my claim, that for the sake of the discussion, that the distinctions are manufactured.

Additionally, while I'm not a Jewish scholar by any stretch I'm a little skeptical of Rabbis who divide the law per the quote.
Given they've no temple and no ability to engage in fully half of their Law they're rather forced to begin creating justifications for why certain laws aren't followed.
Imagine a first century Jew standing outside the temple and claiming that the ceremonial laws are subject to reasonableness test.

Meh Gerbil
10-20-2016, 07:41 AM
Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread.
It helped me tighten up a couple of points and clarify a few things in my own noggin'
I need to wind this one down though so I'll give ya'll the final word (1).


NOTES:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: It pains me to give you the final word because you'll write something incredibly ignorant. At least I'll have something to stew over in the middle of the night as I stare blankly at the ceiling wondering why I ever start these things to begin with.

Scrawly
10-20-2016, 07:48 AM
Lol.

Sparko
10-20-2016, 08:26 AM
word.

Adrift
10-20-2016, 09:09 AM
I would agree that there are different categories of Law.

When I say that the difference is artificial I'm saying that when Jesus fulfilled the Law He fulfilled all of it.
When I say that the difference is artificial I'm saying that when the Gospel says we aren't under the Law it means we aren't under any of it.

So from the perspective of the Gospels and the Epistles I think it is pretty safe to say that the Law was viewed as a unit, hence my claim, that for the sake of the discussion, that the distinctions are manufactured.

Additionally, while I'm not a Jewish scholar by any stretch I'm a little skeptical of Rabbis who divide the law per the quote.
Given they've no temple and no ability to engage in fully half of their Law they're rather forced to begin creating justifications for why certain laws aren't followed.
Imagine a first century Jew standing outside the temple and claiming that the ceremonial laws are subject to reasonableness test.

Yes, I think all of us here take it for granted that Jesus fulfilled all of the law. I don't think that's in doubt by anyone in this thread. But what does that imply? Does that imply that the law that is written in our heart is no longer applicable in our day to day actions? That that law that is written on our heart is dead? I think you'll find wide agreement by the Christians in this thread that we are no longer under the law, but what does it mean to be "under the law"? Does this mean that we are somehow free to live as reprobates? The New Testament certainly doesn't allow for that, yet it does tell us that we are free from the law. What can that mean? In my opinion, there aren't too many options here. Either the New Testament routinely contradicts itself (down to individual authors contradicting themselves within mere passages from one another) OR there is nuance or context or something that you seem to be missing that most of the Christians here seem to be getting.

Also, while it's fine to be skeptical of Rabbis who have divided the law, these distinctions likely go back very early (as can be seen in some of the OT passages that are cited). Also I don't think we can say that they needed to do this only because of their lack of temple worship. They seem to be able to distinguish even those things like keeping kosher, which the Orthodox still do to this day, as something ceremonial vs. something that is moral.

Jedidiah
10-20-2016, 10:09 AM
As annoying as that is the fact is that most people are trying to get other people to change in some way or another.
It would drive a person nuts if he was to get worked up over that sort of thing.

My major concern is that my ability to live by the Spirit is going to be compromised if I'm attempting to live by the Law.
That is where it has the largest impact on my life.Just ignore the law and do what is right as best you are able.

Bisto
10-23-2016, 10:09 AM
Hello Mr. Gerbil. First of all, I really appreciate your insights throughout your different "Law" threads.

In light of what you've said so far, I have a question: How do you interpret passages where the Apostles talked about (a/the) Law in a seemingly relevant way? (e.g. 1 Cor 9:20-21, James 1:25, 2:8-13). What is being described/prescribed there, in your opinion?

Thanks!

ETA: that was two questions... :smile:

Adrift
10-23-2016, 10:13 AM
Hello Mr. Gerbil. First of all, I really appreciate your insights throughout your different "Law" threads.

In light of what you've said so far, I have a question: How do you interpret passages where the Apostles talked about (a/the) Law in a seemingly relevant way? (e.g. 1 Cor 9:20-21, James 1:25, 2:8-13). What is being described/prescribed there, in your opinion?

Thanks!

ETA: that was two questions... :smile:

For the record, that question's sort of been asked a few times in this thread already.

Bisto
10-23-2016, 11:40 AM
For the record, that question's sort of been asked a few times in this thread already.

Oh, I must have missed it. To be fair, I didn't check all pages in between :/. Thanks.

Meh Gerbil
10-23-2016, 04:05 PM
Hello Mr. Gerbil. First of all, I really appreciate your insights throughout your different "Law" threads.

In light of what you've said so far, I have a question: How do you interpret passages where the Apostles talked about (a/the) Law in a seemingly relevant way? (e.g. 1 Cor 9:20-21, James 1:25, 2:8-13). What is being described/prescribed there, in your opinion?

Thanks!

ETA: that was two questions... :smile:

I Corinthians 9:20-21
I believe this passage describes sacrifices made in an attempt to remove barriers to the ministering of the Gospel. If I were trying to minister the Gospel to Jews I probably wouldn't eat pork in front of them since they'd be hung up on my diet and probably not listening to my words. In that case a person wouldn't be refraining from pork due to the law but rather sacrificing it as to remove a communication barrier. The emphasis here is ministering grace to others, not personal sanctification.

James 1:25
The commentaries I look at for this passage seem to be in agreement that it isn't the Mosaic law being referenced here. They cite Romans 3:27 as a passage that contrasts the Mosaic law and the Law of Liberty (the Gospel). I'm not an expert on these matters - I offer that has something to think about.

James 2:8
If a person has a new nature that new nature is going to express itself. I'm in full agreement with this passage. Bear in mind that this passage is taking about the fruit of faith and while at times that will run close in parallel with the law it isn't the same as the law and will often run counter to it. Galatians sets up life in the Spirit as our guide to behavior and not the Law. So deeds of the Spirit will be the fruit of the person who has a new nature. James had those deeds.

I don't believe there is a single N.T passage that talks about us living via the law but there are dozens about living by the Spirit.
I'm not even aware of any where the Law is a guide, but rather the Spirit.

Anyways, I'm just working through these things myself - the past 20 years of my life has been slowly, incrementally, and painfully extracting the Law from my psyche.
The extent at which the Law doesn't even apply to us has only recently impacted me on a whole new level.

Thanks for the contribution.

Jedidiah
10-23-2016, 06:01 PM
What the law guides us to is Jesus Christ.

Bisto
10-26-2016, 10:51 AM
I Corinthians 9:20-21
I believe this passage describes sacrifices made in an attempt to remove barriers to the ministering of the Gospel. If I were trying to minister the Gospel to Jews I probably wouldn't eat pork in front of them since they'd be hung up on my diet and probably not listening to my words. In that case a person wouldn't be refraining from pork due to the law but rather sacrificing it as to remove a communication barrier. The emphasis here is ministering grace to others, not personal sanctification.

James 1:25
The commentaries I look at for this passage seem to be in agreement that it isn't the Mosaic law being referenced here. They cite Romans 3:27 as a passage that contrasts the Mosaic law and the Law of Liberty (the Gospel). I'm not an expert on these matters - I offer that has something to think about.

James 2:8
If a person has a new nature that new nature is going to express itself. I'm in full agreement with this passage. Bear in mind that this passage is taking about the fruit of faith and while at times that will run close in parallel with the law it isn't the same as the law and will often run counter to it. Galatians sets up life in the Spirit as our guide to behavior and not the Law. So deeds of the Spirit will be the fruit of the person who has a new nature. James had those deeds.

I don't believe there is a single N.T passage that talks about us living via the law but there are dozens about living by the Spirit.
I'm not even aware of any where the Law is a guide, but rather the Spirit.

Anyways, I'm just working through these things myself - the past 20 years of my life has been slowly, incrementally, and painfully extracting the Law from my psyche.
The extent at which the Law doesn't even apply to us has only recently impacted me on a whole new level.

Thanks for the contribution.

Thanks for your reply!

My questions intended to be a little more precise. I agree with the focus of the 1 Cor passage being about sacrifices made to share the Grace we received, but in your opinion, what is "being under the Law of Christ" there (as opposed to being "under the Law" and "without Law")?

And in your opinion, what does it mean to be judged by the Law of Liberty in James?

I wholeheartedly agree that the NT describes our New Life as being in/through/via the Spirit of God, rather than 'via' the Law. Nonetheless, I think it would be nice to see your thoughts on this small tangent. I'm sorry I wasn't more specific before.


God bless,

Isaac.

Meh Gerbil
10-28-2016, 03:56 AM
Thanks for your reply!

My questions intended to be a little more precise. I agree with the focus of the 1 Cor passage being about sacrifices made to share the Grace we received, but in your opinion, what is "being under the Law of Christ" there (as opposed to being "under the Law" and "without Law")?

And in your opinion, what does it mean to be judged by the Law of Liberty in James?

I wholeheartedly agree that the NT describes our New Life as being in/through/via the Spirit of God, rather than 'via' the Law. Nonetheless, I think it would be nice to see your thoughts on this small tangent. I'm sorry I wasn't more specific before.


God bless,

Isaac.
I've not thought about this very much but my guess would be that the "Law of Liberty" and the "Law of Christ" would be actions motivated by love.
This would be an expression of the new nature which would be a rather light load.

This area is largely unexplored by me, although my word is more authoritative than most here.
I've seen the first 9 seasons of Supernatural.