Some of the serious NT warnings to the churches

[francisdesales]

IMO, and in this case truly humble...not one of my strong points so I need to be careful, so to have a true debate on the subject I SHOULD bow out so as to not misrepresent the doctrine itself and I am not Calvinist so I see things a little differently.

I am not Calvinist, either, so we don't have to discuss their particular errors...

LOL, IMHO we are BOTH wrong and I am just as guilty as you for reading out of context. Look who it refers to that they are like and the description of what they do. Leading others away themselves....these are false prophets and/or false christians. They have learned the way of righteousness but I dare say they have not put it on.

Hmm, well, let's open our hearts and minds to the Word and see what it says more carefully.

Yes, these people are considered false prophets by Peter. It would be interesting to guess what exactly their false doctrines were, but it seems to be based upon false freedom. (v19) Despite teaching freedom, they themselves were enslaved to sin. That seems to be the gist. People teaching that a person could be free and in Christ while remaining in a sinful condition. It brings about immorality within the community, destroying the very concept of love and forgiveness within the Church.

Then, Peter goes on to "our" passage:

For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of [our] Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first

Now, you say they knew about the ways of righteousness, but didn't take this to heart/practice it - and thus, were "never saved". I would say that the above verse says otherwise.

It says they ESCAPED the defilements of the world. You don't escape sinful (can we agree on this?) behavior by KNOWLEDGE of something. People can read the bible and remain atheist or grevious sinners. People can be taught how to be good. That does not mean they escape sin. The only way to escape defilements of the world/sin is THROUGH Jesus Christ, accepting Him and FOLLOWING Him! It seems apparent that they had escaped sin, for a time. Thus, to escape sin means to be crucified with Christ, buried with Him in death and risen with Him through baptism (Rom 6)

The passage then says "again become entangled"...in sin. Would you agree that this is another indication that they DID leave aside a sinful life, temporarily, and then returned to the "entanglement" of sin?

The proverb tells us the condition. They had RETURNED to the "vomit". Thus, this implies that they had left it, for a time.

Furthermore, the Scripture says "For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them

Again, another implication that by turning back from the holy commandment, that they ONCE OBEYED the holy commandment. One CANNOT do this unless they had Christ abide in their hearts, for one cannot do anything good without Christ. One cannot escape the defilement of sin without Christ. One cannot follow the holy commandment given without Christ. And so, it seems to me, very clearly, that these false preachers were ONCE loyal followers of Christ who had sadly RETURNED to a life of sin. They no longer were escaping defilement. They turned their back on the holy commandments - by not only THEMSELVES returning to a life of immorality, but teaching that one is FREE and MAINTAIN a life of sin!!!

This seems to have been a problem in the early church - people returning to their former ways. That is why, for example, Paul tells the Corinthians that certain sins (speaking to Christians) would prevent them from entering the Kingdom. Dissension was one of those sins, and clearly, 1 Corinthians is addressed to people causing dissent WITHIN the church.

Peter would have none of that!

I see these as those who come into the church, hear the word but never accept it. They don't stay very long, they don't desire to.
Tried it out and decided it was not for them they like their old life better. Once their postion was that of the not knowing, now the postion has changed to one who has heard. We can only pray for these types of people that their position will change again from just knowing to receiving. JMO

Like I said, one doesn't "hear the word and never accept it" AND ALSO escape the defilement of sin. That only happens when one repents, believes in Christ, and follows Him.

Regards

 

[Mitspa]

I am not Calvinist, either, so we don't have to discuss their particular errors...



Hmm, well, let's open our hearts and minds to the Word and see what it says more carefully.

Yes, these people are considered false prophets by Peter. It would be interesting to guess what exactly their false doctrines were, but it seems to be based upon false freedom. (v19) Despite teaching freedom, they themselves were enslaved to sin. That seems to be the gist. People teaching that a person could be free and in Christ while remaining in a sinful condition. It brings about immorality within the community, destroying the very concept of love and forgiveness within the Church.

Then, Peter goes on to "our" passage:

For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of [our] Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first

Now, you say they knew about the ways of righteousness, but didn't take this to heart/practice it - and thus, were "never saved". I would say that the above verse says otherwise.

It says they ESCAPED the defilements of the world. You don't escape sinful (can we agree on this?) behavior by KNOWLEDGE of something. People can read the bible and remain atheist or grevious sinners. People can be taught how to be good. That does not mean they escape sin. The only way to escape defilements of the world/sin is THROUGH Jesus Christ, accepting Him and FOLLOWING Him! It seems apparent that they had escaped sin, for a time. Thus, to escape sin means to be crucified with Christ, buried with Him in death and risen with Him through baptism (Rom 6)

The passage then says "again become entangled"...in sin. Would you agree that this is another indication that they DID leave aside a sinful life, temporarily, and then returned to the "entanglement" of sin?

The proverb tells us the condition. They had RETURNED to the "vomit". Thus, this implies that they had left it, for a time.

Furthermore, the Scripture says "For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them

Again, another implication that by turning back from the holy commandment, that they ONCE OBEYED the holy commandment. One CANNOT do this unless they had Christ abide in their hearts, for one cannot do anything good without Christ. One cannot escape the defilement of sin without Christ. One cannot follow the holy commandment given without Christ. And so, it seems to me, very clearly, that these false preachers were ONCE loyal followers of Christ who had sadly RETURNED to a life of sin. They no longer were escaping defilement. They turned their back on the holy commandments - by not only THEMSELVES returning to a life of immorality, but teaching that one is FREE and MAINTAIN a life of sin!!!

This seems to have been a problem in the early church - people returning to their former ways. That is why, for example, Paul tells the Corinthians that certain sins (speaking to Christians) would prevent them from entering the Kingdom. Dissension was one of those sins, and clearly, 1 Corinthians is addressed to people causing dissent WITHIN the church.

Peter would have none of that!



Like I said, one doesn't "hear the word and never accept it" AND ALSO escape the defilement of sin. That only happens when one repents, believes in Christ, and follows Him.

Regards

I will say this again the way of righteousness is the righteousness of faith. Who has turn from faith, but those who go back into law? "For the law is not of faith"
Also what is this "Holy Commandment" ? THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, HEAR HIM.
also the strength of sin is the law, so those who have returned to wallow in their sin, is those that was onced washed by the Word of Grace but have turn back like a dog to his vomit.

 

[francisdesales]

I will say this again the way of righteousness is the righteousness of faith. Who has turn from faith, but those who go back into law? "For the law is not of faith"
Also what is this "Holy Commandment" ? THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, HEAR HIM.
also the strength of sin is the law, so those who have returned to wallow in their sin, is those that was onced washed by the Word of Grace but have turn back like a dog to his vomit.

What part of "I am done talking to you" aren't you getting? I don't feel like correcting your misunderstandings of the Law, since I would no doubt be subject to more name calling - no thanks.

 

[francisdesales]

I agree. He was talking to the Jews and of the law and such, but do you not think the same precepts could be applied to say...sunday Christians also, who I think largely believe they are doing good to attend church and 'sort of' keep the 10 commandments?

good observation.

Regards

 

[childeye]

And so, it seems to me, very clearly,
that
these false preachers were ONCE loyal followers of Christ who had sadly

RETURNED to a life of sin. They no longer were escaping
defilement. They turned their back on the holy commandments - by not only
THEMSELVES returning to a life of immorality, but teaching that one is FREE and
MAINTAIN a life of sin!!!

This seems to have been a problem in the early church - people returning to their former ways. That is why, for example, Paul tells the Corinthians that certain sins (speaking to Christians) would prevent them from entering the Kingdom. Dissension was one of those sins, and clearly, 1 Corinthians is addressed to people causing dissent WITHIN the church.

Peter would have none of that!



Like I said, one doesn't "hear the word and never accept it" AND ALSO escape the defilement of sin. That only happens when one repents, believes in Christ, and follows Him.

Regards

This all certainly seems plausible on the surface, but I am continually lost in ever moving terminology being placed at a certain given point so as to describe that point which is only an instant wherein it makes sense. For darkness seems to me to have degrees which changes perspectives. And the term repentance is better applied to a direction rather than simply the ability to reason so as to direct one's will.

For example, There was the sinner who asked for mercy before God, for that he was a sinner. And this was presented in contrast to the man who thanked God that he was not a sinner. After presenting this, Jesus asked for us to consider which man was right before God. It seems the sinner asking for mercy recognizes he is in a state of futility, wherein there is also a certain undeniable humility, and yet an unending need for repentance applied to the term sin when used in this manner. The term sin is vast in the concept of what it represents and to all it could be applied to. And rarely is it just here or there, except perhaps when seen in the overall big picture. Certainly Peter who denied Christ three times is no stranger to weakness and fear, and he would know such a humility first hand. It does not seem that he would scold others for that which he himself could not help but do. Unless he had forgotten and was in need of enlightenment so that he may repent.

Moreover, it cannot be ascertained with any certainty whether God actually meant for Peter to deny the Christ as a part of learning humility by discoveringing how truly weak he was, despite his personal desire to believe that he would only choose to die for Christ and would never deny him.

Having said that, it seems impossible to actually repent without knowing which way is the Light. The fact that there are described those whose light is darkness indeed is an indication that men are not free in their wills to plot the course of their lives. And perhaps in that acknowledgment is where we truly either fully trust God or we don't. In my view this is a great source of division in the church including your exchanges with Mitspa.

 

[francisdesales]

This all certainly seems plausible on the surface, but I am continually lost in ever moving terminology being placed at a certain given point so as to describe that point which is only an instant wherein it makes sense. For darkness seems to me to have degrees which changes perspectives. And the term repentance is better applied to a direction rather than simply the ability to reason so as to direct one's will.

For example, There was the sinner who asked for mercy before God, for that he was a sinner. And this was presented in contrast to the man who thanked God that he was not a sinner. After presenting this, Jesus asked for us to consider which man was right before God. It seems the sinner asking for mercy recognizes he is in a state of futility, wherein there is also a certain undeniable humility, and yet an unending need for repentance applied to the term sin when used in this manner. The term sin is vast in the concept of what it represents and to all it could be applied to. And rarely is it just here or there, except perhaps when seen in the overall big picture. Certainly Peter who denied Christ three times is no stranger to weakness and fear, and he would know such a humility first hand. It does not seem that he would scold others for that which hw himself could not help but do. Unless he had forgotten and was in need of enlightenment so that he may repent.

Moreover, it cannot be ascertained with any certainty whether God actually meant for Peter to deny the Christ as a part of learning humility by discoveringing how truly weak he was, despite his personal desire to believe that he would only choose to die for Christ and would never deny him.

Having said that, it seems impossible to actually repent without knowing which way is the Light. The fact that there are described those whose light is darkness indeed is an indication that men are not free in their wills to plot the course of their lives. And perhaps in that acknowledgment is where we truly either fully trust God or we don't.

Wow, this is a bit convoluted, it's difficult for me to follow your point.

Hmmm. Childeye. Childeye. Childeye... Yes, this name is familiar...

What did we talk about before...

OH, WAIT, Childeye, NOW I remember the free will/God's sovereignty discussions we had and this being your favorite topic! ;)

Yes, now it is all coming back... :halo

This appears to be turning the discussion into free will of men v God's sovereign will and how they interact. I don't think we need to look at that question to get a legitimate interpretation on whether the person in question in 2 Peter 2 was ever a faithful follower in Christ. I don't think religious questions need to center on that mystery. There is no way one can escape the pollution of sin without Christ, correct? Does Christ randomly free people from sin without the man's will, even if moved by God? Free will is a complex discussion, which ordinarily is mysterious to us - so much will by nature be speculation. I am not sure whether I could add anything new to that topic!

Regards

 

[childeye]

Wow, this is a bit convoluted, it's difficult for me to follow your point.

Hmmm. Childeye. Childeye. Childeye... Yes, this name is familiar...

What did we talk about before...

OH, WAIT, Childeye, NOW I remember the free will/God's sovereignty discussions we had and this being your favorite topic! ;)

Yes, now it is all coming back... :halo

This appears to be turning the discussion into free will of men v God's sovereign will and how they interact. I don't think we need to look at that question to get a legitimate interpretation on whether the person in question in the 2 Peter 2 was ever a faithful follower in Christ. I don't think religious questions need to center on that mystery. There is no way one can escape the pollution of sin without Christ, correct? Does Christ randomly free people from sin without the man's will, even if moved by God? Free will is a complex discussion, which ordinarily is mysterious to us - so much will by nature be speculation. I am not sure whether I could add anything new to that topic!

Regards

Well yes Joe, it is dare I say the term, "freewill" vs. the sovereignty of God. What discussion on this forum or any other moral matter doesn't fall under this umbrella? I take from your response that you are exhausted with chasing the calculation of Pi to the last digit, so to speak. Me too. But you are already discussing the subject on this thread regarding repentance, sin and man's responsibilities including the example in 2 Peter 2. I am simply commenting on the fealty of the terms in how we apply them so as to be able to glean any usable knowledge. It matters not whether I know the person in question was unfaithful. I need to know how to avoid it, if I am even able.

But for your amusment: There was a man who relied on God's providence so much, that after God placed the grapes in his mouth the man motioned with his hands for God to move his jaws so that he could chew the grapes. Good thing God had the sense to give the man some hands.

 

[Mitspa]

I agree. He was talking to the Jews and of the law and such, but do you not think the same precepts could be applied to say...sunday Christians also, who I think largely believe they are doing good to attend church and 'sort of' keep the 10 commandments?

Sure! as a matter of fact the very fact that a "sunday" christians claims to be keeping the 10 commandments, proves how far from understanding they are!

 

[Deborah13]

I must say this again! read the whole book of Hebrews and the whole book is written to Christians Jews who are turning back to the law of moses! Notice the term sin is always a transgression against the law of faith in Christ. To take this portion of scripture out of that context is a great error. The "willful sin" mentioned later is this same trangression of the most Holy Commandment? THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, HEAR HIM.
The open shame that Paul warns these Hebrews of is that of going back in to the carnal attempts to justify oneself by the law. Such as washings, temple service etc... even unto the sacrifice of animals for sins. Now this is the warning of counting the Blood of Christ as a common thing.
Can we all look at these warnings and take heed that we do not lose heart, but continue on unto the attaining of Christ?
Yes! But always see the context of the book of Hebrews and understand the sin that runs through this book is the sin of unbelief. THE LAW IS NOT OF FAITH! not sure why some can not believe that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is not for the believer? Trust the Word of God, because this is EVIDENT!

This is a good post and all should take heed.

My very closest friend just called me a little while ago and told me they are now studying Hebrews in her woman's Bible study. It was already making her crazy and they're only in chapter 2. Heb. 2:2-3. Study book already starting with the "drifting away stuff". Yike! "Deb, isn't v2 talking about justification by the Law and v3 talking about salvation and justification in Christ by grace?" Uh..yeah.

The tiny town she lives in right now has One church. The next closest is 50 miles away through canyons and over mountains to the church she loves in the city. Sometimes God puts you where you are really needed rather than where you'd choose to be.

 

[Deborah13]

I'm speaking of Christians in general.

I've actually heard someone say, "I'm not going to do that because it would just be works", to explain why they were not going to do something. I hope that if a 'Christian' is ever pointing a gun at me and contemplating whether to shoot me or not that he doesn't rationalize pulling the trigger using that thinking.

Well, all I can say is that whoever this was didn't learn this in any denomination that I can think of whether it is of works or grace or a mixture. That's just plain stupid and not what is being taught. They obviously are in some kooky cult if they say that is what they were taught or they are not listening.

 

[Mitspa]

This all certainly seems plausible on the surface, but I am continually lost in ever moving terminology being placed at a certain given point so as to describe that point which is only an instant wherein it makes sense. For darkness seems to me to have degrees which changes perspectives. And the term repentance is better applied to a direction rather than simply the ability to reason so as to direct one's will.

For example, There was the sinner who asked for mercy before God, for that he was a sinner. And this was presented in contrast to the man who thanked God that he was not a sinner. After presenting this, Jesus asked for us to consider which man was right before God. It seems the sinner asking for mercy recognizes he is in a state of futility, wherein there is also a certain undeniable humility, and yet an unending need for repentance applied to the term sin when used in this manner. The term sin is vast in the concept of what it represents and to all it could be applied to. And rarely is it just here or there, except perhaps when seen in the overall big picture. Certainly Peter who denied Christ three times is no stranger to weakness and fear, and he would know such a humility first hand. It does not seem that he would scold others for that which he himself could not help but do. Unless he had forgotten and was in need of enlightenment so that he may repent.

Moreover, it cannot be ascertained with any certainty whether God actually meant for Peter to deny the Christ as a part of learning humility by discoveringing how truly weak he was, despite his personal desire to believe that he would only choose to die for Christ and would never deny him.

Having said that, it seems impossible to actually repent without knowing which way is the Light. The fact that there are described those whose light is darkness indeed is an indication that men are not free in their wills to plot the course of their lives. And perhaps in that acknowledgment is where we truly either fully trust God or we don't. In my view this is a great source of division in the church including your exchanges with Mitspa.

I want to make a point on Peter and yes I am going to bring this back to law and grace! Because from the beginning of scripture even unto the last words in Revelation the whole discussion of scripture is about the principle of Gods grace given by promise and mans efforts to earn and to establish himself through the tree of KoGE. We see that Cain labored in that which God had cursed? The ground, and tried to offer that which God had cursed back to God. Able offered the Lamb by faith and was accounted as righteous before God.

Faith in Christ against the efforts of man, is the bible! If any want to truly understand the things of God they must be set free from the attempts and desire to serve God in mans efforts. For ONLY when we die to this effort of flesh can the Divine nature be understood.

Peter boasted in his love for Jesus and in his ability to stand when others would not. THIS KIND OF RELIGIOUS BOASTING OPENS THE DOORS TO SATAN! when we believe we can do something in our own strength, we invite satan to sift us. Now notice this same Peter after the Spirit of grace had come upon him? He told the jews "YOU HAVE DENIED THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL" this is the same Peter, days later! What is to be seen in this? That no man can stand in his own efforts. Only by grace does any man stand!

The law is a rejection of faith and the grace of God, no matter how one tries to sugar coat it with religious words.

You who are justified by law, have fallen from grace.

Point blank, clear as day! evident! The law is not of faith!

Now to those who think they can be half way under law and then use Gods grace part of the time? You have very little understanding of the gospel, you should stop trying to teach others and teach yourself.

 

[Sparkey]

You know brothers, sisters, I am being provoked or goaded, if you will, to speak my testimony but this is clearly not the place.
Suffice it to say that I do so love the law. I need it. Have needed it. The law is the very thing that helped me when I stumbled, helped me to put my foot correctly back onto the path.
What does the Psalmist proclaim? I've sung songs composed around Psalms 1. Haven't you?

 

[francisdesales]

Well yes Joe, it is dare I say the term, "freewill" vs. the sovereignty of God. What discussion on this forum or any other moral matter doesn't fall under this umbrella?

I think we can discuss the Scripture passage without talking about free will - it is ASSUMED in the passage that it exists. Thus, the blame is on the "dog", not God. There is no need to make every discussion free will v God's sovereignty, which, in my opinion, is a false dichotomy. I prefer first mover/cause and second mover/cause, God allows the later.

Peter seems non-plussed about free will, it is assumed that man does have free will. The false preacher is making the decision to return to the vomit. Nowhere does it say that God is at fault or causing this. We don't say that God is withdrawing grace to a believer just to suit the Calvinistic model that God has 'rolled the dice' for certain players and some lose no matter what they decide to do.

I take from your response that you are exhausted with chasing the calculation of Pi to the last digit, so to speak. Me too. But you are already discussing the subject on this thread regarding repentance, sin and man's responsibilities including the example in 2 Peter 2. I am simply commenting on the fealty of the terms in how we apply them so as to be able to glean any usable knowledge. It matters not whether I know the person in question was unfaithful. I need to know how to avoid it, if I am even able.

It seems that every question that involves man must inevitably come down to free will. I don't agree, we can presume that man does have some free will. Otherwise, the subject matter that involves the vast majority of religious discussion is moot. Just "eat, drink, and be merry, for God has already decided for you, and you can do nothing about it." No, I prefer to remain on topic, Childeye.

Regards

 

[Mitspa]

Sure! as a matter of fact the very fact that a "sunday" christians claims to be keeping the 10 commandments, proves how far from understanding they are!

I want to go a little futher with this and explain, The Sabbath if fulfilled in Christ For He is the Lord of the Sabbath. He is the sabbath! Look at Heb 4, the true sabbath is when a believer has entered into the rest of Gods eternal Day. For it is written that the works was finished from the beginning. This is an eternal day, without any night. This is in the eternal realm where God dwells. The sabbath of the law was a picture or type of being in Gods eternal rest through the death and resurrection of Our Beloved Lord. Heb 4 Says that those who have ceased from their own works have entered into Gods rest. Those who have ceased from the works of law have entered into this rest. Now the early Christians began to meet on the first day of the week! To proclaim that Christ had risen and that the eternal day was here. Now somehow this fact is lost on the sunday worshippers? And some of them really think they are keeping the 10 commandments? Does this not show how the law blinds people? 2 Cor 3. For even until this day there minds are blinded at the reading of the old testament and moses.

 

[francisdesales]

You know brothers, sisters, I am being provoked or goaded, if you will, to speak my testimony but this is clearly not the place.
Suffice it to say that I do so love the law. I need it. Have needed it. The law is the very thing that helped me when I stumbled, helped me to put my foot correctly back onto the path.
What does the Psalmist proclaim? I've sung songs composed around Psalms 1. Haven't you?

Yes, you noted something that I have also wondered about several years ago. I think some people have a misunderstanding of "the Law" in Pauline literature. Are we to believe that Paul hasn't read Psalm 119? Or as you mentioned, Psalm 1? Doesn't it seem odd that so many Psalms talk about faithfully following the Law? Was Paul blind to this??? Are we to believe that Paul contradicts himself when he says the Law is holy in Roman??? The problem is in interpretation of "erga nomou" - which most Christian bibles interpret as "works of the Law". I once had this interpretation, until I started to wonder about the contradictions in other Pauline literature, and knowing his love of the Law, per sec, along with the faithful Jew. He certainly COULD NOT be saying that the Law was not of faith - since the Old Testament is FULL of contradictions of this idea. THere are NUMEROUS examples of faithfully following the Torah!!! So I did some research and found a suitable explanation on the Galatians citation mentioned previously.

From what I gather, there was no 'word' for "legalism" as we have today in Paul's day. Thus, Paul uses the term "erga nomou" to mean "legalism". He is speaking of a system that was not uncommonly attacked by the Prophets in the OT - doing the requirements of the Law, but having no internal conversion, no mercy or faith in God. Paul is NOT refering to the Torah ITSELF (that's silly), but to a legal system where one DID external acts without the internal disposition. God's prophets were constantly calling for an inner conviction of the heart. Paul is doing the EXACT SAME THING. It is ridiculous to think that the LAW ITSELF is the point of Paul's discussion here, since Paul is quite aware of the Psalms and people who DID faithfully follow it and were found pleasing to God.

This idea opened my eyes to the CONTINUATION of the value of God's Law as originally designed. Note carefully, Jesus Christ HIMSELF does not abrogate the commandments. HE did not think that the law was without faith. So Paul very well could not do that, either. The explanation is clearly found throughout Scriptures: doing external works - ANYTHING - without internal disposition - is pointless in the eyes of God.

I hope this helps, Sparrowhawke.

Regards

 

[Mitspa]

You know brothers, sisters, I am being provoked or goaded, if you will, to speak my testimony but this is clearly not the place.
Suffice it to say that I do so love the law. I need it. Have needed it. The law is the very thing that helped me when I stumbled, helped me to put my foot correctly back onto the path.
What does the Psalmist proclaim? I've sung songs composed around Psalms 1. Haven't you?

I have made no unbiblical point! and what I have taught cannot be challenged. I do not intend to goad anyone into acting outside of love. Have I now become your enemy because I tell you the truth?

Of couse the OLD testament is going to uphold the law, becuase the OLD Testament is the law.

 

[Mitspa]

Yes, you noted something that I have also wondered about several years ago. I think some people have a misunderstanding of "the Law" in Pauline literature. Are we to believe that Paul hasn't read Psalm 119? Or as you mentioned, Psalm 1? Doesn't it seem odd that so many Psalms talk about faithfully following the Law? Was Paul blind to this??? Are we to believe that Paul contradicts himself when he says the Law is holy in Roman??? The problem is in interpretation of "erga nomou" - which most Christian bibles interpret as "works of the Law". I once had this interpretation, until I started to wonder about the contradictions in other Pauline literature, and knowing his love of the Law, per sec, along with the faithful Jew. He certainly COULD NOT be saying that the Law was not of faith - since the Old Testament is FULL of contradictions of this idea. THere are NUMEROUS examples of faithfully following the Torah!!! So I did some research and found a suitable explanation on the Galatians citation mentioned previously.

From what I gather, there was no 'word' for "legalism" as we have today in Paul's day. Thus, Paul uses the term "erga nomou" to mean "legalism". He is speaking of a system that was not uncommonly attacked by the Prophets in the OT - doing the requirements of the Law, but having no internal conversion, no mercy or faith in God. Paul is NOT refering to the Torah ITSELF (that's silly), but to a legal system where one DID external acts without the internal disposition. God's prophets were constantly calling for an inner conviction of the heart. Paul is doing the EXACT SAME THING. It is ridiculous to think that the LAW ITSELF is the point of Paul's discussion here, since Paul is quite aware of the Psalms and people who DID faithfully follow it and were found pleasing to God.

This idea opened my eyes to the CONTINUATION of the value of God's Law as originally designed. Note carefully, Jesus Christ HIMSELF does not abrogate the commandments. HE did not think that the law was without faith. So Paul very well could not do that, either. The explanation is clearly found throughout Scriptures: doing external works - ANYTHING - without internal disposition - is pointless in the eyes of God.

I hope this helps, Sparrowhawke.

Regards

You have made little or no attempt to debate the scriptures with me on this issue? This is issue is so clear and evident that it cannot be debated by the scriptures. It must be turned into some speech about what someone thinks with mans understanding. "Become a fool to be made wise" is not just some nice religious words Paul made-up to sound spiritual!
You must become a fool at the Cross, the natural mind is an enemy of God!

 

[Sparkey]

I have made no unbiblical point! and what I have taught cannot be challenged. I do not intend to goad anyone into acting outside of love. Have I now become your enemy because I tell you the truth?

Of couse the OLD testament is going to uphold the law, becuase the OLD Testament is the law.

Rein it back in pard... (I'm not a cowboy, but I did see an actor play one on the television). I've not said that you have made an unbiblical point, have I? This is too "debatey" for me. Who challenges you? The author of the Psalms? Who has "goaded" me? Is this not the act of the Holy Spirit through you? I blame HIM, not you, and bless you as well as the Holy Spirit. Now, mind you, the Lord already understands my manner of speech and doesn't rebuke me when I "blame" him for all the good things that have happened, for all the good things that He has worked in for my benefit. Are you my enemy? Let me turn that around and ask, because I do profess my love for the law, does this make me your enemy?

 

[Sparkey]

Yes, you noted something that I have also wondered about several years ago. I think some people have a misunderstanding of "the Law" in Pauline literature. Are we to believe that Paul hasn't read Psalm 119? Or as you mentioned, Psalm 1? Doesn't it seem odd that so many Psalms talk about faithfully following the Law? Was Paul blind to this??? Are we to believe that Paul contradicts himself when he says the Law is holy in Roman??? The problem is in interpretation of "erga nomou" - which most Christian bibles interpret as "works of the Law". I once had this interpretation, until I started to wonder about the contradictions in other Pauline literature, and knowing his love of the Law, per sec, along with the faithful Jew. He certainly COULD NOT be saying that the Law was not of faith - since the Old Testament is FULL of contradictions of this idea. THere are NUMEROUS examples of faithfully following the Torah!!! So I did some research and found a suitable explanation on the Galatians citation mentioned previously.

From what I gather, there was no 'word' for "legalism" as we have today in Paul's day. Thus, Paul uses the term "erga nomou" to mean "legalism". He is speaking of a system that was not uncommonly attacked by the Prophets in the OT - doing the requirements of the Law, but having no internal conversion, no mercy or faith in God. Paul is NOT refering to the Torah ITSELF (that's silly), but to a legal system where one DID external acts without the internal disposition. God's prophets were constantly calling for an inner conviction of the heart. Paul is doing the EXACT SAME THING. It is ridiculous to think that the LAW ITSELF is the point of Paul's discussion here, since Paul is quite aware of the Psalms and people who DID faithfully follow it and were found pleasing to God.

This idea opened my eyes to the CONTINUATION of the value of God's Law as originally designed. Note carefully, Jesus Christ HIMSELF does not abrogate the commandments. HE did not think that the law was without faith. So Paul very well could not do that, either. The explanation is clearly found throughout Scriptures: doing external works - ANYTHING - without internal disposition - is pointless in the eyes of God.

I hope this helps, Sparrowhawke.

Regards

It does help, as did the Google Search I just quickly did on the term your provided, "erga nomou" (works of the law). Some things are difficult to express well as there are so many word traps surrounding them. I find myself recently quoting some of the things that were spoken to the Children as they were about to enter the promise and cross over the Jordan (and other passages so rich with symbols and types). Here is the quote that is of interest here:

Some of the pronouncements as the Children were about to cross the Jordan and begin to realize the promise made to their father Abraham: 16 Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer. 17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. 18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you [Sparrow's comment: "That's you, my friend."], giving them food and clothing. 19 And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt. 20 Fear the Lord your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name. 21 He is the one you praise; he is your God, who performed for you those great and awesome wonders you saw with your own eyes. 22 Your ancestors who went down into Egypt were seventy in all, and now the Lord your God has made you as numerous as the stars in the sky.

I emphasized the "stranger" part because I was responding to a friend with the "Non-Christian" tag near his name, but the "Circumcise your hearts, therefore..." applies today as it did yesterday.

 

[Mitspa]

Rein it back in pard... (I'm not a cowboy, but I did see an actor play one on the television). I've not said that you have made an unbiblical point, have I? This is too "debatey" for me. Who challenges you? The author of the Psalms? Who has "goaded" me? Is this not the act of the Holy Spirit through you? I blame HIM, not you, and bless you as well as the Holy Spirit. Now, mind you, the Lord already understands my manner of speech and doesn't rebuke me when I "blame" him for all the good things that have happened, for all the good things that He has worked in for my benefit. Are you my enemy? Let me turn that around and ask, because I do profess my love for the law, does this make me your enemy?

No my friend and as you have misunderstood me in the past, I very well may have failed to see your point? It sounded as if I had insulted you in some way? Even those who have come against me have seen your post as an chance to ridicule the servant of God. I would add that If one says they love and uphold the law? Then they must also admit they can never keep it because of the sin that dwells in them. I uphold the law for its purpose and its standard should not be made to bend to mans weakness. That its standard is so great that all men must admit they cannot keep it! Anyone who claims they do? is not honest. So, are we justified by faith, until we break a commandment? That is not eternal security and that is not the gospel. The law and Moses is Not to be compared to Christ! I do not think you would ever allow the law to take away What Christ has died to give you. Justified freely by His grace.