The CURSE OF THE LAW

[Jethro Bodine]

Does the 'true standard of the law' include all or just part of the law of Moses?

That dont even make sense in the context of the point I made??
The standard of the law is every "jot and tittle" ALL THAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW.
If a man attempts to keep any part of the written code, he must keep it all!

Yes, we both know and agree on the fact that to use the law in the attempt to be justified requires that you keep ALL of it, not just part of it. But I'm asking, is ALL or PART of the law upheld by the faith that justifies?

I'm not asking about all or part of the law in regard to being justified by the law, but in regard to upholding the law, not nullifying it, through the faith that justifies, as Paul says (Romans 3:31 NIV). Is ALL or part of the law upheld by the faith that justifies apart from works of the law?

 

[Mitspa]

Does the 'true standard of the law' include all or just part of the law of Moses?

That dont even make sense in the context of the point I made??
The standard of the law is every "jot and tittle" ALL THAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW.
If a man attempts to keep any part of the written code, he must keep it all!

Yes, we both know and agree on the fact that to use the law in the attempt to be justified requires that you keep ALL of it, not just part of it. But I'm asking, is ALL or PART of the law upheld by the faith that justifies?

I'm not asking about all or part of the law in regard to being justified by the law, but in regard to upholding the law, not nullifying it, through the faith that justifies, as Paul says (Romans 3:31 NIV). Is ALL or part of the law upheld by the faith that justifies apart from works of the law?

Again that does not make any biblical sense? Are you just throwing things against the truth of the gospel to see if something will stick?

We are justified by faith APART from the law.
The law has no part in the justification of faith.
Just like Abraham.

 

[Mitspa]

Well what they need is to be taken and taught Gods grace. Those who teach law and grace together are the problem in the chruch. Because when you mix law and grace you defeat the power of both. The strength of sin is the law. The power over sin is grace. Rom 6:14 For sin will not have dominion over you, because you are not under law but under grace.

the problem is that where is a wrong faith there can hardly be grace of the true God, just see how the Lord Jesus Christ many times said: "woe unto you, scribes and pharisees"(Matthew 23) i.e. He strongly warned the theologians and the clerics of the human religion, but why He did never say: "woe unto you, gentiles", nor: "woe unto you, publicans", neither: "woe unto you, harlots"?!, but He even said to the clerics of the "earth": "Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you."(Matthew 21:31), and also: "If ye were blind(i.e. if you were poor in spirit), ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see(i.e. we are spiritually competent); therefore your sin remaineth."(John 8:41), because exactly the spiritual/religious iniquity is the very sin

Blessings

yes, this is the very point I was making. The law has been broken into parts and brought down to such a level as to make the religious class "think" they can keep it. What The Lord did was bring it to its highest and true standard. Where even the most religious, could not keep its true standard. The reason the harlot has access unto the Kingdom before the pharisee, is because the harlot has NO DOUBT, but that salvation is by grace alone.
Those who look to written code, and think they keep its standard are blinded to there own sinful flesh. They are cursed (as i have written) blinded in heart and mind. Hypocricy is the fruit of those who look to the written code.
ONLY when one becomes "wretched" and weak, and foolish before God. Has one honored and upheld the true standard of the law.
Only when knows that is ONLY by Gods grace apart from the law, has one "heard" seen and upheld the law.

How great a punishment do you think that those who have received the free gift of righteousness and abounding grace, will receive? For it is written that those who seek to be justified by the law are required to KEEP ALL THE LAW.

They dishonor the law by rejecting its standard and more than that they dishonor Christ and His Blood.

This is the WILLING SIN of Heb 10:26-29

Heb 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, MY SOUL HATH NO PLEASURE IN him.
Heb 10:39 But we are not as those who draw back into predition; but we are those WHO BELIEVE to the saving of the soul.

THE STRENGTH OF SIN IS THE LAW.
THE LAW IS NOT OF FAITH.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Again that does not make any biblical sense? Are you just throwing things against the truth of the gospel to see if something will stick?

We are justified by faith APART from the law.
The law has no part in the justification of faith.
Just like Abraham.

Yes, we both agree on this point about justification.

What I want to know is when a person has been justified by faith apart from works of the law (vs.28 below), what works of the law are then upheld by that faith (vs.31 below), all or part of them?

"28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:28,31 NIV)

 

[ivdavid]

My point is that the term "law" as I have used it in my post are well understood in the context of the scriptures in which I quoted.

The LAW is of course commonly understood to refer to the OT Scriptures - but where we differ is in that you hold every instance of the term LAW in the Bible to refer to just this while my point is that the term is used in this meaning in many places and in another meaning(rule of principle) in many other places and that we need to rightly divide the truth to discern which is which. I am not stating that your position is untrue in itself - it just is insufficient to accommodate all the parts of Scripture. For eg: LAW in Gal 3:12 is not referring to the entire OT, rather it is referring to only the principle found in Lev 18:5 - is there any contention on that? For if it did refer to the entire OT, then it would amount to us saying that the entire OT is not of faith which would then raise interpretation issues on Rom 3:27. The way to reconcile this is by discerning which usage of LAW is employed where - this is the part that is not yet reconciled in your position.

 

[Mitspa]

Again that does not make any biblical sense? Are you just throwing things against the truth of the gospel to see if something will stick?

We are justified by faith APART from the law.
The law has no part in the justification of faith.
Just like Abraham.

Yes, we both agree on this point about justification.

What I want to know is when a person has been justified by faith apart from works of the law (vs.28 below), what works of the law are then upheld by that faith (vs.31 below), all or part of them?

"28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:28,31 NIV)

Read post #258 This is what Paul is saying, we uphold the law and its standard and its purpose.

Not that we are under the law! But we honor the law.

I suggest you read more than just one scripture and understand the context and point Paul is making.

 

[Mitspa]

...what they do is "BREAK" the law into parts. And attempt to teach parts of the law as being needed to justifiy a believers walk of faith.

Right, you have to keep ALL of the old covenant law to be justified by that law.

But, I need to ask you, is Paul saying we uphold ALL of the law through our faith, or just parts of it?

"28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:28,31 NIV)

Yes we who preach the true gospel uphold the law to its true standard and its purpose as Paul descibes in THAT VERY CHAPTER! Rom 3:10-20
THAT THE WHOLE WORLD MIGHT BECOME GUILTY BEFORE GOD. as Paul teaches in Gal 3:19-24

That the purpose of the law was to bring us to Christ.

Now what some who teach the law have done, is bring to law down to a standard they "think" they can keep. This is a great sin! and is not upholding the law!

The truth does not change just because one ignores what is evident.

 

[Mitspa]

My point is that the term "law" as I have used it in my post are well understood in the context of the scriptures in which I quoted.

The LAW is of course commonly understood to refer to the OT Scriptures - but where we differ is in that you hold every instance of the term LAW in the Bible to refer to just this while my point is that the term is used in this meaning in many places and in another meaning(rule of principle) in many other places and that we need to rightly divide the truth to discern which is which. I am not stating that your position is untrue in itself - it just is insufficient to accommodate all the parts of Scripture. For eg: LAW in Gal 3:12 is not referring to the entire OT, rather it is referring to only the principle found in Lev 18:5 - is there any contention on that? For if it did refer to the entire OT, then it would amount to us saying that the entire OT is not of faith which would then raise interpretation issues one Rom 3:27. The way to reconcile this is by discerning which usage of LAW is employed where - this is the part that is not yet reconciled in your position.

Well my positions are evident and I do not look to your opinion as the judge of what is made very clear in the scriptures.
And I am sorry the law is not broken into parts, Its every jot and tittle. Its ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW. (as the scripture says in plain words)

now ALL MEANS ALL!
Gal 3:10-12

So the law itself declares that it ALL must be kept. So this teaching that the law is in parts is just a bunch of made-up
religious nonsense.

It cannot be shown in scripture but is a great error that has been brought in to deceive.

If you want to make a point on scripture to me? I suggest you keep your opinions and your traditions for yourself, and use the the truth of Gods Word.

The bible descibes what is true, not mans traditions.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes, we both agree on this point about justification.

What I want to know is when a person has been justified by faith apart from works of the law (vs.28 below), what works of the law are then upheld by that faith (vs.31 below), all or part of them?

"28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:28,31 NIV)

Read post #258 This is what Paul is saying, we uphold the law and its standard and its purpose.

Not that we are under the law! But we honor the law.

Okay, got you down for 'all' of the law. Sacrifices, Sabbaths, holy days, foods, etc.

 

[ivdavid]

And we do see that the judgement of the law is replaced by the grace of Christ. We see that it is no longer "good" to keep an eye for an eye. But that Gods mercy is the accepted "law"

So we do see that those things written in the law, are not "good" for man.

Mercy rejoices over judgement, yes - but isn't mercy possible only where a judgement is due in the first place? By definition, isn't mercy a waiving off of a judgement - so for mercy to exist, must not there be a judgement due that can be waived off? I understand that the "waiving off" of the judgement by mercy may seem to most as if mercy is replacing judgement and that judgement was never required in the first place at all - but that's not the case. The concept of Judgement has to exist for it to be waived off under mercy.

Look at our present judicial system -
man commits crime - man is found guilty under the law of the country - man is judged to deserve death for his transgressing the law - man files a mercy petition - if the President accepts the petition and pardons the transgressor, his judgement of death will be waived off as an act of mercy.

How can such mercy exist without a law that finds him guilty of transgression and a judgement that needs to be waived off? The fact still remains that such mercy is always the prescribed stance by God, and that the deserving judgement be never meted out by one sinful man against the other - but that doesn't render the very laws of the country or the judgement it prescribes as "bad". If the judgement according to the law of the land had been carried out, the people involved in the judgement would not be guilty of any transgression at all. They'd only lose their own right to mercy when they are held as transgressors themselves, since they'd be paid eye-for-an-eye ie by the same standard that they measure out to others. God obviously doesn't want the world to go eye-for-an-eye until the whole world is blind - but that doesn't render the very concept of eye-for-an-eye as "bad" as in unjust or immoral - it is only "bad" in the sense of being inconvenient and unbeneficial.

To summarize then, all the OT commandments are still valid in its spiritual connotation even today - but much more has been added by the Law of Christ. There is nothing "bad" in the OT law - just that God wanted to establish basic truths in the OT before teaching us more in the NT.

 

[ivdavid]

So this teaching that the law is in parts is just a bunch of made-up religious nonsense.

Who taught that? I am the person saying you can't pick and choose the "good" parts of the law to obey as part of the new Law of Christ - as if the OT law is divided into parts of "good" and "bad". The entire OT law is good - and much more has been taught in the NT. Observe all in its entirety. (Law used here refers to the entire set of commandments, judgements etc. and not a rule of principle.)

If you want to make a point on scripture to me?

I thought I've done that enough. Scripturally, reconcile Gal 3:12 with Rom 3:27 - is "all the OT" of faith or not of faith? If you're unable to, please consider my Scriptural explanation to reconcile these.

 

[Mitspa]

Yes, we both agree on this point about justification.

What I want to know is when a person has been justified by faith apart from works of the law (vs.28 below), what works of the law are then upheld by that faith (vs.31 below), all or part of them?

"28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:28,31 NIV)

Read post #258 This is what Paul is saying, we uphold the law and its standard and its purpose.

Not that we are under the law! But we honor the law.

Okay, got you down for 'all' of the law. Sacrifices, Sabbaths, holy days, foods, etc.

Whats so hard to understand about EVERY JOT AND TITTLE and ALL THINGS WRITTEN in the book of the law.

Its evident that all means all.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes, we both agree on this point about justification.

What I want to know is when a person has been justified by faith apart from works of the law (vs.28 below), what works of the law are then upheld by that faith (vs.31 below), all or part of them?

"28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:28,31 NIV)

Read post #258 This is what Paul is saying, we uphold the law and its standard and its purpose.

Not that we are under the law! But we honor the law.

Okay, got you down for 'all' of the law. Sacrifices, Sabbaths, holy days, foods, etc.

Whats so hard to understand about EVERY JOT AND TITTLE and ALL THINGS WRITTEN in the book of the law.

Its evident that all means all.

I'm just trying to reconcile your 'all has passed away' with 'all is upheld', that's all.

 

[Mitspa]

So this teaching that the law is in parts is just a bunch of made-up religious nonsense.

Who taught that? I am the person saying you can't pick and choose the "good" parts of the law to obey as part of the new Law of Christ - as if the OT law is divided into parts of "good" and "bad". The entire OT law is good - and much more has been taught in the NT. Observe all in its entirety. (Law used here refers to the entire set of commandments, judgements etc. and not a rule of principle.)

If you want to make a point on scripture to me?

I thought I've done that enough. Scripturally, reconcile Gal 3:12 with Rom 3:27 - is "all the OT" of faith or not of faith? If you're unable to, please consider my Scriptural explanation to reconcile these.

There is nothing to reconcile, there is no conflict at all!

The "law of faith" is that which justifies a believer apart from the law of moses.
I see no point that you have made at all??

And you are indeed trying to "break" the law into parts. Read your own post.

 

[Mitspa]

Okay, got you down for 'all' of the law. Sacrifices, Sabbaths, holy days, foods, etc.

Whats so hard to understand about EVERY JOT AND TITTLE and ALL THINGS WRITTEN in the book of the law.

Its evident that all means all.

I'm just trying to reconcile your 'all has passed away' with 'all is upheld', that's all.

These are not my terms, these are biblical terms that I have explained to you.

Great is the mystery of Godliness, and one must become a fool to be made wise, so it does not suprise me that many wrestle with the mystery. But if one is honest in the Word, the truth will be granted.

 

[ivdavid]

The "law of faith" is that which justifies a believer apart from the law of moses.
I see no point that you have made at all??

Is the "LAW of faith" different from the "LAW of Moses" or are both these LAWS referring to the same thing(such as All the OT)? Obviously given their differing justifying effect, I assume they must be different - correct me if you disagree. But then, you say that the LAW refers to every jot and tittle - how then are you splitting the LAW into 2 different parts with differing justifying effects? Or is the "LAW of faith" totally not connected with "All the OT" - in that case, your definition of LAW would require some changing, wouldn't it?

There is nothing to reconcile, there is no conflict at all!

You said: All the OT is the LAW.
And I'm asking, is All the OT(LAW) of faith or not of faith? You could have answered - yes, All the OT is of faith - Or no, All the OT is not of faith. Picking one of these 2 answers would necessarily deny either of Rom 3:27 or Gal 3:12. You chose not to answer at all. Does that mean there is nothing to reconcile or clarify here? You could always state that the LAW referred to in the Rom 3:27 "Law of faith" is different from the "Law" of Gal 3:12 (my position) - and we could take it from there.

And you are indeed trying to "break" the law into parts. Read your own post.

I know what I'm writing - I need to know how you've misunderstood it for me to then clarify - so you'll have to point out the places that need clarification. I have never broken the set of commandments, statutes, ordinances and judgements into any parts - they are all one single unit. I think they've numbered 613 such decrees in the Law of Moses - one single unit to me. I only distinguish between such a set of decrees and a rule of principle such as the law of gravity. The two are very different - how would I then be breaking the single set of decrees into parts?

 

[Mitspa]

The "law of faith" is that which justifies a believer apart from the law of moses.
I see no point that you have made at all??

Is the "LAW of faith" different from the "LAW of Moses" or are both these LAWS referring to the same thing(such as All the OT)? Obviously given their differing justifying effect, I assume they must be different - correct me if you disagree. But then, you say that the LAW refers to every jot and tittle - how then are you splitting the LAW into 2 different parts with differing justifying effects? Or is the "LAW of faith" totally not connected with "All the OT" - in that case, your definition of LAW would require some changing, wouldn't it?

There is nothing to reconcile, there is no conflict at all!

You said: All the OT is the LAW.
And I'm asking, is All the OT(LAW) of faith or not of faith? You could have answered - yes, All the OT is of faith - Or no, All the OT is not of faith. Picking one of these 2 answers would necessarily deny either of Rom 3:27 or Gal 3:12. You chose not to answer at all. Does that mean there is nothing to reconcile or clarify here? You could always state that the LAW referred to in the Rom 3:27 "Law of faith" is different from the "Law" of Gal 3:12 (my position) - and we could take it from there.

And you are indeed trying to "break" the law into parts. Read your own post.

I know what I'm writing - I need to know how you've misunderstood it for me to then clarify - so you'll have to point out the places that need clarification. I have never broken the set of commandments, statutes, ordinances and judgements into any parts - they are all one single unit. I think they've numbered 613 such decrees in the Law of Moses - one single unit to me. I only distinguish between such a set of decrees and a rule of principle such as the law of gravity. The two are very different - how would I then be breaking the single set of decrees into parts?

Again I see no point nor do I understand ANYTHING you have tried to present.

Do you believe that certain parts of the law is needed for the believer to be justified or to maintain the justification we have in Christ?

I have made the point that we are justified freely by the grace of God, by the "law of faith" That the law of Moses cannot make a charge of sin against the believer nor can it justify in any way.

Now I ask you to speak in clear terms, aboout your view of the law of moses in a believers walk of faith.

To this point, all I have seen in your post, is a attempt to confuse a very clear and evident truth, as seen in the clear context and reading of the scriptures.

If I was guessing I would say that you very much believe the works of the written code are required in the in some degree, and you are just trying to hide that fact, by using words and terms that work to make a simple issue, complex.

If I am wrong, please forgive me and explain to me what your doctrines are, to some degree, as this would give me a point of understanding of your thoughts.

You see, I have made my positions very clear, no need for double talk when one has the confidence in sound doctrine.

2 Cor 3:12-13

 

[ivdavid]

Do you believe that certain parts of the law is needed for the believer to be justified or to maintain the justification we have in Christ?

Absolutely Not.

I have made the point that we are justified freely by the grace of God, by the "law of faith" That the law of Moses cannot make a charge of sin against the believer nor can it justify in any way.

This is absolutely true. Though I haven't seen this point come up in our discussions which so far have related to only what the LAW is and whether it's still valid today or not.

Now I ask you to speak in clear terms, aboout your view of the law of moses in a believers walk of faith.

The LAW or the entire single set of decrees(commandments,ordinances,judgements etc.) served the purpose of revealing God's standards of Rule and Justice as part of His expressed will.

Further, The LAW of works(rule of principle) which governed the above LAW(set of decrees) was instituted for the purpose of showing man in the flesh how he miserably falls short of the above standards of God by the works of the flesh/self.

This pointing out of man's depravity or inclination to transgress God's standards pushes him to the Cross where alone he finds redemption from the LAW(rule of principle) which is then nailed to the cross and the believer is now no longer under this.

Under grace in the spirit, the believer is no longer held in bondage to sin in the flesh - and now he is enabled by God to live out a life without sin according to His Holy standards - with every fall amply compensated for by the perfect finished work of Christ.

This enabling by God's grace of the believer to live according to His Holy standards is now no longer a work of the flesh but a work of God in man which man rests wholly upon. This complete dependency upon God to work out what man himself couldn't do in the flesh - is the walk of faith - faith in God to blot out his own transgressions(freedom from guilt of sin) and faith in God to lift him up to obey God's will(freedom from power of sin).

But what is it to obey God's will - what would please God. Man simply loving Him. With that as the basis - man desires to not grieve God by doing anything that would profane His holy name. He would try to be as unleavened bread, for Christ the passover is already sacrificed for him(1 Cor 5:6-7). In that, is he not still upholding the OT laws on observing the Day of Passover, the Day of unleavened bread - not in the legalistic merit-seeking manner but in its rightful spiritually intended manner? In that, aren't these laws which are found in the OT still valid today - not as something meant to justify us but as something instituted by God for an eternal law?

What else would you like me to elaborate on?

 

[Mitspa]

Do you believe that certain parts of the law is needed for the believer to be justified or to maintain the justification we have in Christ?

Absolutely Not.

I have made the point that we are justified freely by the grace of God, by the "law of faith" That the law of Moses cannot make a charge of sin against the believer nor can it justify in any way.

This is absolutely true. Though I haven't seen this point come up in our discussions which so far have related to only what the LAW is and whether it's still valid today or not.

Now I ask you to speak in clear terms, aboout your view of the law of moses in a believers walk of faith.

The LAW or the entire single set of decrees(commandments,ordinances,judgements etc.) served the purpose of revealing God's standards of Rule and Justice as part of His expressed will.

Further, The LAW of works(rule of principle) which governed the above LAW(set of decrees) was instituted for the purpose of showing man in the flesh how he miserably falls short of the above standards of God by the works of the flesh/self.

This pointing out of man's depravity or inclination to transgress God's standards pushes him to the Cross where alone he finds redemption from the LAW(rule of principle) which is then nailed to the cross and the believer is now no longer under this.

Under grace in the spirit, the believer is no longer held in bondage to sin in the flesh - and now he is enabled by God to live out a life without sin according to His Holy standards - with every fall amply compensated for by the perfect finished work of Christ.

This enabling by God's grace of the believer to live according to His Holy standards is now no longer a work of the flesh but a work of God in man which man rests wholly upon. This complete dependency upon God to work out what man himself couldn't do in the flesh - is the walk of faith - faith in God to blot out his own transgressions(freedom from guilt of sin) and faith in God to lift him up to obey God's will(freedom from power of sin).

But what is it to obey God's will - what would please God. Man simply loving Him. With that as the basis - man desires to not grieve God by doing anything that would profane His holy name. He would try to be as unleavened bread, for Christ the passover is already sacrificed for him(1 Cor 5:6-7). In that, is he not still upholding the OT laws on observing the Day of Passover, the Day of unleavened bread - not in the legalistic merit-seeking manner but in its rightful spiritually intended manner? In that, aren't these laws which are found in the OT still valid today - not as something meant to justify us but as something instituted by God for an eternal law?

What else would you like me to elaborate on?

Thats what I thought, so we are not justified by the Law, but in order to maintain "Gods Holy standard" we must look to the written code of the law?

So does one in your religious system, need to study the law as to know what is right and wrong?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Some commands from the law of Moses are literally fulfilled by the faith that justifies, while others from the law of Moses are spiritually satisfied for all time through the faith that justifies. It's important to know the difference.

It's essential that after you fulfill the requirements of the old covenant worship system through faith in Christ that you then literally uphold the moral requirements of the law through that same faith in Christ.

The church doesn't seem to do so well with the literal requirements because of bad teaching that says they 'passed away', too, with the worship system of the old covenant.