The Law

[Elijah674]

19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God... (Romans 3:19 NASB)

Sin is what puts us all 'under the law'. All people are under, and condemned by the law, even if the only law of Moses you have conscious knowledge of is the law of Moses revealed through conscience (e.g., 'do not murder'), and nature (e.g., 'a man should not lie with another man') according to Romans 2:12-16.

OK: Perfect Adam (the Jew?) was not under the Law. Then he sinned & became [UNDER WHAT?] So now God gave him a means back from ETERNAL DEATH [[IF!]] So Adam agreed! He offered the Lamb sacrifice. Now he was again not UNDER THE LAW!

SO: A one time offering was now according to the Lord's Plan??? Hardly! When one sin's we are right back UNDER CONDEMNATION. (Psalms 19:13's fatal WARNING!) SO: The Lords wants man'kind' to be safe to save throughout Eternity and MATURE SO! Nah. 1:9

What in the world does one see in Phil. 4:13 + 2 Cor. 12:9's POWER & GRACE to MATURE given us if not to GROW from being 'weak' babies???

+ Phil. 3
[12] Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
[13] Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
[14] I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
(OK: This is to be our CLAIM BY DECIDED FAITH! OBEDIENT WORKING FAITH! If not? We will again be right back under the eternal death sentence. Heb. 6:6 & Obad. 1:16 ones that [hard] 'drunk upon My Holy Mt., as seen in Heb. 6:1-5!)

[15] Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. (and what are you going to do with this extra knowledge?? Hosea 4:6)
[16] Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.
(Rom. 8:1 at present Truth!)

--Elijah

 

[Jethro Bodine]

OK: Perfect Adam (the Jew?)...

Maybe an inward Jew as Paul defines that in Romans 2:29 (NIV1984):

"...a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly..."

...was not under the Law. Then he sinned & became [UNDER WHAT?]

The condemnation of the commandment:

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17 NIV1984)

...Which is the example that Paul uses to show what also happens to each of us:

8 ...sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death." (Romans 7:8-11 NIV1984)

So now God gave him a means back from ETERNAL DEATH [[IF!]] So Adam agreed! He offered the Lamb sacrifice. Now he was again not UNDER THE LAW!

Fundamentally correct. The Eternal Covenant of the blood of Christ (represented in the lamb and the bull) was available for Adam, too. That's why the blood of Christ (not the law of Moses) is called the 'Eternal' Covenant.

"...the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world." (Revelation 13:8 NIV1984)

SO: A one time offering was now according to the Lord's Plan??? Hardly! When one sin's we are right back UNDER CONDEMNATION.

Not categorically true of all sin. We only come back under the condemnation of law if we choose to stay in our sin and consciously and deliberately reject the grace of God and remove ourselves from the 'one time, for all people, for all time' sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire...

29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26-27,29 NIV1984)

What provision for forgiveness has God made available for rejecting the forgiveness of God? None of course.

(OK: This is to be our CLAIM BY DECIDED FAITH! OBEDIENT WORKING FAITH! If not? We will again be right back under the eternal death sentence.

Only if your sin is indeed a deliberate and conscious rejection of the forgiveness of God and you stay there. You have to continue in faith in the 'once and for all' sacrifice of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins all the way to the end in order to be saved on the Day of Wrath by that faith. An increasing obedience to the Spirit is how we know we are doing that.

5 ...make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.

10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things (the qualities listed above--in increasing measure), you will never fall, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 1:5-11 NIV1984)

 

[Drew]

19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God... (Romans 3:19 NASB)

Sin is what puts us all 'under the law'. All people are under, and condemned by the law, even if the only law of Moses you have conscious knowledge of is the law of Moses revealed through conscience (e.g., 'do not murder'), and nature (e.g., 'a man should not lie with another man') according to Romans 2:12-16.

First of all, even if your take on this take were correct, you have not engaged a couple of arguments I have made to the effect that Paul has to believe that only Jews are under the Law of Moses. Not to mention Old Testament statements that God makes about how the Law functions to set a particular nation (Israel, of course) apart from all other nations (e.g. in Leviticus 20).

I trust you are aware that it is not enough to present "positive" arguments for your position (which appears to be that the Law of Moses is, in some sense, universal), you also need to deal with the arguments that challenge your position.

Let me explain in case this is not clear. Consider some objective reader "Fred" who comes to this thread. He will see my arguments that the Law of Moses is for Jews only. And he will see your argument that the Law of Moses is universal. He may well accept your argument, but if he does not see a basis for my arguments to be undermined, he, if he is a rational person, will conclude that the matter is not yet settled - there are two competing positions on the table.

Or worse, Fred will conclude that the Scriptures are self-inconsistent.

So, please, tell me what the errors are in my arguments (using Pauline texts) that Paul sees the Law of Moses as being specific to Jews. And in my next post, I will make a case that the text you cite above is consistent with the position that the "Law" (in that text) is indeed the Law of Moses, which is for Jews only.

 

[Drew]

19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God... (Romans 3:19 NASB)

Sin is what puts us all 'under the law'. All people are under, and condemned by the law, even if the only law of Moses you have conscious knowledge of is the law of Moses revealed through conscience (e.g., 'do not murder'), and nature (e.g., 'a man should not lie with another man') according to Romans 2:12-16.

First of all, I would not deny that all human beings are "aware" of the moral "law" of God. If you wish to call this the Law of Moses, I think you are stretching things too much. As I am sure you are aware, the Law of Moses is much, much more than the 10 Commandments. There are all sorts of detailed rules about food preparation, which cloths can be stitched together with which other cloths, etc. And I see no basis, as many do, to "split" the Law of Moses up into a "moral" and a "ceremonial" part. I clearly understand that we can "see" such divisions. But, and I think this is the critical thing, nowhere do the Scriptures countenance that such divisions are in any sense "real". So, for example, when you argue that the Gentile in South America, in 100 BC is "aware" of the Law of Moses in the sense that he knows murder is wrong, I think you are on shaky ground if you are implying he is not also aware of the rules about food preparation, etc. as well.

In any event, in the next couple of posts, I will finally deal with the Romans 3:19 text.

Perhaps, when we sort things out, we will wind up realizing that we fundamentally agree all along.

 

[Drew]

Post 1 of 2:

Consider this text from Romans 3:

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

Like many, many other texts, this text manifests an interesting property: The way it reads depends on pre-suppositions you bring to your reading of it. For example, if you come to the text believing that this “Law” is something universal to all mankind, you can, leverage that pre-supposition, perfectly legitimately see this text as consistent with your view. However, if you come to the text believing that the “Law” is something for Jews only (such as the Law of Moses), you can also perfectly legitimately see this text as endorsing such a view.

In other words, the text itself works with both these points of view. Since I believe that the “Law” here is the Law of Moses (for Jews only), I will argue that the text does not, in any way, subvert my position (this is effectively making the case that it is plausible that the text is consistent with my position, even though it may also be consistent with other, competing views – as discussed above).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

First of all, even if your take on this take were correct, you have not engaged a couple of arguments I have made to the effect that Paul has to believe that only Jews are under the Law of Moses. Not to mention Old Testament statements that God makes about how the Law functions to set a particular nation (Israel, of course) apart from all other nations (e.g. in Leviticus 20).

And I've made the argument that only the people of God were accountable to the various temple, sacrifice, and priesthood parts of the law. The world, to whom these laws were not given, is not accountable to those. Nor do I believe God impressed those requirements on the hearts of people who did not possess the law--that is, except for a fundamental knowledge that sin must be atoned for in some way.

Israel was accountable to the first covenant laws of temple, priest, and sacrifice...and anyone who joined themselves to Israel to sojourn with them, to the extent the law itself allowed that.

I trust you are aware that it is not enough to present "positive" arguments for your position (which appears to be that the Law of Moses is, in some sense, universal), you also need to deal with the arguments that challenge your position.

...Yes, of course. And I think recognizing a distinction of law--moral law and ceremonial law--is how the challenge is addressed. As I have just shared.

Let me explain in case this is not clear. Consider some objective reader "Fred" who comes to this thread. He will see my arguments that the Law of Moses is for Jews only. And he will see your argument that the Law of Moses is universal. He may well accept your argument, but if he does not see a basis for my arguments to be undermined, he, if he is a rational person, will conclude that the matter is not yet settled - there are two competing positions on the table.

Or worse, Fred will conclude that the Scriptures are self-inconsistent.

...Not if he does what I suggest and recognize a fundamental distinction between ceremonial and moral law--and who the ceremonial law was given to. The world is condemned by moral law. The Israelites were condemned by both the moral and ceremonial law--because they are the ones who possessed the knowledge of the ceremonial law and entered into covenant agreeing to keep them. God did not give that knowledge to the world. He gave it to Israel. In fact, it would have been an abomination for the world to try to keep it. They were not even allowed by law to keep it--unless they joined themselves to Israel, the people of God, and the covenant.

So, please, tell me what the errors are in my arguments (using Pauline texts) that Paul sees the Law of Moses as being specific to Jews. And in my next post, I will make a case that the text you cite above is consistent with the position that the "Law" (in that text) is indeed the Law of Moses, which is for Jews only.

The simple fact that Paul says the whole world is accountable to the law automatically shows us who, in fact, was/is just that--accountable to God through principles of law found in the law of Moses. Paul plainly says it. But Forum Fred will get confused if he does not recognize and acknowledge a fundamental difference between ceremonial and moral law...and who received the ceremonial law, and who did not.

 

[Drew]

Post 2 of 2:

The key to establishing the plausibility that “Law†here is the Law of Moses that applies to Jews only is to argue against the notion that even though the whole world is found guilty in this small chunk of text, this “Law†is not the ground for all of them being found guilty. I should not have to remind the reader of the following: Just because a discussion of the guilt of the whole word is discussed in very close proximity to a discussion of an unspecified law, and though it is tempting to think that this “Law†must be the basis for all the world being found guilty – after all, that’s what laws do, they find people guilty - it is possible that this is not the case. This “argument from proximity†is simply not correct – language is more sophisticated than this. “Close†may count in horseshoes and hand-grenades, but not always in language.

We proceed by assuming that “Law†here is a law for Jews only (such as the Law of Moses). Can the text sustain such a reading. Remember, I am not trying to give positive evidence for this - for the present I only argue that the text can work with such a position.

Clearly, Paul is saying the whole world is accountable – found “guilty†in some sense. However, suppose this text is embedded within a broader argument as follows:

Paul first mounts argument A: Jews are guilty of breaking the Law of Moses;

Paul then mounts argument B: Gentiles are no better – while they do not violate the Law of Moses (since they are no more subject to that law than is a Canadian subject to American law), they still “sin†in the sense of violating a general moral conscience that is given to all humanity;

Paul next wants to summarize these arguments by saying that the Jew is guilty in the specific way the Jew is deemed guilty (that is, by the Law of Moses), and the Gentile is also guilty in the specific way the Gentile is deemed guilty (universal moral law). But, and this is the key, where is Paul in his argument at this particular point in the argument? He has just finished Argument B – a treatment of the Gentile. So what does he need to do? He needs to remind the reader about the earlier argument about the Jew being guilty before God – argument A. So he effectively writes this:

Having just argued that the Gentile is guilty, I remind you that the Law of Moses (for Jews only) also has condemned the Jew, so that now we have a situation where the whole world is guilty before God; because no Jew can be justified by the Law of Moses, it can only point out their sin.

This is, I assert, entirely consistent with what Paul actually writes. It begs the question to claim that if Paul wanted to refer to the Law of Moses, he would necessarily have explicitly identified it as such. Why does this beg the question? It does so precisely because Paul uses the term “the law†in other places – not least later in this same chapter - to refer to the Law of Moses.

So that is the argument – if the two verses are indeed set in argument with the flow and sequence I have supposed, then the term “Law†can indeed refer to the Law of Moses.

A word of caution. You may well still think the grammar and structure of the two sentences in verses 19 and 20 force us to conclude this law is for the whole world. Well, please make your case – but do not presume what you should be making a case for. By the same token, to hold myself to the same standard, I need to do more than simply assert an equivalence between my “re-worked†version of these two verses and what Paul actually wrote (see the last half of point 3).

We will both have a hard job – the rules of language are complex. And in particular, the proper way to “parse†a certain statement (or a couplet of two sentences as in this case) often depends on the context. My sense is that an objective reader will indeed “see†the legitimacy of the equivalence I have drawn.
In later posts, I will make the case that the “Law†here in verses 19 and 20 must be the Law of Moses (presuming, of course, that in the present post, I have shown how this is at least plausible).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

First of all, I would not deny that all human beings are "aware" of the moral "law" of God. If you wish to call this the Law of Moses, I think you are stretching things too much.

Am I?

"...Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law..." (Romans 2: NIV1984)

...I see no basis, as many do, to "split" the Law of Moses up into a "moral" and a "ceremonial" part. I clearly understand that we can "see" such divisions. But, and I think this is the critical thing, nowhere do the Scriptures countenance that such divisions are in any sense "real".

The author of Hebrews makes a very fine distinction when he explains for us how, for example, the law of the Day Of Atonement is no longer a recurring obligation to people who have been totally and forever made perfect and freed from the guilt of sin through faith in Jesus Christ. This certainly is not true in regard to not keeping the law 'do not murder'. In fact, Paul explains in Romans 13 how that is a never-ending debt of law we owe ('do no harm to your neighbor'). There really is a clear Biblical case for discerning various aspects of law and how they continue, or don't continue, in this New Covenant.

So, for example, when you argue that the Gentile in South America, in 100 BC is "aware" of the Law of Moses in the sense that he knows murder is wrong, I think you are on shaky ground if you are implying he is not also aware of the rules about food preparation, etc. as well.

I know you posted this before my previous posts that explain this, but I agree that the parts of the law of Moses that are not binding on the world are the specific first covenant stipulations for temple, priest, and sacrifice. In fact, it was unlawful for a pagan to even do those.

In any event, in the next couple of posts, I will finally deal with the Romans 3:19 text.

Perhaps, when we sort things out, we will wind up realizing that we fundamentally agree all along.

I think we really do agree fundamentally. The problem, once again (lol!), is not being specific about what part of law one is talking about when discussing who is under what law, and when.

Going out to enjoy a beautiful Saturday...

Be blessed. God is so good.

 

[Drew]

And I've made the argument that only the people of God were accountable to the various temple, sacrifice, and priesthood parts of the law. The world, to whom these laws were not given, is not accountable to those. Nor do I believe God impressed those requirements on the hearts of people who did not possess the law--that is, except for a fundamental knowledge that sin must be atoned for in some way.

I am not sure what your point is here. We appear to agree that only Jews were under the "ceremonial" parts of the Law. As you probably know I do not see any Biblical basis for carving the Law of Moses up into a "ceremonial" part and "moral" part - this strikes me as an artificial division that you (and many others) have imposed. Yes, I "get" this notion that some elements of the law appear to be "purely moral" and other parts appear to be purely "ceremonial". But, and this is key, you need to make an actual case that the moral parts of the Law of Moses were "written on the hearts of the Gentiles".

As stated before, our disagreement may be more about "labeling" than about something fundamental.

Trust me - I fully believe, not least because of Paul's argument in the last half of Romans 1, that all humans are aware of the moral imperative to not murder, to not commit adultery. And this is where semantics come in. You appear to think that this means that Gentile are "under" the moral part of the Law of Moses.

Well, I doubt it. Let me try an analogy. I am a Canadian. Let's assume you are an American (given your "nickname" of Jethro Bodine, I assume this is a safe bet). Here is the argument:

1. American law prohibits murder;

2. As a Canadian, I am not under American law - if I choose to murder 100 of my fellow Canadians, I have not, in any sense, violated American law;

3. Am I under God's "general worldwide moral imperative" to not commit murder? Of course!

Do you see the point? A Gentile who commits murder somewhere in Timbuctoo is not under the Law of Moses in respect to its prohibition against murder. But that doesn't mean that God does not have a "moral law" that reflects some of the same things that the Law of Moses embodies, and that is "known" by all people. I suggest this is a better way to see things than to make what I think is the Biblically unsupported position that "part" of the Law of Moses is known to Gentiles. Remember - it is a written code.

And while we're at this, on precisely what basis do you determine that an element of the Law of Moses is "moral" and which is "ceremonial"? The law about observing the Sabbath is in the 10 commandments.

Is this a universal moral law "written on the hearts" of all men?

Again, I have a strong suspicion that we more or less agree on the fundamentals, and that our disagreements are vested in "semantics".

 

[Drew]

Hello Jethro:

By the way, I think this is both a profitable and enjoyable discussion.

 

[Drew]

Do my fonts appear to be too small too any of you (besides reba)? I want to get this sorted out.

 

[reba]

# 225, 227 small the others are not...:eeeekkk i love computers

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Do my fonts appear to be too small too any of you (besides reba)?

"Does my font look small in this?"

Lol!

But, yes, I had to zoom my browser in to read your posts.

 

[Elijah674]

# 225, 227 small the others are not...:eeeekkk i love computers

And fonts? Reb is younger than 'i' am (age/wise)

And you say:
'The author of Hebrews makes a very fine distinction when he explains for us how, for example, the law of the Day Of Atonement is no longer a recurring obligation to people who have been totally and forever made perfect and freed from the guilt of sin through faith in Jesus Christ. This certainly is not true in regard to not keeping the law 'do not murder'. In fact, Paul explains in Romans 13 how that is a never-ending debt of law we owe ('do no harm to your neighbor'). There really is a clear Biblical case for discerning various aspects of law and how they continue, or don't continue, in this New Covenant.'

But surely you understand that this was for furture Atonement just befor Christ our High Priest is Finished with His Priestly work?? In other words of 'mine' your FAITH is only FINISHED by ones faith at present, or it would not be by faith.

As Paul documents in Phil. 3

[11] If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
[12] Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

[13] Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
[14] I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

(Now comes the LOVING WORKS OF FAITH)

[15] Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

--Elijah

 

[Webb]

Fonts are too small, I have glaucoma.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

And you say:
'The author of Hebrews makes a very fine distinction when he explains for us how, for example, the law of the Day Of Atonement is no longer a recurring obligation to people who have been totally and forever made perfect and freed from the guilt of sin through faith in Jesus Christ. This certainly is not true in regard to not keeping the law 'do not murder'. In fact, Paul explains in Romans 13 how that is a never-ending debt of law we owe ('do no harm to your neighbor'). There really is a clear Biblical case for discerning various aspects of law and how they continue, or don't continue, in this New Covenant.'

But surely you understand that this was for furture Atonement just befor Christ our High Priest is Finished with His Priestly work??

But Christ IS done with his priestly work. That's why he is presently seated. (Unlike the Levitical priest who was commanded to NOT stop moving, to show us that the work of the Levitical system was never done and could not finish the work of atonement).

"11 Day after day every (Levitical) priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest (Jesus Christ) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Hebrews 10:11-14 NIV1984 parentheticals mine)

You see? Christ's ministry is complete. The one sacrifice, made one time, for all people makes people perfectly righteous before God so that no further sacrifice needs to be made. All we need to do is continue in our faith in that one sacrifice. If we continue in faith, we continue to be declared righteous before the Father. We don't need to repeatedly sacrifice Christ for the forgiveness of sins, like the people of God did have to do under the first covenant with bulls and goats.

"...it (the law) can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins." (Hebrews 10:1-2 NIV1984)

The point is, Christ is the sacrifice that makes people perfect before God, once and for all, and makes further sacrifice for sin unnecessary. Instead we continue to trust in the one sacrifice that made us forever perfect, declaring us righteous (justifying us) before God. And until you stop trusting in that one sacrifice made for all sin in all people for all time you will continue to be justified perfect in God's sight.

In other words of 'mine' your FAITH is only FINISHED by ones faith at present, or it would not be by faith.

You participate in the promise of redemption while, and as long as, you believe that Christ is the atoning sacrifice God requires so that you can pass through the judgment safely and receive a glorified body and live in the kingdom. At any one point in your faith the promise is as sure as it ever will be. When you believe and trust in Christ's sacrifice you stand perfectly righteous before God. Our duty is to continue to trust and believe in Christ's atoning sacrifice.

As Paul documents in Phil. 3

[11] If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
[12] Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

He's talking about being perfected in regard to living in newness of life in this age, not in regard to being in perfect standing before God (that was secured the moment we believed--it's called 'being justified'). Romans 6 speaks of this end of sin and the newness of life that we are raised up into, now, by the Holy Spirit, and which we are to strive for:

"Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection..." (Romans 6:1-5 NASB)

The perfection he is referring to is the perfection of the resurrected life free of sin in this age, not the perfection we will receive at the resurrection, nor the declaration of perfection we received when we first believed. The resurrection life--this newness of life--begins now. That is what was yet to be perfected in Paul, and the rest of us who stand already justified and made perfect before God the Father because of the atoning work of Christ, but who are now being made holy. He's making the point that just as it's true that we died with Christ, yet we are obviously still alive, then it's also true that we live the resurrection life of the resurrected Christ, now, even though we still contend with sin, not just later when we ourselves die and are resurrected.


What a beautiful gospel message this all is.

 

[Elijah674]

But Christ IS done with his priestly work. That's why he is presently seated. (Unlike the Levitical priest who was commanded to NOT stop moving, to show us that the work of the Levitical system was never done and could not finish the work of atonement).

"11 Day after day every (Levitical) priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest (Jesus Christ) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Hebrews 10:11-14 NIV1984 parentheticals mine)

You see? Christ's ministry is complete. The one sacrifice, made one time, for all people makes people perfectly righteous before God so that no further sacrifice needs to be made. All we need to do is continue in our faith in that one sacrifice. If we continue in faith, we continue to be declared righteous before the Father. We don't need to repeatedly sacrifice Christ for the forgiveness of sins, like the people of God did have to do under the first covenant with bulls and goats.

"...it (the law) can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins." (Hebrews 10:1-2 NIV1984)

The point is, Christ is the sacrifice that makes people perfect before God, once and for all, and makes further sacrifice for sin unnecessary. Instead we continue to trust in the one sacrifice that made us forever perfect, declaring us righteous (justifying us) before God. And until you stop trusting in that one sacrifice made for all sin in all people for all time you will continue to be justified perfect in God's sight.




You participate in the promise of redemption while, and as long as, you believe that Christ is the atoning sacrifice God requires so that you can pass through the judgment safely and receive a glorified body and live in the kingdom. At any one point in your faith the promise is as sure as it ever will be. When you believe and trust in Christ's sacrifice you stand perfectly righteous before God. Our duty is to continue to trust and believe in Christ's atoning sacrifice.




He's talking about being perfected in regard to living in newness of life in this age, not in regard to being in perfect standing before God (that was secured the moment we believed--it's called 'being justified'). Romans 6 speaks of this end of sin and the newness of life that we are raised up into, now, by the Holy Spirit, and which we are to strive for:

"Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection..." (Romans 6:1-5 NASB)

The perfection he is referring to is the perfection of the resurrected life free of sin in this age, not the perfection we will receive at the resurrection, nor the declaration of perfection we received when we first believed. The resurrection life--this newness of life--begins now. That is what was yet to be perfected in Paul, and the rest of us who stand already justified and made perfect before God the Father because of the atoning work of Christ, but who are now being made holy. He's making the point that just as it's true that we died with Christ, yet we are obviously still alive, then it's also true that we live the resurrection life of the resurrected Christ, now, even though we still contend with sin, not just later when we ourselves die and are resurrected.


What a beautiful gospel message this all is.

Elijah back with you: You say..
'You participate in the promise of redemption while, and as long as, you believe that Christ is the atoning sacrifice God requires so that you can pass through the judgment safely and receive a glorified body and live in the kingdom. At any one point in your faith the promise is as sure as it ever will be. When you believe and trust in Christ's sacrifice you stand perfectly righteous before God. Our duty is to continue to trust and believe in Christ's atoning sacrifice.'

This sound as if we agree some/what? Not sure what the post is saying in bottom/line? The under/line is works testified to in Obedience.

James 2
[20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

....

[26] For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


One could know more of ones posts if they would talk more openly. Christ said IF you Love me, keep My Commandments. So do you keep His Commandments by the best of your ability with His documented free Grace & Strength?? Phil. 4:13 + 2 Cor. 12:9

The above finds me Loving Christ more day by day. And never do I want to be found otherwise. And there is NOTHING IN THEIR LAW that 'i' find offensive!

And on your post, I do see in Rev. 3:16-17 that this whole candelstick is warned of being spewed out. (see Rev. 2:5 also) And we find (me at least!) that the lukewarm are harder to be reclaimed than the cold bold non/christian. So it is hard to read your post as far as is in between the lines! Actually I find Laodicea spewed out & become ibid 9, Eccl. 3:15 repeat.

--Elijah

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Elijah back with you: You say..
'You participate in the promise of redemption while, and as long as, you believe that Christ is the atoning sacrifice God requires so that you can pass through the judgment safely and receive a glorified body and live in the kingdom. At any one point in your faith the promise is as sure as it ever will be. When you believe and trust in Christ's sacrifice you stand perfectly righteous before God. Our duty is to continue to trust and believe in Christ's atoning sacrifice.'

This sound as if we agree some/what? Not sure what the post is saying in bottom/line? The under/line is works testified to in Obedience.

...close. I would actually say it this way: "The under/line is FAITH testified to in Obedience."

James 2
[20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

....

[26] For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Very, very true...but this does not mean faith must literally act out every jot and tittle of the law. True faith, the faith that saves, is seen as it acted out through the fruit of the Spirit.

6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (Galatians 5:6 NIV1984)


It is not necessary that true saving faith be acted out in the keeping of various first covenant worship laws, like the Day of Atonement, as explained in Hebrews...and circumcision. Faith fulfilled those kinds of laws when we believed that the sacrifice of Christ did for us what those old covenant stipulations for worship were intended to do (but actually couldn't).

One could know more of ones posts if they would talk more openly. Christ said IF you Love me, keep My Commandments. So do you keep His Commandments by the best of your ability with His documented free Grace & Strength?? Phil. 4:13 + 2 Cor. 12:9

It is required that faith keep the commandments that count--commandments that represent the continuing debt of law we owe all men; to do them no harm.

The above finds me Loving Christ more day by day. And never do I want to be found otherwise. And there is NOTHING IN THEIR LAW that 'i' find offensive!

And on your post, I do see in Rev. 3:16-17 that this whole candelstick is warned of being spewed out. (see Rev. 2:5 also) And we find (me at least!) that the lukewarm are harder to be reclaimed than the cold bold non/christian. So it is hard to read your post as far as is in between the lines! Actually I find Laodicea spewed out & become ibid 9, Eccl. 3:15 repeat.

There's nothing to read between the lines. Saving faith changes us into new creations that do no harm to others. It must do that...or it may not be saving faith that we claim we have. Saving faith is not obligated to the first covenant worship schedule, nor does the keeping of that schedule demonstrate we do have saving faith. Love does that. Your argument is first covenant worship law keeping is the obligatory expression of saving faith. And if your faith doesn't express itself that way you will be condemned on the Day of Wrath. Not true. If you do not love others according to the fruit of the Spirit, that is when you are at risk of having a 'faith' that can not save you.

 

[Elijah674]

I have a problem right from the start with the posts that say that this is the way it is, rather than saying that this is the way that 'i' see it!

Case in point. That Christ is our High Priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary as seen in Rev. 11
[18] And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
[19] And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

And there is no way to judge while the Eccl. 12:13-14 books are [NOT FINISHED] as of yet. (people are being born daily both spiritually + bodily)

Eccl. 12
[13] Let us hear [[the conclusion of the whole matter]]: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
[14] For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

And when Christ comes the second time, He brings His Reward of Eternal Life or Eternal Death, with Him. And that to is not finished yet. It is then said....
[11] He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

All is FINISHED at this point of time as for Eternal Life or Eternal death. Then we see the Second Coming & the wicked's being slain by Christ's Brightness. While the dead wicked remain in their graves & the rightous having their resurrection, (the first resurrection) The earth remains desolate & all the rightous go back to heaven at this juncture. The 1000 years will be the time of 1 Cor. 6:2-3 length of sentencing of the wicked's executional stage, that we will take part in. (Luke 12:47-48)


[12] And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
[13] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
[14] Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. Rev. 22

OK: This is the way that 'i' see it!
--Elijah

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I am not sure what your point is here. We appear to agree that only Jews were under the "ceremonial" parts of the Law. As you probably know I do not see any Biblical basis for carving the Law of Moses up into a "ceremonial" part and "moral" part - this strikes me as an artificial division that you (and many others) have imposed.

It's only 'artificial' to an Israelite. Because, like I said, they are the ones who were accountable to all aspects of Mosaic law, ceremonial and moral. They are the one's who agreed to the first covenant in the complete package of law that it was. They didn't agree to just part of it: “We will do everything the LORD has said.” (Exodus 19:8 NIV1984)

Yes, I "get" this notion that some elements of the law appear to be "purely moral" and other parts appear to be purely "ceremonial". But, and this is key, you need to make an actual case that the moral parts of the Law of Moses were "written on the hearts of the Gentiles".

You have already done that for us when you said that you would 'not deny that all human beings are "aware" of the moral "law" of God.' Paul plainly says it anyway right there in Romans 2...

"...when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts" (Romans 2: NIV1984)

Trust me - I fully believe, not least because of Paul's argument in the last half of Romans 1, that all humans are aware of the moral imperative to not murder, to not commit adultery. And this is where semantics come in.

They are accountable to, and under, whatever part of the law of Moses is "written on their hearts" (Romans 2:15 NIV1984), thus making the "whole world...accountable to God" (Romans 3:19 NIV1984).

You appear to think that this means that Gentile are "under" the moral part of the Law of Moses.

Well, I doubt it. Let me try an analogy. I am a Canadian. Let's assume you are an American (given your "nickname" of Jethro Bodine, I assume this is a safe bet). Here is the argument:

1. American law prohibits murder;

2. As a Canadian, I am not under American law - if I choose to murder 100 of my fellow Canadians, I have not, in any sense, violated American law;

3. Am I under God's "general worldwide moral imperative" to not commit murder? Of course!

Do you see the point? A Gentile who commits murder somewhere in Timbuctoo is not under the Law of Moses in respect to its prohibition against murder. But that doesn't mean that God does not have a "moral law" that reflects some of the same things that the Law of Moses embodies, and that is "known" by all people. I suggest this is a better way to see things than to make what I think is the Biblically unsupported position that "part" of the Law of Moses is known to Gentiles. Remember - it is a written code.

A more accurate and applicable analogy would have the two separate jurisdictions under one larger authority. The closest analogy that I can think of would be the United States and one of it's territories, like American Somoa.

It's not a perfect analogy, but you can see how in that analogy there is one supreme authority that both, citizens in the United States itself, and citizens in Somoa share accountability to certain aspects of the same law and enforcer of that law, just as I'm arguing that Israelites and Gentiles did to the law of Moses and God. Canada and the United States do not have that kind of relationship with each other. They are completely sovereign. It's not a good analogy to illustrate how God rules over all the nations and peoples of the world, but who live under different aspects of law under his one rule.

And while we're at this, on precisely what basis do you determine that an element of the Law of Moses is "moral" and which is "ceremonial"?

Moral laws govern how we relate to, and treat one another, summarized in the command, "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18 NIV1984). Ceremonial laws govern how we are to approach God in worship. The ceremonial laws include all the worship, cleanliness, and separation laws. Violating any of these made you unfit to approach God. Those were binding stipulations of a previous and different covenant, the first covenant.

But now a New Covenant is in place that brings us near to God through faith in Christ, making the old regulations of how and when and where to approach God obsolete (no longer needed or applicable). For example, what law of who, and when, and where, and how a person can approach God behind the curtain applies to a person who has already entered in through the blood of Christ? What application does that law have to a person who is already legitimately behind the curtain and ministering to God through the blood of Christ? So it's easy to see how the ceremonial law is indeed very much obsolete and no longer binding on the people of God. But who would dare say we are now free to murder another person because of our faith in Jesus Christ?

The law about observing the Sabbath is in the 10 commandments.

Is this a universal moral law "written on the hearts" of all men?

I personally don't believe so. It's interesting that it finds it's true spiritual fulfillment when you "love your neighbor as yourself". Isaiah 58 gives us insight into how taking a good long rest from beating up on each other and speaking ill words of one another is the Sabbath (and fast) that God has chosen for his people and which pleases him.

To help us further understand the seemingly ceremonial aspects of the first Four Commandments versus the relational and moral aspects of the remaining Six, and how those first Four also find their fulfillment when we love others through our faith in Christ's forgiveness, Paul says that "whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, ...is idolatry". (Colossians 3:5 NIV1984) See? When we transgress these relational/moral issues Paul is saying we are actually guilty of idolatry and have broken the 2nd Commandment which most people see as a purely ceremonial type of law.