what being apart from the law means.

[Drich]

In the last couple of threads the Fact that Christians are seperated from the Law has come up a few different times. There still seems to be some confusion as to what this means.

In order to have a better understanding we must look at some key words and understand how the bible uses them. Righteousness is the quality or state of being that being in the presents of God demands. In otherwords it is God's absolute standard.

To know what righteousness is important, because in OT times the only way to obtain it, was through strictly following the law and through the blood of animals. The blood animals offered was little more than a stop over measure pointing to the comming sacerfice Christ was to make.

In Mat 5 Christ says:

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

To full fill means two things here, to complete the law (by extending the law to cover thought and intentions, and to be the final sin sacerfice.)

18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Which not only points to the law itself, but to the part of the law that speaks or provides for attonement.

19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

We are to follow the law, but not as a means of earning righteousness. this next passage explains why.

20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Remember the Scribes and pharisees were the spiritual elite. Following the law to the letter or making the letter of the law was their only job. To exceed the righteousness of the pharisees was to go beyond just going through the motions of following the Law to it's final letter. Because in Jesus' "completion" of the Law it was expanded to include thought. Which makes one guilt of sin even if one's thoughts are not undercontrol all of the time. Also remember we are told if we are guilty of breaking the smallest part of the Law, but keep all of the rest in God's POV we are still guilty of breaking all of it James 2:10-13. Which brings us back to a 'righteousness' the surpasses the righeousness of those who dedicated their lives to up holding the law.

To do this we have to look beyond the Law of moses to find righteousness. (This does not mean we ignore the law) It means we are not going to heaven because any of us did a good enough job keeping the law. So we must seek a path the surpasses the one the pharisees were on. This is the path of attonement/Forgiveness of sins.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Drich, you have given a very good summary and scriptural support for the traditional Christian view of OT law. From previous conversations, I know we have some doctrinal differences on atonement and the nature of the Word. But this is your show and I don't want to give the heathens the satisfaction of witnessing two Christians having a vigorous debate based on brotherly love and mutual respect, unless of course you specifically invite me to participate.

Perhaps we could have a parallel thread, just for the Christians and respectful atheists in the forum area reserved for private debates?

[Drich]

Drich, you have given a very good summary and scriptural support for the traditional Christian view of OT law. From previous conversations, I know we have some doctrinal differences on atonement and the nature of the Word. But this is your show and I don't want to give the heathens the satisfaction of witnessing two Christians having a vigorous debate based on brotherly love and mutual respect, unless of course you specifically invite me to participate.

Perhaps we could have a parallel thread, just for the Christians and respectful atheists in the forum area reserved for private debates?

Honestly, I am not apposed to working things out here, as it is all apart of the process of learning, and I am not apposed to yeilding to the authority of scripture.

That said also know I am not a very big respecter of church tradition, for the sake of respecting church tradition. If you want discuss this make sure you have scripture to support what you have to say.

If you do not want to discuss this openly then just PM me with what you have, and we can discuss from there.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's okay. I don't mind playing out in the open if you don't. Just give me a little time to research what I think are the relevant scriptural references for the topic.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I’ll start off my addressing the points in your initial presentation:

Righteousness is the quality or state of being that being in the presents of God demands. In other words it is God's absolute standard.

Scriptural support for this is weak. First, we have many example of people being in the presence of God who do not meet an “absolute” standard of righteousness. For example, Moses stood in God’s presence and spoke to him face to face. The Apostles walked and talked with Jesus, who was God in the flesh.

The OT burnt offerings were not intended to appease God for the sins of man. For it is written that God takes no pleasure in burnt offerings. It is also written that no works of the law have saved anyone. The OT rituals instead served as a symbol for giving up something of value to gain something of greater value and fore shadow Christ’s sacrifice. But what kind of sacrifice does this mean?

While the word “sacrifice” can mean ritual killing, its most general meaning comes from the Latin roots of “sacer” and “-facere”, the process of making something sacred.

So Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is His final step of glorification. In Heb 2:10, it is written “For it was fitting for Him…to perfect the author of our salvation through sufferings.” He gave up the earthly desire to hate his persecutors in favor of things with greater spiritual value, love and forgiveness. We are called upon the follow Christ’s example for making ourselves sacred and His example of sacrifice. He overcame. Therefore, Biblical sacrifice is making ourselves sacred by humility and overcoming our inclinations to sin. (Pslm 2: 17) Christ’s victory, to love unto death, means that he has power over sin and that by calling on his name, He will drive sin from us in our time of need. This is the meaning of Heb 2:8. Having proven His capacity overcome Satan’s best efforts, he gains mastery and power over the sin and death.

Your doctrine states that the OT laws still apply and Christ extended them to include our intentions. From this arises the false idea that the OT laws apply to us. And because we cannot obey them fully, we do not even try. That condemns us to hell, therefore it is claimed, Christ presents Himself as a sacrifice on our behalf (sacrificial atonement). Or in another interpretation, His sacrifice serves as a substitute for the sacrifices we should have made but did not (substitutional atonement).

Neither interpretation is correct because scripture clearly states that “no means can clear the guilty” (Exd 34:7)

Scriptures having to do with the law not passing away, mean that we must obey continue to obey his commandments, to love God and our neighbors, and that doing so is important to our salvation. (James 2:14-26) (Rev 2:7, 3:5). By the time of the Pharasees, this internal sense of the Mosaic rituals had been lost and worship had fallen into unspiritual legalism. Because the Mosaic rules had become empty gestures, Jesus reminds his followers that the internal significance and spiritual principles contained within the OT rules have not passed away. (1 John 2:7-9) (2 John 1:5-6)

In Rom 7:6-7, Paul clearly says that the external rituals (the oldness of the letter) were given so that we could know and obey the internal spiritual law (newness of spirit). In 7:14, Paul confesses that by following only the external letter of the law he was motivated by his carnal nature (to preserve his reputation, to show his superiority, etc.) when in fact the law is spiritual. Later in verses 22-23 he refers to the external legalistic laws, “the law in his members”, and the spiritual “law of his mind” This means that legalistic compliance with Mosaic law in meaningless and can be dismissed, but only to the extent that you obey the spiritual laws represented by the OT rituals and prohibitions. That is also why, as Christians, we believe in following and obeying the 10 commandments which are spiritual, but dismiss the rituals and prohibitions which in themselves are earthly.

[Drich]

I want to respond with some questions first.

Scriptural support for this is weak. First, we have many example of people being in the presence of God who do not meet an “absolute” standard of righteousness. For example, Moses stood in God’s presence and spoke to him face to face.

Did He? or did He stand in the presents of a burning bush, that the Lord consumed with fire but the bush was not burnt up? Or are you saying physical manfestion of God is a literal burning bush? also wasn't Moses in Exo 33 placed in a cleft of a rock, while the embodyment of God passed by so as not to be consumed by God's glory?

The Apostles walked and talked with Jesus, who was God in the flesh.

Was Jesus the embodyment of the complete glory of God when He was here on earth? Are we to exist with God in Heaven for all eternity with Christ as He was in while here on Earth?

The OT burnt offerings were not intended to appease God for the sins of man.

I never spoke of 'burnt offerings/ "'olah" (offerings made by fire) i spoke of sin offerings. Most of which were blood offerings. (some were used in conjunction with a olah or offering made with fire, but the majority were of the taking of blood and sprinkling of it by a levitical priest.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...-sacrifice

For it is written that God takes no pleasure in burnt offerings. It is also written that no works of the law have saved anyone. The OT rituals instead served as a symbol for giving up something of value to gain something of greater value and fore shadow Christ’s sacrifice.

I do not disagree.

But what kind of sacrifice does this mean?

While the word “sacrifice” can mean ritual killing, its most general meaning comes from the Latin roots of “sacer” and “-facere”, the process of making something sacred.

The Jews seem to have a different view.
The act of offering to a deity for the purpose of doing homage, winning favor, or securing pardon; that which is offered or consecrated. The late generic term for "sacrifice" in Hebrew is , the verb being , used in connection with all kinds of sacrifices.(This was taken from the link I provided above.)

So Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is His final step of glorification.

What does that mean exactly?

In Heb 2:10, it is written “For it was fitting for Him…to perfect the author of our salvation through sufferings.” He gave up the earthly desire to hate his persecutors in favor of things with greater spiritual value, love and forgiveness. We are called upon the follow Christ’s example for making ourselves sacred and His example of sacrifice. He overcame. Therefore, Biblical sacrifice is making ourselves sacred by humility and overcoming our inclinations to sin.

I think your assigning way more to that one verse then the author of Hebrews indended.

verse 5 states that god did not Choose the angels to rule this realm

Verses 6,7 recount psalms 8:6-4, which states 'people/son of man' (little s little m) were given this world to rule.

Verse 8 restates that "everything was put in man's control but 'we' implying angels and God) did not see him rule anything."

Verse 9 says Jesus (for a short time) was made lower than the angels (Like the sons of man) for a while but now has been placed back to full glory (Meaning He was not at full glory when he was here)

here is verse 10 in the easy to read (Harder to reassign meaning) version:
10 God—the one who made all things and for whose glory all things exist—wanted many people to be his children and share his glory. So he did what he needed to do. He made perfect the one who leads those people to salvation. He made Jesus a perfect Savior through his suffering.

11 says Jesus makes people holy and calls those who are made holy by him brother/sister.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ERV-29618a

In the orginal context the message of Hebrews 2 says nothing about any of what you said here:

He gave up the earthly desire to hate his persecutors in favor of things with greater spiritual value, love and forgiveness. We are called upon the follow Christ’s example for making ourselves sacred and His example of sacrifice. He overcame. Therefore, Biblical sacrifice is making ourselves sacred by humility and overcoming our inclinations to sin.

Matter of Fact in Romans 7 (among other places) Paul tells us it is not possiable to over come sin.14 We know that the law is spiritual, but I am not. I am so human. Sin rules me as if I were its slave. 15 I don’t understand why I act the way I do. I don’t do the good I want to do, and I do the evil I hate. 16 And if I don’t want to do what I do, that means I agree that the law is good. 17 But I am not really the one doing the evil. It is sin living in me that does it. 18 Yes, I know that nothing good lives in me—I mean nothing good lives in the part of me that is not spiritual. I want to do what is good, but I don’t do it. 19 I don’t do the good that I want to do. I do the evil that I don’t want to do. 20 So if I do what I don’t want to do, then I am not really the one doing it. It is the sin living in me that does it.
21 So I have learned this rule: When I want to do good, evil is there with me. 22 In my mind I am happy with God’s law. 23 But I see another law working in my body. That law makes war against the law that my mind accepts. That other law working in my body is the law of sin, and that law makes me its prisoner. 24 What a miserable person I am! Who will save me from this body that brings me death? 25 I thank God for his salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord!So in my mind I am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful self I am a slave to the law of sin.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=ERV


If The Apstole Paul was himself a slave to sin, and could not help himself, but to sin. So my question here is, what makes you think the rest of us are better than Paul? your specific reading of Heb 2:10? even if you change the text of "son of man" to read Son of Man (as in a Name of Jesus) I still do not understand how you make the leap from what is recorded in Heb 2:10 to what you said.

(Pslm 2: 17) Christ’s victory, to love unto death, means that he has power over sin and that by calling on his name, He will drive sin from us in our time of need.

In my bible Psalms 2 only goes to verse 12. the closest thing I found to your quote was rev 12:11, and it had absolutly nothing to do with what you were saying here.

This is the meaning of Heb 2:8. Having proven His capacity overcome Satan’s best efforts, he gains mastery and power over the sin and death.

8 You put everything under his control.[b]”
If God put everything under his control, then there was nothing left that he did not rule. But we don’t yet see him ruling over everything.
This is the easy to read again. Here the passage divides man from "Son of Man/son of man" a little more easily.

We know God is speaking of "Man" and Not Jesus in this passage because of what verse 6 tells us:
"But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? " we know this is taken from Psalms 8:4-6

Psm 8:3When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
4 What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?
5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels,[b]
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
7 All sheep and oxen—
Even the beasts of the field,
8 The birds of the air,
And the fish of the sea
That pass through the paths of the seas.

Now unless your saying Jesus' power and glory is limited to what verses 7&8 are describing, i would say the passage refers to Man and not any incarnation of God. Because the things mentioned here coinside with the Responsiablity God gave Adam.

Your doctrine states that the OT laws still apply and Christ extended them to include our intentions.

Actually this is what Mat 5: 18 says: For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
(EtRV)18 I assure you that nothing will disappear from the law until heaven and earth are gone. The law will not lose even the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter until it has all been done.

From this arises the false idea that the OT laws apply to us.

Are ANY of Christ's teachings considered to be false?
Then how can you teach something in Direct contrast to what Christ has said?

And because we cannot obey them fully, we do not even try.

Not what I said. My teaching (what I said) was derived from what Paul says in Romans 7: Brothers and sisters, you all understand the Law of Moses. So surely you know that the law rules over people only while they are alive. 2 It’s like what the law says about marriage: A woman must stay married to her husband as long as he is alive. But if her husband dies, she is made free from the law of marriage. 3 But if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, the law says she is guilty of adultery. But if her husband dies, she is made free from the law of marriage. So if she marries another man after her husband dies, she is not guilty of adultery.

4 In the same way, my brothers and sisters, your old selves died and you became free from the law through the body of Christ. Now you belong to someone else. You belong to the one who was raised from death. We belong to Christ so that we can be used in service to God. 5 In the past we were ruled by our sinful selves. The law made us want to do sinful things. And those sinful desires controlled our bodies, so that what we did only brought us spiritual death. 6 In the past the law held us as prisoners, but our old selves died, and we were made free from the law. So now we serve God in a new way, not in the old way, with the written rules. Now we serve God in the new way, with the Spirit.

In essence Paul is saying we died to the law. That is why we have been freed from it as our only means to secure righteousness.we are dead to and have been freed from it as a wife is free from her husband that is dead. (till death do us Part. Christ died for us, and if we die to Christ [submit ourselves to him] then we are Dead to the Laws of sin.)

Neither interpretation is correct because scripture clearly states that “no means can clear the guilty” (Exd 34:7)

where does it say that?
6 That is, the Lord passed in front of Moses and said, “Yahweh, the Lord, is a kind and merciful God. He is slow to become angry. He is full of great love. He can be trusted. 7 He shows his faithful love to thousands of people.[a] He forgives people for the wrong things they do, but he does not forget to punish guilty people. Not only will he punish the guilty people, but their children, their grandchildren, and their great-grandchildren will also suffer for the bad things these people do.”


From what i am reading Moses is recounting OT rules for sin and punishment. None of this has anything to do with how you have tried to use this verse.

Scriptures having to do with the law not passing away, mean that we must obey continue to obey his commandments, to love God and our neighbors, and that doing so is important to our salvation.

(James 2:14-26)

i was waiting for this one.
Where in James 2 does it say, that this verse superceeds any and all others concerning Faith/works? Where in James 2 does it say "the works" it is refering to is about strictly following the Law? It doesn't. (Matter of fact the example given was about feeding and clothing people in need not following OT law)

Because James does not superceed the works of Paul, that must mean we must reconsile things like what Paul said in romans 7 so both are equally true.
I think 1cor 13 ties these two seemingly oppsite passages together.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

In that Love is the missing element. In Romans 7 it was established that we are dead to sin and the law. And in James 2 where james tells us a faith without works (NOT strict adhearance to the Law) is a Dead faith. 1Cor 13 tells us it is Love that ties us to want to do things that are pleasing to God. (Which include but are not limited to following the Law.) That it is Love that validates out faith and works.. For Paul Lists out Actual works, of the Spirit (That which James was actually talking about) and goes so far to invalidate 'works that prove faith.' (I can explain in depth if wish) IF they are done without Love.

So again Love is the binding agent. This is why we follow what is known as the Moral Law of God. Not because we are trying to proove our 'faith.'

(Rev 2:7, 3:5). By the time of the Pharasees, this internal sense of the Mosaic rituals had been lost and worship had fallen into unspiritual legalism. Because the Mosaic rules had become empty gestures, Jesus reminds his followers that the internal significance and spiritual principles contained within the OT rules have not passed away. (1 John 2:7-9) (2 John 1:5-6)

In Rom 7:6-7, Paul clearly says that the external rituals (the oldness of the letter) were given so that we could know and obey the internal spiritual law (newness of spirit). In 7:14, Paul confesses that by following only the external letter of the law he was motivated by his carnal nature (to preserve his reputation, to show his superiority, etc.) when in fact the law is spiritual. Later in verses 22-23 he refers to the external legalistic laws, “the law in his members”, and the spiritual “law of his mind” This means that legalistic compliance with Mosaic law in meaningless and can be dismissed, but only to the extent that you obey the spiritual laws represented by the OT rituals and prohibitions. That is also why, as Christians, we believe in following and obeying the 10 commandments which are spiritual, but dismiss the rituals and prohibitions which in themselves are earthly.

[/quote]

PLEASE do not take this the wrong way, as I am not trying to insult or invalidate your beliefs... But take note as to how you use scripture. you will quote one verse, and then tag a meaning onto that verse that the orginal text does not support. (I have done this over and over again in your post to me.) Now compare that to what I have done. I have used whole chapters and entire/complete thoughts from Scripture to support what it is i am trying to communicate. Of the two methods which do you think more completely repersents biblical Christianity as plotted out by the bible? Again not trying to insult you. But honestly. If the bible said what you have repersented here today, then why did you not use unaltered unfiltered sections of text? Why was everything you use first interpereted, paraphrased, or in some cases completely misrepersented?

I know my spelling and grammar does not reflect it but I have spent the majority of my christian life following what 1thess 5:21 tells us to do: Question all things and hold on to what is Good. This does not mean question only the questionable. It means to also question the foundational. The first 1/2 of my life i did just that as an atheist, and when 'christians' could not answer the questions i had I thought God to be made up. However, after my conversion I took those same questions and brought them before God. through trials hardship and study, i have found an answer to each and every question I know to ask. Why? because i was not afraid to look past the denomination I started out in for answers. Because I was Faithful in Questioning ALL Things...

If I were in your place my first question would be: "Why Can't my doctrinal arguement (The one I used here today) Be found in One place, One Chapter, or even One Book? Why do i have to take a single verse from multiple places and put them together to say what i believe?

Is God really so ellusive? Or is that my denomination being ellusive?

[John V]

Maybe you could each offer commentary/interpretation on Romans 3, as that's where righteousness apart from the law is expressly addressed.

[Drich]

Maybe you could each offer commentary/interpretation on Romans 3, as that's where righteousness apart from the law is expressly addressed.

Good call, I focused on Romans 7 because a part of it was quoted and and used to speak against what the whole chapter was actually about.

[Minimalist]

In otherwords it is God's absolute standard.

Now, Drippy, all you need to do is demonstrate evidence that this "god" of yours exists and you'll be on your way to doing more than having a little jesus-freak circle jerk.

Until then.... it's a pile of sanctimonious shit.

[Drich]

In otherwords it is God's absolute standard.

Now, Drippy, all you need to do is demonstrate evidence that this "god" of yours exists and you'll be on your way to doing more than having a little jesus-freak circle jerk.

Until then.... it's a pile of sanctimonious shit.

You know Minnie it's like you guys have one drum, and all of you unknowingly take turns beating it. What makes this whole process so cute, you all beat this drum like you are the first to discover it..

Which means I get to march out the same argument just for you. Or not, pearls before swine and all...