Not under law but under grace.

[larryjf]

You are right - I am essentially arguing the position of NT Wright on this topic.

But you appear to say something that is at least consistent with my point when you say:

"He is drawing a distinction between the erroneous Jewish teaching that one is justified by the works of the Law"

The Jew, I would claim, would see the "works of Torah" as being all those things that set them apart from their pagan neighbours - Sabbath, circumcision, purity laws, etc. So indeed, Paul is saying that you are not justified in this manner.

My quote is not intended to be extrapolated to speaking of the Jews in relation to the nations. It is intended to speak to the Jews in relation to God.

I understand that the NPP teaches that the Law was used to show Israel as God's covenant people, and that the Law is rightly understood as that which keeps them in covenant...as their part in the contract if you will. By doing this NPP does injustice to the doctrine of preservation in that they teach that those who are truly in Christ can be lost in the end if they do not continue in the covenant by doing their part, following the Law.

This teaching also ends up doing injustice to other doctrines, such as the imputation of Christ's works onto the believer.
[/quote]

 

[larryjf]

I know what you are saying, but note the wider context:

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

Clearly Paul is taking about a judgement based on what people have done. And it is iffy that one can interpret "what they have done" for the Christian as being about placing faith in Christ. The entire passage is clearly about the content of human lives - the "works" that they exhibit.

Paul is speaking of being judged by what we have done in order to bring the whole world into condemnation before God, showing us that the only way to be saved is through the work of Christ, not our own works. He sets up God's standard for salvation in the wider context of showing us that we are incapable of accomplishing it.

The requirement of the Law is to fulfill it completely...not stumbling in even one point. This is how eternal life is granted. Realizing that we fall short of this standard, we can only cling to Christ and His active obedience as our own.

And clearly, a "normal" North American cultural reading of this statement:

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

strongly implies that "persistence in doing good" is indeed the grounds for the awarding of eternal life. It would be a highly awkward reading to see this text as stating an attribute (a life full of good works) that merely accompanies the real grounds for the granting of eternal life (obviously "faith" in this context).

first, let's not interpret according to North American culture...but rather in its historical context.

second, this is further evidence of Paul setting all up for condemnation under the system which requires adherance to the Law for justification. Just look at the very next chapter...Rom 3...

as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Rom 3:10-12)

Notice that the verse in chapter 2 that you quoted speaks to the idea of having not only good works, but also good motives in seeking God's glory...the above verse clearly says that "no one seeks for God." We are also told that "no one does good"

So after setting up the standard of seeking God's glory and doing good...he tells us that no one does these things, showing us our utter dependence upon Christ and His work.

And then what about Romans 2:13

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

In other words, it is not enough that one hears what God demands of us, but perfect obedience is required...but that brings us back to Paul setting out to show our complete lack of ability in our justification before God.

 

[Andre]

By doing this NPP does injustice to the doctrine of preservation in that they teach that those who are truly in Christ can be lost in the end if they do not continue in the covenant by doing their part, following the Law.

One of the big problems in such complex matters is that people do not always understand what the other is saying, and so it is possible that people critique a position which they ascribe to the other person, but which the other does not hold at all. This is understandable - the issues here are quite complex. And besides, there is considerable divergence within those who belong in the "NPP" bucket - I am really only familiar with NT Wright.

Let me try to address your objection above as clearly as I can: You would need to explain what you mean by "following the Law" when you assert that the NPP position undermines the "preservation doctrine". NT Wright would say that there at least 2 "ways" of doing Torah - the one that Israel stumbled over and another way. In Romans 9, Paul makes this distinction:

That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.

I believe that the Scriptures do not teach a doctrine of "perserverance". I have reasons to believe that NT Wright may indeed does believe in a form of the "perserverance" doctrine. To me, Wright's view on this matter is a little unclear. And I am, as always, open to revisiting my stance on the matter of perserverance.

This teaching also ends up doing injustice to other doctrines, such as the imputation of Christ's works onto the believer.

This one is a lot simpler. I think that Wright makes a successful case against the notion that Paul ever taught imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. Obviously, it is at least possible that the "standard" reformed position on this is incorrect, and Wright obviously believes the "imputation" idea is incorrect. I am happy and I believe equipped to discuss this with you and / or other posters if any are inclined.

 

[Andre]

second, this is further evidence of Paul setting all up for condemnation under the system which requires adherance to the Law for justification.

If you are suggesting that the Scriptures teach that adherence to Torah was the basis of justification before the time of Christ, then I would be prepared to argue against such an understanding. One of Paul's central themes in Romans, is that it never was the case that following Torah, at least in the way the Jews were doing it, was the basis for justification.

Are you suggesting that Abraham et al were justified by following the dictates of Torah? And that God fundamentally "changed" the way humans are justified with the advent of Jesus. I do not want to put words in your mouth, so can you please clarify the above?

 

[Andre]

second, this is further evidence of Paul setting all up for condemnation under the system which requires adherance to the Law for justification. Just look at the very next chapter...Rom 3...

as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." (Rom 3:10-12)

Notice that the verse in chapter 2 that you quoted speaks to the idea of having not only good works, but also good motives in seeking God's glory...the above verse clearly says that "no one seeks for God." We are also told that "no one does good"

So after setting up the standard of seeking God's glory and doing good...he tells us that no one does these things, showing us our utter dependence upon Christ and His work.
[/color]

As you might suspect, I have a different opinion.

One fact that often goes unnoticed by those who hold the view that you do is that it makes Paul into a very incompetent writer. Why? Because if your position is correct, he weaves what is essentially a false statement about how Christians will be justified - by persistence in doing good - into a highly integrated treatment of the future judgement filled with other statements that are presumably true. What kind of a writer would do that?

What kind of a writer would write:

"...for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."

and then go on to say something truthful about that half that are to condemned - that their evil works will condemn them, and then in the very next breath say something about those who will indeed be justified - and not really mean it. The reference to a single judgement for each person, suggests that he cannot mean what he says for the condemned but not for the justified.

 

[yahoshea]

Keep or Break

There has been much discussion on the law and keeping and breaking the commandments. To truly understand these aspects of God it must be understood from a Hebrew perspective. They wrote the Bible and God used their culture and views to portray his truth. Let’s start with some definitions of key words. Definitions come from Jeff Benner of the Ancient Hebrew Research Center.

Commandment –
The word command, as well as commandment, is used to translate the Hebrew word mits'vah but does not properly convey the meaning of mits'vah. The word command implies words of force or power as a General commands his troops. The word mits'vah is better understood as a directive. To see the picture painted by this word it is helpful to look at a related word, tsiyon meaning a desert or a landmark. The Ancient Hebrews were a nomadic people who traveled the deserts in search of green pastures for their flocks. A nomad uses the various rivers, mountains, rock outcroppings, etc as landmarks to give them their direction. The verb form of mits'vah is tsavah meaning to direct one on a journey. The mits'vah of the Bible are not commands, or rules and regulations, they are directives or landmarks that we look for to guide us. The word tsiyon meaning landmark is also the word translated as Zion, the mountain of God but, not just a mountain, it is the landmark. ?


Keep -
Many times I have heard it said that no one can keep all of the commands but, this is not true. From an Hebraic perspective of the word shamar behind the English word keep, it is possible to keep all of the commands. The problem lies in our understanding of keep as meaning obedience, but this is not the meaning of shamar. It should first be recognized that not all of the commands of the torah are for all people. Some are only for the priests, some are only for men and some are only for women. Some are only for children and some are for leaders. But, it should also be understood that even if a command is not for you, you can still keep it. The original picture painted by the Hebrew word shamar is a sheepfold. When a shepherd was out in the wilderness with his flock, he would gather thorn bushes to erect a corral to place his flock in at night. The thorns would deter predators and thereby protect and guard the sheep from harm. The word shamiyr derived from this root means a thorn. The word shamar means to guard and protect and can be seen in the Aaronic blessing, May Yahweh bless you and keep (guard and protect) you. One keeps the commands of God by guarding and protecting them. ?

Break -
While the word keep, as in "keep the commands of God" does not mean obedience but guarding and protecting, the meaning of "break the commands of God" does not mean disobedience. The Hebrew word parar, translated as break, is the treading of grain on the threshing floor by oxen to open up the hulls to remove the seeds. To the Ancient Hebrews, breaking the commands of God was equated with throwing it on the ground and trampling on it. In both cases, keeping and breaking are related to ones attitude toward the commands. A child who disobeys his parents and is genuinely apologetic shows honor and respect to his parents. But a child who willfully disobeys with no sign of remorse has trampled on his parents teachings and deserves punishment. ?

Law -
To interpret the Hebrew word torah as law is about the same as interpreting the word father as disciplinarian. While the father is a disciplinarian he is much more and in the same way torah is much more than law. The word torah is derived from the root yarah meaning to throw. This can be any kind of throwing such as a rock or an arrow from the bow or throwing the finger in a direction to point something out. Another word derived from this root is the word moreh which can mean and archer, one who throws the arrow, or a teacher, as one who points the way. The word torah is literally the teachings of the teacher or parent. When a parent is teaching a child a new task and he demonstrates a willingness to learn but fails to grasp the teaching completely the parent does not punish the child but rather encourages and builds on the teaching. In contrast to this a law is a set of rules that if not observed correctly will result in punishment and there is no room for teaching. The torah of God are his teachings to his children which are given in love to encourage and strengthen.

Keeping the teachings of God is not about strict obedience to a set of laws, but more about an attitude toward God’s teachings. It is about honoring your teacher (parent, teacher, God) by listening and showing a teachable spirit with humility.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

(OP)

TrustitL:Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

What is grace?
How does being under grace make it so sin no longer has dominion over us?
What was the connection of sin having dominion over us and being under the law?

HP: Grace is the unmerited favor of God, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. While as we were totally and completely undeserving of mercy, God built a bridge whereby the sinner could receive a pardon from sin by meeting certain conditions.

The point of Paul stating that sin no longer has dominion over us was made to enlighten the believer that unlike the sacrifices of the OT, the sacrifice of Christ was made once for all and that IF we will continually yield our members to righteousness, the blood of Jesus will cover all sins that are past and allow us to live a life victorious over sin, being made free from sin. In the OT, although sacrifices were made to cover for sins that are past, they had to be repeated year after year. In a sense they, in the OT, remained in bondage to repeat the same sacrifices year after year, looking forward to the time that the one sacrifice to be made by God at some point in the future would seal the forgiveness for sins that are past forever, finally freeing the partaker of that grace from the sins of the past once for all. No longer would one have to repeat the same sacrifices for the same sins. They would be free from the bondage of the sin and the system of sacrifices. They would be empowered by the Holy Spirit to live such a life IF they would but remain obedient that would be a life of continual victory over sin as opposed to simply repeating the sins of the past.

Again, sin in the OT seemed to have continued dominion over one due to the fact the sin for which they sacrificed for was never completely taken away, but rather remained to such a degree that the same sacrifices had to be repeated every year. One could never completely in the OT be set completely free from the bondage that tied their sins to the repetition of sacrifices. Under the covenant of grace, Christ has freed us from that bondage to sin, by not only making one sacrifice for sin which does not have to be repeated, but by empowering the will of man by the Holy Spirit to live in continued obedience to Gods’ Word and moral law IF we will but continually avail ourselves in obedience to the strength proffered.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Yeshoshea: Keeping the teachings of God is not about strict obedience to a set of laws, but more about an attitude toward God’s teachings. It is about honoring your teacher (parent, teacher, God) by listening and showing a teachable spirit with humility.

Was It Adams failure to maintain strict obedience to God’s commands that caused him to be removed from the garden, or was it his ‘attitude towards God’s teachings?’ Show us what is the difference if any. How does one listen and show a teachable spirit with humility apart from obedience?

 

[trustitl]

Yeshoshea: Keeping the teachings of God is not about strict obedience to a set of laws, but more about an attitude toward God’s teachings. It is about honoring your teacher (parent, teacher, God) by listening and showing a teachable spirit with humility.

What about Uzzah? I think it was out of honor for God and the ark that he tried to keep it from falling.

 

[trustitl]

(OP)


HP: Grace is the unmerited favor of God, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. While as we were totally and completely undeserving of mercy, God built a bridge whereby the sinner could receive a pardon from sin by meeting certain conditions.

The point of Paul stating that sin no longer has dominion over us was made to enlighten the believer that unlike the sacrifices of the OT, the sacrifice of Christ was made once for all and that IF we will continually yield our members to righteousness, the blood of Jesus will cover all sins that are past and allow us to live a life victorious over sin, being made free from sin. In the OT, although sacrifices were made to cover for sins that are past, they had to be repeated year after year. In a sense they, in the OT, remained in bondage to repeat the same sacrifices year after year, looking forward to the time that the one sacrifice to be made by God at some point in the future would seal the forgiveness for sins that are past forever, finally freeing the partaker of that grace from the sins of the past once for all. No longer would one have to repeat the same sacrifices for the same sins. They would be free from the bondage of the sin and the system of sacrifices. They would be empowered by the Holy Spirit to live such a life IF they would but remain obedient that would be a life of continual victory over sin as opposed to simply repeating the sins of the past.

Again, sin in the OT seemed to have continued dominion over one due to the fact the sin for which they sacrificed for was never completely taken away, but rather remained to such a degree that the same sacrifices had to be repeated every year. One could never completely in the OT be set completely free from the bondage that tied their sins to the repetition of sacrifices. Under the covenant of grace, Christ has freed us from that bondage to sin, by not only making one sacrifice for sin which does not have to be repeated, but by empowering the will of man by the Holy Spirit to live in continued obedience to Gods’ Word and moral law IF we will but continually avail ourselves in obedience to the strength proffered.

Agreed. :thumbs:

But isn't grace more than that. What role does grace play in the believers life?

 

[yahoshea]

Was It Adams failure to maintain strict obedience to God’s commands that caused him to be removed from the garden, or was it his ‘attitude towards God’s teachings?’ Show us what is the difference if any. How does one listen and show a teachable spirit with humility apart from obedience?

You are comparing apples and oranges to a degree. Adm was not under the covenant or the law of moses. However it was certainly part attitude. Did Adam rebel and refuse to follow his Father's teaching. Did set his heart toward meeting his own needs instead of God's?

Now under the law we operate according to the law.
I am not sure if you have children or not but let's talk about children to see my point/
You have twins. You tell them to clean their room. neither do it. One comes and epents for not following your instruction. The other says she does not have to obey you, she is going to do what she wants. Both sinned. Should they be punished equally?
Again they are told to clean their room. One attempts to do it with a joyfull heart, but falls short of your expectations.
The other throws a tantrum and crabs the entire time and accomplishes very little.
Ar they treated alike in not attaining the goal you set for them?
Surely you would judge them according to their attitude. One wants to lean and tries - even falling short. this one is commended for her effort and taught how to do it better.
The othr is punished because of attitude.

Big Difference ---

 

[DHK]

You are comparing apples and oranges to a degree. Adm was not under the covenant or the law of moses. However it was certainly part attitude. Did Adam rebel and refuse to follow his Father's teaching. Did set his heart toward meeting his own needs instead of God's?

Now under the law we operate according to the law.

You illustration fails and is inadequate.
You start with a false premise, and that being that we are under the law. We are not under the law; but under grace.
If a child disobeys a parent the parent is not obligated to discipline the child, but has the choice to exercise grace and freely forgive without punishing the child. He has the option to give the child free unmerited favor. If he gives the child ice cream, it may not be wise, but that would be grace--giving the child that which he does not deserve inspite of his wrong doing. He is not only forgiven, but rewarded. We are not only forgiven but are rewarded in our salvation when we trust Christ. Perhaps in the illustration a loving gentle talk of what the child did and how it affected the parent and his love for the child would do more good than the previous intended punishment, and the reward would help to demonstrate the love for the child. Did not Christ demonstrate his love for us even though we were unworthy of it (Romans 5:8)?

 

[yahoshea]

You illustration fails and is inadequate.
You start with a false premise, and that being that we are under the law. We are not under the law; but under grace.
If a child disobeys a parent the parent is not obligated to discipline the child, but has the choice to exercise grace and freely forgive without punishing the child. He has the option to give the child free unmerited favor. If he gives the child ice cream, it may not be wise, but that would be grace--giving the child that which he does not deserve inspite of his wrong doing. He is not only forgiven, but rewarded. We are not only forgiven but are rewarded in our salvation when we trust Christ. Perhaps in the illustration a loving gentle talk of what the child did and how it affected the parent and his love for the child would do more good than the previous intended punishment, and the reward would help to demonstrate the love for the child. Did not Christ demonstrate his love for us even though we were unworthy of it (Romans 5:8)?

AS you said if the parent uses wisdom they will know to what degree to punish or reward. They will do this for the benifit of the child. The purpose to raise and mature the children. The Torah is a teaching tool. It is used to teach the children wisdom to become succesfull honorable children and adults in God's kingdom.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: What saith the Scripture? Adam was under God’s law as much as any other. Did God say to Adam, “Have a great attitude if you disobey, that is what I desire???” No. God said, either obey, or sin and suffer the consequences. God demands obedience. God demands holiness. God demands heart purity. Certainly one can fulfill the conditions of forgiveness and find mercy, but that does not change God’s demands. Do this and ye shall live. Do this and ye shall certainly die. It is obedience, from and attitude of love, that God desires. Certainly attitude is involved, but from what I gather from reading your posts is that it is attitude as opposed to obedience that He desires. I say if the attitude is right, obedience will indeed follow. If disobedience is evident, it becomes obvious that the heart attitude is wrong. We are to change the attitude to facilitate obedience. this is what is involved in repentance. If obedience is not the end, it is living proof that the attitude towards God and sin remains unchanged.

Have you ever heard that song that says, “Holiness unto the Lord is our watchward and song?” Holiness involves not only proper attitude but proper actions as well. You cannot be holy without the end being obedience.

 

[DHK]

AS you said if the parent uses wisdom they will know to what degree to punish or reward. They will do this for the benifit of the child. The purpose to raise and mature the children. The Torah is a teaching tool. It is used to teach the children wisdom to become succesfull honorable children and adults in God's kingdom.

Study the NT. We are not Jews. We are believers in Christ. The Torah is not primarily for the Christian, though there are some lessons we can learn from it. The believer in Christ needs to follow the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. A Christian means "follower of Christ."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: A Christian means "follower of Christ."

HP: I agree.

Can one say, “ I am a follower of Christ” while in possession of an evil conscience of disobedience? “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” “1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” Mt 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. “Joh 8:31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;" " Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: But isn't grace more than that. What role does grace play in the believers life?

HP: Here is grace applied as in the believers life. While we were yet dead in our trespasses and sins, Christ died for us. God had given every one of us the abilities to obey His commands, but we willingly, as sinners, rejected His commands by acting selfishly as opposed to benevolence. We were willing rebels against God and His Word, yet God, in spite of our willing disobedience, built a bridge by which we could receive a pardon for sins that are past and be restored to fellowship with Him.

Let me tell you what grace is not. Grace is not granting to us the abilities to obey or the ability to turn to Him, for without any ability to obey we would be victims of our circumstances but not the willing rebels God states that the sinner is. God does not have to grant to us special abilities to obey for He has granted to all the necessary abilities as moral agents. Rather, God calls upon man to exercise the abilities He grants to all as an intrinsic part of their moral agency in repentance and faith.

Grace is also not the placing of blinders over God’s eyes so that He cannot see the sin in our lives, nor is it the receiving of a blanket pardon for future sins. Grace is not the overlooking of the penalty for unrepented of sin in the believers life, that somehow would exclude the believer from a just recompense of reward in light of such sin. All sin will receive a just recompense of reward.

We as believers should walk holy and pure before God with the strength God has promised. Such help to live free from sin as Paul expresses over and over in Romans is indeed grace from God. Just to have the opportunity to walk holy before Him with all sins that are past being covered by the blood, as we fulfill the conditions of forgiveness, is indeed grace upon grace in the believers life.

 

[larryjf]

The Torah is a teaching tool. It is used to teach the children wisdom to become succesfull honorable children and adults in God's kingdom.

The Torah is a teacher to bring us to Christ.
The Torah speaks of God's requirements. When we are truly aware of those requirements, we become very aware of our need of a Savior because we can't meet the requirements. Thus Christ is the end of the Law in that He is what the Law's goal was...to bring God's people to Christ.

 

[yahoshea]

Study the NT. We are not Jews. We are believers in Christ. The Torah is not primarily for the Christian, though there are some lessons we can learn from it. The believer in Christ needs to follow the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. A Christian means "follower of Christ."

Fairly persumptious of you to think I have not studied the NT. Probably more then you. I was trying to bring into the discussion the Hebrew concepts of God and His commandments. Jesus was a Hebrew, within a Hebrew culture. This is the mindset from which He spoke. The same holds true for all of the Apostles. Untill you study that culture and mindset you will be doomed to trying to understand from a Greek western mindset and will never really get it.

Christ means "follower of Christ" Christ is a Hebrew Rabbi. Get a clue will you?

 

[larryjf]

Fairly persumptious of you to think I have not studied the NT. Probably more then you. I was trying to bring into the discussion the Hebrew concepts of God and His commandments. Jesus was a Hebrew, within a Hebrew culture. This is the mindset from which He spoke. The same holds true for all of the Apostles. Untill you study that culture and mindset you will be doomed to trying to understand from a Greek western mindset and will never really get it.

Christ means "follower of Christ" Christ is a Hebrew Rabbi. Get a clue will you?

I agree that the Hebrew culture must be understood.
But it is also clear that the OT is more clearly understood in the light of the NT.
And we must also understand other cultures....for instance, when Paul writes to the Romans, we must understand who he is writing to and their culture.