Not under law but under grace.

[larryjf]

Let's also not forget that much of the NT was written to correct the erroneous views of the Hebrew culture at the time. That's why the leaders of the Hebrew system were the most condemned by Christ. And that's why Paul speaks of being under grace as opposed to being under the Law as the Judaizers were.

 

[Andre]

You start with a false premise, and that being that we are under the law. We are not under the law; but under grace.

It depends what you mean by "law".

From Romans 6:

Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace

By the term "law" here, I believe that Paul means Torah, and more specifically those aspects of Torah that demarcate the Jew from the pagan. He does not mean "you are not justified by your good works but rather by grace".

It is clear from other things Paul writes that he indeed believes that we are still "under law" in a sense. Paul believes there are 2 ways of "doing Torah". One of these ways is easy to grasp - simply "keeping the rules" in a legalistic fashion. The second way, the "true" way, is more subtle and I will not go into that any further in this post. Paul explicitly identifies these 2 ways of keeping Torah and states that Israel has followed one of them and not the other:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

We also have to keep in mind the following from Romans 3:

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law

It really cannot be argued that we are no longer "under law" in some sense at least. To say that we are not under law, in any sense whatsoever, is incompatible with Paul says here. Paul says the law has been upheld. To argue that grace has in some sense "replaced" law is, in fact, to nullify the law. The law cannot have been done away with entirely, otherwise it would indeed have been nullified.

 

[Andre]

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."

Well we are indeed Jews in the sense of Paul's re-definition of Israel:

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations.

In the immediately preceding text from Romans 4, Paul identifies the "true Israel" of which Abraham is the father.

For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

Throughout the book of Romans, Paul repeatedly refers to an Israel that is different from "genetic Israel". There is an "Israel according to the Spirit" and an "Israel according to the flesh".

And as per my previous post, we as "true Israel", do indeed need to follow Torah in the "by faith" manner as contrasted with the "as if by works manner".

Readers have every right to expect me to fill out the differences between these 2 ways of doing Torah. I hope to do so later.

 

[Andre]

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.

But one of Paul's main points in Romans is that through the Spirit we can indeed meet the requirements of Torah in its essence. And this does not deny the truth of your statement that the goal of Torah is to bring people to Christ.

In Romans 10:6 Paul invokes Deuteronomy 30: 11-14. What is Deuteronomy 30 all about? Its about covenant renewal and I submit that Paul realizes that in Christ, the covenant has indeed been renewed. In the introductory section of Deuteronomy 30, we have the following:

When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come upon you and you take them to heart wherever the LORD your God disperses you among the nations, 2 and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes [a] and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. 4 Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back. 5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it.

I suggest, but will not argue the point in this post, that Paul sees this text as being fulfilled in Christ, with "true" Israel being redefined as including both Jews and Gentiles, with the "land" being redefined as the entire cosmos (Romans 8:18 and following), and with "bringing back" understood to be redefined as a rescue from death, not simply "political exile".

The author of Deuteronomy 30 then goes to talk about how God will "circumcize hearts" - note how Paul seizes on this theme in Romans when he defines "true Israel". Then the author of Deuteronomy refers to the need to "obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law".

With this as context, we get to the exact material that Paul has echoed in Romans 10:6 and following:

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it

Paul sees this as being fulfilled in Christ and through the Spirit. We can indeed meet the "true essence of Torah" - there is a way of keeping of Torah whose requirements we can indeed meet. Again, I do not intend to offer thoughts about this "true way of keeping Torah" actually consists in.

I just want to argue that Paul indeed argues that the requirements of this "true way of keeping Torah" can indeed be met.

 

[larryjf]

But one of Paul's main points in Romans is that through the Spirit we can indeed meet the requirements of Torah in its essence. And this does not deny the truth of your statement that the goal of Torah is to bring people to Christ.

His point is actually that we have righteousness and justification by faith and not by the Law. That's why in Rom 10:5 he speaks of Moses and the Law...and in 10:6 he shows another righteousness that comes from faith.

In Romans 10:6 Paul invokes Deuteronomy 30: 11-14. What is Deuteronomy 30 all about? Its about covenant renewal and I submit that Paul realizes that in Christ, the covenant has indeed been renewed. In the introductory section of Deuteronomy 30, we have the following:

Christ is the fulfillment of the covenant. He has kept the whole Torah, and in Him we are counted as fulfilling it as well. Christ's righteousness is imputed on those with faith, that's why only in faith can we obtain the perfect righteousness that God requires. He nowhere requires us to meet an "essence" of the Law, but the whole thing...jot and tittle.

I suggest, but will not argue the point in this post, that Paul sees this text as being fulfilled in Christ, with "true" Israel being redefined as including both Jews and Gentiles, with the "land" being redefined as the entire cosmos (Romans 8:18 and following), and with "bringing back" understood to be redefined as a rescue from death, not simply "political exile".

If you are not prepared to argue your point you probably should not post it.
That being said, i basically agree with you.
I don't like the word "redefine" because it sounds like God changed His mind. I much prefer the term "expanded."
The whole of redemptive history has expanded to the point where Christ fulfills all on the largest scale possible.
It started with one man...Abraham.
Expanded to one family...Jacob.
Expanded to a people...Moses.
Expanded to a nation...David.
Expanded to the whole world/cosmos ... Christ.

With this as context, we get to the exact material that Paul has echoed in Romans 10:6 and following:

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it

Paul sees this as being fulfilled in Christ and through the Spirit. We can indeed meet the "true essence of Torah" - there is a way of keeping of Torah whose requirements we can indeed meet. Again, I do not intend to offer thoughts about this "true way of keeping Torah" actually consists in.

It is fulfilled in Christ. But it's not fulfilled in essence, it's fulfilled perfectly. And just as Adam was our federal head...and his sin was imputed to us...So Jesus, the 2nd Adam, lived a perfect life of obedience to the Torah...and His righteousness is imputed to His people.

also, you misrepresent the scripture by rewording it to fit your ideas. verse 13-14 actually says...
For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (Rom 10:13-14)

So we see we are saved by calling on the name of the Lord, not by following commands. It is the Lord who saves, and that while we are still sinners. It is only after we are saved that we begin to do the good works of the Torah as a matter of sanctification. Even that is only good because it is done through Christ.

I just want to argue that Paul indeed argues that the requirements of this "true way of keeping Torah" can indeed be met.

The "true" way of keeping the Torah is perfectly...and that can only be done in Christ as He has fulfilled it perfectly, not merely in essence.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Larryjf:The "true" way of keeping the Torah is perfectly...and that can only be done in Christ as He has fulfilled it perfectly, not merely in essence.

HP: You seem to have a taskmaster view of God and His requirements, requiring out of man that which is impossible to perform, and then punishing man eternally for doing that which even God Himself cannot do, do despite that which necessity dictates. Mic 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

There are at least three examples of men and women following the law perfectly in the NT that come to mind. The first is found in Luke. Lu 1:5 ¶ There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

The second is of course Paul’s own testimony which has been noted. Php 3:6 which I believe falls into this category. "Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless."

Paul said that anything he did that in retrospect was wrong, it was done in ignorance, and for this reason God showed him mercy and used him as He did.

 

[yahoshea]

All of the talk about keeping the commandments, no one has dealt with the idea of keeping the commandments. Most are taking the Western concept based on the English translations of obediance. These were not commands as a general gives an army. They carry more the concept of diectives or directions. These understandings are not taken from the corruption of the pharasaic period, but rather from the ancient Pictographs of the hebrew language.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Larryjf: So we see we are saved by calling on the name of the Lord, not by following commands. It is the Lord who saves, and that while we are still sinners. It is only after we are saved that we begin to do the good works of the Torah as a matter of sanctification. Even that is only good because it is done through Christ.

HP: This seems to me that you are trying to take one verse and make it walk on all four legs to support a presupposition. The prophets of old did not come calling men to simply call upon the Lord. Jesus, when starting His ministry did not say simply to call upon the Lord. Paul and the apostles did not simply inform their listeners to simply call upon the Lord. Repent and exercise faith in God were the clarion commands to the lost.

Certainly we are not saved ‘for the sake of’ repentance and faith, nor are repentance and faith the grounds of our salvation, but neither will any man be saved apart from repentance and faith. Repentance and faith are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which’ not 'that for the sake of.' Repentance and faith are NOT meritorious in nature, but are none the less conditions of salvation that God calls upon man to do, in order to and antecedent of granting to them the hope of eternal life.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Yahoshea: All of the talk about keeping the commandments, no one has dealt with the idea of keeping the commandments.

HP: To keep a commandment is nothing more or less than obedience to its demands coupled with a right attitude and heart of love towards God and man.

 

[larryjf]

HP: You seem to have a taskmaster view of God and His requirements, requiring out of man that which is impossible to perform, and then punishing man eternally for doing that which even God Himself cannot do, do despite that which necessity dictates. Mic 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

You totally missed my point.
Yes, God set up an impossible standard to keep...that's why the purpose of the Law was to bring us to Christ.
We don't meet God's standards to get into Heaven...Christ did. And it's only as we come to Christ that we are accounted as having fulfilled the Law perfectly.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Larryjf: You totally missed my point.
Yes, God set up an impossible standard to keep...that's why the purpose of the Law was to bring us to Christ.

HP: That is an unproven presupposition. There is no indication in Scripture whatsoever that the law as it was given was impossible for man to keep. Why do you not address directly the examples I gave you of the two persons in the NT that obeyed the law perfectly according to God Himself, and Paul who basically testified to the same thing concerning himself?

Larryjf; We don't meet God's standards to get into Heaven...Christ did. And it's only as we come to Christ that we are accounted as having fulfilled the Law perfectly.

HP: Either we will meet God’s standard to get to heaven or we will not make it in. “Without holiness no man shall see God.” Certainly it will not be without God’s help that we will meet His standard, but neither will it be without or apart from our efforts and continued obedience.

 

[larryjf]

HP: This seems to me that you are trying to take one verse and make it walk on all four legs to support a presupposition. The prophets of old did not come calling men to simply call upon the Lord. Jesus, when starting His ministry did not say simply to call upon the Lord. Paul and the apostles did not simply inform their listeners to simply call upon the Lord. Repent and exercise faith in God were the clarion commands to the lost.

Certainly we are not saved ‘for the sake of’ repentance and faith, nor are repentance and faith the grounds of our salvation, but neither will any man be saved apart from repentance and faith. Repentance and faith are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which’ not 'that for the sake of.' Repentance and faith are NOT meritorious in nature, but are none the less conditions of salvation that God calls upon man to do, in order to and antecedent of granting to them the hope of eternal life.

All of that is what the term "call upon the Lord" means.
One can't call upon the Lord without turning from their sin and turning to Christ...it's all implied in the term.

Further, i think the "exercise" of faith is a poor choice of words. We must remember that even our faith is a gift of God (Eph 2:8).

 

[larryjf]

There are at least three examples of men and women following the law perfectly in the NT that come to mind. The first is found in Luke. Lu 1:5 ¶ There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

The were blameless before God, and that was because of Christ. They had faith in the Messiah to come, so they were counted blameless. Thier walking in God's commands was an evidence of this faith. And it was their faith that made them to walk blamelessly. If it were not so, they wouldn't need Christ for their salvation. If it is possibile to be saved another way, then why would God send His son to live and die for us?

The second is of course Paul’s own testimony which has been noted. Php 3:6 which I believe falls into this category. "Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless."

Paul said that anything he did that in retrospect was wrong, it was done in ignorance, and for this reason God showed him mercy and used him as He did.

Paul did keep the Law according to the interpretation of the Pharisees...that's his whole point, that he was a blameless Pharisee. But he certainly did not keep the Law as God requires us to since he persecuted God's Church.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Larryjf: Further, i think the "exercise" of faith is a poor choice of words. We must remember that even our faith is a gift of God (Eph 2:8).

HP: Again you try and make one passage walk on all four legs for yet another presupposition. While it is true that God does give a measure of faith to all, that is not the faith that God requires of man for salvation. God calls upon man to exercise his will by the formation of intents consistent with the measure of faith granted to all.

Faith, in the sense of fulfilling the condition of faith God calls upon man to exercise for salvation, is an act of man’s will not a coerced force from God. God calls upon man to voluntarily yield himself by faith to his stated conditions. To believe otherwise is to fall headlong into the trap of Calvinistic deterministic fatalism exemplified by the tenants of limited atonement and irresistible grace, all nothing more or less than the product of the predetermined arbitrary plan of God. That is simply not the case or the truth according to Scripture or reason.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Larryjf: The were blameless before God, and that was because of Christ. They had faith in the Messiah to come, so they were counted blameless. Thier walking in God's commands was an evidence of this faith. And it was their faith that made them to walk blamelessly. If it were not so, they wouldn't need Christ for their salvation. If it is possibile to be saved another way, then why would God send His son to live and die for us?

HP: Now you say it both ways. First you said it is impossible for man to obey the law of God, now you say they did because of Christ. Are you now saying that man, as a believer can walk blameless before God, or are you saying that because of the blinders Christ places on the eyes of God that God simply cannot see our disobedience?

Larryjf: Paul did keep the Law according to the interpretation of the Pharisees...that's his whole point, that he was a blameless Pharisee. But he certainly did not keep the Law as God requires us to since he persecuted God's Church.

HP: I missed the Scripture that states, “according to the interpretation of the Pharisees.” Can you site the passage for the list?

 

[larryjf]

HP: That is an unproven presupposition. There is no indication in Scripture whatsoever that the law as it was given was impossible for man to keep. Why do you not address directly the examples I gave you of the two persons in the NT that obeyed the law perfectly according to God Himself, and Paul who basically testified to the same thing concerning himself?

That we can't meet the righteous requirements of the Law are clear in Scripture...

Righteousness is not obtained through the Law, for none keep it...
... if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. (Gal 2:21)

All who rely on works of the Law are cursed because they don't abide by all things in it...
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." (Gal 3:10)

We are told that none" is righteous...none seeks God...none do good...
as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." (Rom 3:10-12)

HP: Either we will meet God’s standard to get to heaven or we will not make it in. “Without holiness no man shall see God.” Certainly it will not be without God’s help that we will meet His standard, but neither will it be without or apart from our efforts and continued obedience.

And we only meet His standard in Christ, because Christ did meet His standard. Our holiness is Christ, not our works of the Law.
Our sanctification is different, that is where God does work through us to keep His moral Law.

 

[yahoshea]

HP: To keep a commandment is nothing more or less than obedience to its demands coupled with a right attitude and heart of love towards God and man.

Where is your proof?

 

[larryjf]

HP: Again you try and make one passage walk on all four legs for yet another presupposition. While it is true that God does give a measure of faith to all, that is not the faith that God requires of man for salvation. God calls upon man to exercise his will by the formation of intents consistent with the measure of faith granted to all.

Faith, in the sense of fulfilling the condition of faith God calls upon man to exercise for salvation, is an act of man’s will not a coerced force from God. God calls upon man to voluntarily yield himself by faith to his stated conditions. To believe otherwise is to fall headlong into the trap of Calvinistic deterministic fatalism exemplified by the tenants of limited atonement and irresistible grace, all nothing more or less than the product of the predetermined arbitrary plan of God. That is simply not the case or the truth according to Scripture or reason.

You speak of my presuppositions, though i site Scripture...then you post a number of your presuppositions without one shred of Scripture...interesting.

Calvinism is not fatalism or arbitrary...so you obviously don't understand enough about Calvinism to critique it.

Calvinism does teach that man has free will, just not in the same sense as Arminians teach it. Arminians set up a false dichotomy in saying that God's predestination and our free will are mutually exclusive, when they are not.

However, our free will is not completely free...it is limited to our nature. When we our nature is dead in sin...we can only sin. That doesn't mean that we are not doing it freely...we are. Even God's will is limited...that doesn't mean that it is not free. God is unable to sin, yet it is from His free will.

The Calvinist position is generally that God predestined us to freely act...He doesn't only predestin the ends, but also the means.

Fatalism teaches that all is predestined and man has no control in it. Calvinism teaches that all is predestined and it is done in such away that man's actions bring the predestined plan out.

 

[larryjf]

HP: Now you say it both ways. First you said it is impossible for man to obey the law of God, now you say they did because of Christ. Are you now saying that man, as a believer can walk blameless before God, or are you saying that because of the blinders Christ places on the eyes of God that God simply cannot see our disobedience?

I have posted this a # of times...
We are counted blameless because Christ's active obedience in keeping the Law is imputed to us...it's not our works, it's Christ's that make us perfect in God's sight.

HP: I missed the Scripture that states, “according to the interpretation of the Pharisees.” Can you site the passage for the list?

Just look at the passage you quoted. The whole context of what Paul is saying is that he was blameless as a Pharisee.