The Law of God in the NT - What is it?

[Aaron]

[/I]



Agreed.

Why would I be inclined to differ with that??

in Christ,

Bob

I'm just trying to be clear.

 

[BobRyan]

In my comments - my opening text shows that my context is the SAVED born-again saint - because we are specifically addressing the question of whether born-again Christians MUST sin.

Originally Posted by BobRyan
1. There is no place where the Bible says a born-again Christian cannot keep the Law of God - - no not even "one".

2. There ARE texts showing that the saints DO "KEEP the commandments of God" Rev 14:12 and that "What MATTERS is keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19.

in fact the same author that tells us the saints are those who "KEEP the Commandments of God" Rev 14:12 is the one that tells us that if we DO NOT Keep His Commandments and yet CLAIM to be one of the saints - we are not telling the truth 1John 2:4.

You are free to call these texts "Seventh-day Adventist" if you like - but they were written long before the Seventh-day Adventist church came along.

Christ said that He did not come with the mission of ending the Law of God - but rather He came to perfectly comply with it (Matt 5:17 -- after it -- God's WORD is Law.


John says that "SIN is (by definition) transgression of the Law" 1John 3:4

Paul says that the LAW defines SIN Rom 7:7

Paul says that the one who claims they cannot stop rebelling against God's Law (are enslaved to sin) and are not going to get eternal life. Rom 6:16

Thus your "saints must sin" and "saints cannot keep God's Law" idea - only fits one of these scenarios actually found in scripture.

I often claim that the Baptist view is to focus on the Law of God from the persepective of the lost - those needing salvation that do not have it yet.

And yet the bible says that if men could be made righteous by the law, then Christ died needlessly.

Agreed. The lost person cannot engage in law keeping to "become saved".

Of course, believers, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, will have their desires changed over time

"If anyone is IN Christ he IS a new creation - old things have passed away all things have become new" 2Cor 5.

And so in Romans 7 Paul as the born-again saint says he agrees fully with the Law of God.

and should want to please God, which means they will allow the convictions by the Holy Spirit to steer them into a life that is in conformity to the life of Christ

Agreed. Romans 8 speaks of this as "by the Spirit putting to death the deeds of the flesh" and there Paul contrasts the SAVED vs the LOST view of the Law of God saying this.

1John 2 says that the one who claims to know Christ should be keeping God's Commandments.

Rom 8
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are [b]in the flesh cannot please God[/b].

That is the text speaking clearly about those who "are not ABLE to subject themselves to the Law of God" and Paul says clearly - it is the lost.

, but no one can ever achieve a perfect obedience of the law.

What is the text that says "These things I write to knowing it is impossible for you to not sin"??

Until we find that text we have Romans 6, and Romans 10 telling us the opposite.

the commandments reflect the character of God, and the Holy Spirit is conforming us into the image of Christ, so therefore, as one allows the HS to do His work and yields to the HS, he/she conforms more and more to the image of Christ. Then one wants to keep the commandments and is more able to resist sin.

As Paul says in 1Cor 10 "There is NO temptation that has overtaken you but SUCH as is common to man and God IS FAITHFUL who will not ALLOW you to be tempted beyond that which YOU are able..."


If one is only woodenly or legalistically trying to obey the commandments, which is what I think is the result of the SDA and other legalistic entities, then there is no point to it.

And the most important thing is that however well one keeps the laws/commandments, one has been justified by faith at salvation - that is, declared righteous by God - and has eternal life.

True.

(which explains my frequent reference to the "born-again saved saint" engaging in the Romans 8 walk )

I do not think the SDA teaches this.

In that regard you are mistaken.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

How about just examining your ownself? I already said that I have failed and many times. Have you failed to keep a commandment since your rebirth?

:jesus:

Certainly.

But the question is not "can the saints commit sin" - rather it is "must they".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

"If anyone is IN Christ he IS a new creation - old things have passed away all things have become new" 2Cor 5.

And so in Romans 7 Paul as the born-again saint says he agrees fully with the Law of God.


in Christ,

Bob

Is this to say that UNLESS one agrees FULLY with the Law of God then they have not been born of God?

And how does one define "fully" or "agrees"? You yourself said that some of the Law has been dismissed. Isn't this getting into making "understanding and agreement" in all aspects of the Law part of a determination of one's actual standing in Christ?

Take for example the Sabbath Law. I don't agree with your pov on this Law as it relates to Christian's obedience or the "keeping the commandments of God". Wouldn't you say that I am breaking God's command to keep the Sabbath? And if so, then does this mean I cannot be saved or I have not been saved?

Can I live in what you would consider the breaking of God's Sabbath commandment and still be saved? If I can, then what are we arguing about with all this "Christians keep God's commandments" stuff? Can I break God's commandment, refusing to repent thereof, and still be a Christian saved by the blood? If "yes" then how does it matter which commandment I refuse to keep? If I break one I am guilty of all, correct? If "no" then you would have to believe that anyone not keeping the Sabbath commandment can be saved.

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

The Lost person has some concept of the Law of God - as Paul himself claims in Phil 3 that as a lost person he imagined that he was "blameless" according to the righteousness that comes from the Law.

In Romans 7 Paul says that "When the Law came" -- which is a reference to the larger view of the Law - as iluminated by the Holy Spirit - under the John 16 conviction of 'Sin and righteousness and judgment" THEN Paul saw his real need -- and Paul says "I died".

If you are asking me to find a way out of that -- I cannot.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

So in Romans 2 Paul says "not the hearers of the Law but the DOERS of the Law will be justified"

Is the "Law" here the Law of Moses? I suggest that the answer is no. And I say this knowing full that I have been adamant in many other posts that when Paul refers to "the Law" he is almost always referring to the Law of Moses.

Well here in this text from Romans 2 is, I think, one of the exceptions.

Please bear with the length of what follows:

Note what Paul writes later in this same chapter:

25For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

And what has Paul written moments before?

14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

I suggest this strongly shows that Paul has two distinct conceptualizations of the Law. One of these is the written code of the Law of Moses that functions to mark Jew from Gentile. The other is the "essence of the Law of Moses" that even the Gentile can follow. Note that Paul is talking about Gentiles, as uncircumcised men, keeping the Law.

Any Jew worth his salt would immediately, and rightly, protest that circumcision, while perhaps technically not part of the Law of Moses (its initiation preceded Sinai by > 400 years, I think), is the hallmark of membership in the nation of Israel. And the Law of Moses was for Israel alone (I suspect some of you will challenge me on this!). In any event, in verse 14, Paul has made it clear that the Gentile is not subect to the Law of Moses - the Gentile is characterized as "not having the Law".

Allthough things get complicated, if we are to take Paul seriously here, we have to see him as discerning two aspects of Torah - the one that demarcates the Jew from the Gentile (including, e.g., circumcision) and the one that "gets written on the heart of the Gentile" (and the believing Jew, of course).

Note also how such an interpretation allows us to make sense of clear statements that "law" has been abolished (e.g. Eph 2:15) and other statements that "law" has been established (e.g. Romans 3:31). The law that has been abolished is the Law of Moses that marked the Jew from the Gentile, and the "law" that has been established is the one written on the heart of Jew and Gentile alike who have faith in Christ - the imperative to love God and love neighbour.

Consider also this from Romans 9:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

Yet again, we have Paul with two faces to "law". Paul's argument here is that the Jew followed the rules and regulations of the Law of Moses but did not arrive "at that law" - the second sense of law that undergirds but is not to identified with the Law of Moses.

For Paul, the Law of Moses, including the 10 commandments, is a kind of "outer shell" that encloses the real essence or heart of a more foundational "law". It is because the Jew pursued the "rules and regulations" and forgot the heart that the problem arose. And, as per Romans 10 (just a few breaths later), they did so not so much from a legalistic error, but rather from a "racial exclusion" error:

Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God

From these texts, we see that Paul's view of "law" is complex, and that he can claim that there is a sense in which some "law" has been established even though he is otherwise clear that the written code of the Law of Moses has been abolished.

 

[Andre]

In Romans 7 Paul says that "When the Law came" -- which is a reference to the larger view of the Law - as iluminated by the Holy Spirit -

I disagree - the allusion to "when the Law came" in Romans 7 is instead an allusion to the giving of the Law of Moses at Mount Sinai. There are several arguments in support of this:

1. Although this is not often realized, there is an "exodus" structure to chapters 6, 7, and 8 of Romans. In chapter 6 we have a reference to baptism, corresponding to the transit of the Red Sea. In chapter 7 we have a treatment of the giving of Law at Sinai (this is my hypothesis in light of what is there in chapters 6 and 8), and in chapter 8 we have the Spirit leading the peope, alluding to the leading of the pillar of cloud by day and fire night. I suggest that Paul is "reprising" exodus here. And if this what he is doing, it makes structural sense to see the Romans "coming of the Law" as an allusion to the giving of the Law of Moses, prior to the giving of the Spirit.

2. Consider this material from Romans 7:

For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

I suggest that the reference to "do not covet" is a rather clear allusion to the 10 commandments. So when Paul refers to the "coming of the law", he is referring to the delivery of the Law of Moses at Sinai, not to the illumination by of the Law of Moses by the Holy Spirit.

3. Besides, in light of this same text that speaks of the commandment bringing death, I do not see how we can say that death arises in virtue of the Spirit illuminating the Law of Moses - that brings life not death.

I think the arguments are compelling - in Romans 7, Paul looks back on what was true of the Jew living under the Law of Moses. There is no Holy Spirit yet, we only get in chapter 8.

Fundamentally, the person described in the main body of Romans 7 is hopelessly enslaved to sin. How can this possibly be true of the Christian?

 

[Marcia]

Actually Paul is very careful in Romans 2 to show BOTH the succeeding cases AND the failing cases. And after doing that he zeros in on an "extreme successful case" where he takes a gentile with no access to scripture at all and shows that even THEY succeed "showing the works of the Law WRITTEN on the heart".

This does not mean that they have the 10 commandments written on their heart. You should do a study of the word "Law" in the NT - it does not always means the same thing.

This passage means that they know there is a right and wrong. The "works" of the law - what is that? It's knowing that there is moral right and wrong; this is because we are made in the image of God and God gave us a conscience.

Paul affirms in Romans 2 that the gentiles who walk in obedience to God's Law are counted as real Jews - while those Jews who happen to be in rebellion against God (so that would NOT be Jews like Paul, or Timothy, or Peter or Barnabus or the Heb 11 list or ...) are just as lost as any lost gentile.

Then he goes on to say that there is no one who walks in obedience to God's law but "all have strayed and fallen away." That's the point.

To make the text say that - we would have to re-write it something like this "Both Jews and Gentiles are failing to obey God and both are going to hell". Which would be the LOST state of Jew and Gentile BEFORE being "led to repentance" before being born-again and forgiven.

So the question is - does Romans 2 only deal with the LOST state - apart from Gospel transformation, Gospel repentance, living the life of the Christian who is no longer "slave" to sin (Rom 6)?

Yes, Rom. 2 deals with the lost state.

As an exercise for the reader -- take a look at this core section of Romans 2 --

1. Do you see "Gospel" mentioned here?
2. Do you see "repentance" mentioned here?
3. Do you see "just Jews condemned" here?
4. Do you see "just Gentiles" getting eternal life here?
5. Does God say he is partial to Gentile or Jew here?
6. Do you see a future judgment mentioned here?
7. Do you find it to be based on works?? DOERS of the LAW?
8. Is “Justification” mentioned here in the context of the very “Gospel” that Paul preached?

What's the point of the above? Rom 2 is just part of one book; you are supposed to read the whole book to see the message, you know. Chapters were not added to the Bible until about the 13th century or later.

Success cases in Rom 2: 7-13, 13-16 25-28

Those are not success cases. Paul is saying that to people who obey, then x. But later he show us that no one is righteous by works or following the law.

You should read the whole book of Romans at one sitting and compare it to other parts of the Bible. The Bible does not contradict, and as I posted, God tells us that if one could be righteous by the works of the law, then "Christ died needlessly." So we know that no one could be righteous by following the law.

Bob, I like you and I wish you'd check out those websites about the SDA; the SDA has you all mixed up because of some of their aberrant teachings.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: I am not a Calvinist! Good grief.

What do you mean by the "literal payment theory?"

HP: You sound like DHK now. I never called you a Calvinist. When one takes a position in lock step with the very heart of Calvinism as you have in your adherence to a literal payment, you have accepted a firmly entrenched theory in the system of Calvinism, whether or not you are cognizant of if you so desire to be shown in accordance with that system of thought.

The literal payment theory is simply the notion that the atonement was a forensic proceeding in which sins were literally paid for on the cross. Hence the clearly Calvinistic notion that all past present and future sins of the elect have been atoned for, which is simply not the case in any forensic sense. That theory is simply in error. No sins were literally paid for on the cross. The cross made a way whereby all sins could be forgiven, but no sins are remitted until one fulfills the conditions for forgiveness via repentance and faith.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you see the extreme example of “successful gentiles” passing the test of God’s Gospel rule in the future Gospel Judgment?

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

Here we have the Gentile whose conscience "defends" them -- notice Paul does not limit this to "conscience accusing" as some prefer to imagine.

And the law written on the heart - is at the center of the New Covenant - as we all know.

Heb 8
10 "" FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.

And so in the context of Gospel "repentance" and Gospel future Judgment (vs 16) they are approved.

16 on the day when, according to my GOSPEL, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
11 For there is no partiality with God.
…
25 for indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 so if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirementsof the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

Thus Paul points out specific succesful cases - for example the Gentile that obeys God is being clearly identified in the chapter as compared to a Jew that is in rebellion against God's Law.

And God approves of them just as He would approve of a Jew who obeyed -- as Paul points out in the chapter.

Rom2:

9 there will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 for there is no partiality with God.

This does not mean that they have the 10 commandments written on their heart.

There is no example in all of scripture where this phrase means anything else. No not even one.

Then he goes on to say that there is no one who walks in obedience to God's law but "all have strayed and fallen away." That's the point.

He only says that of the lost state of man. The sinful nature of all mankind -- before they are born-again.

in Romans 8 he shows clearly that only ONE class truly is stuck in rebellion against God's Law -- it is the lost.


Rom 8
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are [b]in the flesh cannot please God.

Those are not success cases. Paul is saying that to people who obey, then x. But later he show us that no one is righteous by works or following the law.

On the contrary - Paul is explicit about succesful cases.

Success cases in Rom 2: 7-13, 13-16 25-28

Rom2:
7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be [b]tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no partiality with God.

25 for indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 so if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
27and he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?
28 for he is not a Jew who is one outwardly,

It is exegetically impossible to re-cast all the examples above as "failure".

You should read the whole book of Romans at one sitting and compare it to other parts of the Bible. The Bible does not contradict, and as I posted, God tells us that if one could be righteous by the works of the law, then "Christ died needlessly."

Indeed that is true for the lost. As I have said repeatedly the Baptist view has a very good understanding of the Law from the standpoint of the lost person.

But when the subject comes up about the Law and the Saved Person - the point seems to be more difficult for them at times - so they switch back to discussing the Law of God from the standpoint of the lost person again.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
So in Romans 2 Paul says "not the hearers of the Law but the DOERS of the Law will be justified"

Is the "Law" here the Law of Moses? I suggest that the answer is no. And I say this knowing full that I have been adamant in many other posts that when Paul refers to "the Law" he is almost always referring to the Law of Moses.

Well here in this text from Romans 2 is, I think, one of the exceptions.

Well you have a difficult task ahead trying to separate the Law in Romans 2 -- from the Law in Romans 3 that condemns all of the world -- and that in the end is "ESTABLISHED" by our faith in Rom 3:31.

Please bear with the length of what follows:

Note what Paul writes later in this same chapter:

25For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

Seems to have clamped an iron-clad lock on the term "law" at the very start of Romans - showing that it is the Law found in scripture - the one that includes instruction about circumcision.

You seem to have undone your own case in that regard.

And what has Paul written moments before?

14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

The Law that the Gentiles do not have - is the written law.

The written law of Paul's day -- is scripture.

I suggest this strongly shows that Paul has two distinct conceptualizations of the Law. One of these is the written code of the Law of Moses that functions to mark Jew from Gentile. The other is the "essence of the Law of Moses" that even the Gentile can follow. Note that Paul is talking about Gentiles, as uncircumcised men, keeping the Law.

Indeed. Here we see reference to the moral law - the Ten Commandments - vs some law about Passover or circumcision.

Any Jew worth his salt would immediately, and rightly, protest that circumcision, while perhaps technically not part of the Law of Moses (its initiation preceded Sinai by > 400 years, I think), is the hallmark of membership in the nation of Israel.

indeed - Cain is warned about not sinning as he contemplates the murder of his brother. (a fact long before Abraham).

And Abraham is given the covenant of circumcision long before Moses.

And the Lev 11 distinction of Clean vs Unclean animal is seen in Gen 6 and 7 long before Moses.

And God himself speaks the Ten Commandments directly to the people - bypassing Moses entirely.

And the Law of Moses was for Israel alone (I suspect some of you will challenge me on this!). In any event, in verse 14, Paul has made it clear that the Gentile is not subect to the Law of Moses - the Gentile is characterized as "not having the Law".

The gentiles did not have access to the law apart from the "Reading of the Law in the Synagogues every Sabbath" as Acts 15 points out - and as we see happening in the case of gentiles - in Acts 13.

Thus in general - because gentiles were not all in the synagogues each Sabbath - they did not have access to scripture at all - not Psalms not Daniel not Isaiah - not Moses.

Although things get complicated, if we are to take Paul seriously here, we have to see him as discerning two aspects of Torah - the one that demarcates the Jew from the Gentile (including, e.g., circumcision) and the one that "gets written on the heart of the Gentile" (and the believing Jew, of course).

Paul is arguing that the real value in circumcision is not the outward act - that applied to Jews only - but rather the inward heart-work that applied to BOTH Jew and Gentile and that was writing the Jer 31 LAW of God on the heart - as promised in the Jer 31 New Covenant.

Note also how such an interpretation allows us to make sense of clear statements that "law" has been abolished (e.g. Eph 2:15) and other statements that "law" has been established (e.g. Romans 3:31).

In Eph 2:15 the law that is abolished is explicitly stated to be the law of circumcision that was the "dividing wall" between Jew and Gentile -- the middle wall of separation.

In Romans 2 through 7 the Law that is identified is the Moral law that condemns all the world as sinners and shows them to be in need of Salvation - the law that is written on the heart as part of the New Covenant, the law that is established by our faith and in 1Cor 7:19 the one that is called "the Commandments of God".

Consider also this from Romans 9:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

Yet again, we have Paul with two faces to "law". Paul's argument here is that the Jew followed the rules and regulations of the Law of Moses but did not arrive "at that law" - the second sense of law that undergirds but is not to identified with the Law of Moses.

For Paul, the Law of Moses, including the 10 commandments, is a kind of "outer shell" that encloses the real essence or heart of a more foundational "law". It is because the Jew pursued the "rules and regulations" and forgot the heart that the problem arose.

Paul was a Jew.

So also were most of those sainst listed in his Heb 11 list.

Paul never argues that the Law of God was at fault.

In Romans 9 - as you pointed out the Law of God is called the "Law of Righteousness" in James 2 it is called "the Royal Law" and "The Law of Liberty".

The contrast Paul uses is that between the Law internalized - written on the heart under the New Covenant in which case it is STILL valid and reveals an obedient child of God. Vs the law "merely external" merely on tablets of stone - in which case it is STILL valid but only condemns.

And, as per Romans 10 (just a few breaths later), they did so not so much from a legalistic error, but rather from a "racial exclusion" error:

Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God

Again the error is said to be that of unbelieving Jews - not that of the Law of God. The Law of God is "established by our faith" and as Paul says in 1cor 7:19 "but what Matters is keeping the Commandments of God".

From these texts, we see that Paul's view of "law" is complex, and that he can claim that there is a sense in which some "law" has been established even though he is otherwise clear that the written code of the Law of Moses has been abolished.

There is no text in all of scripture saying "the written code of the Law of Moses has been abolished".

This is the weak point in your argument in that regard.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Marcia]

HP: You sound like DHK now. I never called you a Calvinist. When one takes a position in lock step with the very heart of Calvinism as you have in your adherence to a literal payment, you have accepted a firmly entrenched theory in the system of Calvinism, whether or not you are cognizant of if you so desire to be shown in accordance with that system of thought.

The literal payment theory is simply the notion that the atonement was a forensic proceeding in which sins were literally paid for on the cross. Hence the clearly Calvinistic notion that all past present and future sins of the elect have been atoned for, which is simply not the case in any forensic sense. That theory is simply in error. No sins were literally paid for on the cross. The cross made a way whereby all sins could be forgiven, but no sins are remitted until one fulfills the conditions for forgiveness via repentance and faith.

You call a lot of biblical teachings Calvinist when they are no such thing. There are biblical teachings everyone agree on - Calvinists and non-Calvinists, and substitutionary atonement is one of them. Is that what you are talking about? I never heard of the "literal payment theory." Did you make that term up?

That Christ paid for the penalty for sins on the cross is just a part of the historic Christian faith and is supported biblically. In fact, 5 point Calvinists would say that he paid only for the sins of those elected to believe, limited atonement, with which I disagree.

So the penalty for the sins was paid for but no one is forgiven without faith. When one has faith there is salvific justification: one is imputed with the righteousness of Christ. This is forensic because one is not really made righteous in actuality but rather, one is declared righteous in the eyes of God.

Bearing sins on the cross:

so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. Heb. 9:28

but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, Heb. 10:12

Righteousness through faith

and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,

Phil 3:9

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
In Romans 7 Paul says that "When the Law came" -- which is a reference to the larger view of the Law - as iluminated by the Holy Spirit -

I disagree - the allusion to "when the Law came" in Romans 7 is instead an allusion to the giving of the Law of Moses at Mount Sinai.

That idea does not work in Romans 7 because Paul gives a sequence.

1. Paul ALIVE APART from the Law
2. THEN when the Law came -- DEAD

Thus "when the Law came" can only refer to the point IN PAUL's LIFE when he went from his Phil 3 view of thinking of himself "as to the righteousness found in the Law - found BLAMELESS" -- vs the point when through illumination of the John 16 work of the holy Spirit he realized the extent to which the STILL authorotative law - "closed every mouth" and "held all the world accountable to God" (Rom 3) as condemned sinners.

Your alternative proposed in your post above would require that Paul had been alive BEFORE time of Moses at Sinal.

It simply does not work.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Law is good because it reflects the character of God

True.

and shines a light on our own sinfulness

That is true of the lost state of man apart from the New Birth - as Paul points out in Romans 3 and Gal 3.

(see Rom 7 where Paul discusses this). The Law is the standard of the character of God, something man cannot keep or achieve.

In Rom 7 Paul shows the problem for the saved saint APART from walking by the Spirit and putting to death the deeds of the flesh in Romans 8 which is the SOLUTION for the Romans 7 and is the explanation for the nothing-but-victory-over-sin assertion that Paul makes in Romans 6.

These verses (I also posted in the other thread) clearly show that we cannot keep the law and if we could, then Christ died in vain.

...for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. Gal. 2:21

Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." Gal 3:11

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. Gal. 3:24

All of which apply to the lost person - apart from the New Birth.

None of which apply to the save person.

In Romans 8:5-8 the lost are the only ones UNNABLE to submit to God's Law.

Rom 8
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are [b]in the flesh cannot please God[/b].

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Marcia]

The righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer at the moment of faith is never lost or taken away; one is sealed with the Holy Spirit and the Bible says one has eternal life. Eternal life begins the moment one believes.

I no longer will post on these topics - losing salvation, obedience required for salvation, etc. as I have debated those enough here and elsewhere. I have come to the conclusion that it is fruitless to try to show those who continue to believe otherwise.

Starting when I was a new believer and throughout my Christian life, I have been confronted all the time by people trying to get me to be KJVO, by universalists, by those who deny hell, by those who believe you can lose your salvation, and so forth (this does not include the cultists I encountered) - many who email me through my website and others were personal encounters. One was even by letter. I have studied all these topics because I had to respond to these people and I had to clarify my own thoughts on the matter. I've done that and I need to move on.

 

[BobRyan]

The righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer at the moment of faith is never lost or taken away;

It does not escape the reader's notice that you provide no Bible text for that.

I no longer will post on these topics - losing salvation...

An interesting solution to be sure.

However Matt 18 we have the warning from Christ himself about forgiveness revoked.

John 15 Christ warns about "branches IN ME" that are pruned then removed and cast into fire.

Gal 5:4 example of those who in real life were "severed FROM Christ, fallen FROM Grace"

And even Paul in 1Cor 11 saying "I buffet my body and make it my slave LEST after preaching the Gospel to others I myself should be disqualified"

And of course the warning in Romans 11 to "YOU who stand only by your faith" against the danger of falling.

There are so many Bible warnings to be ignored by those who choose OSAS over the Bible.

oh well...

in Christ,

Bob