Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Thank you for the answers....:thumbs:
What I am trying to convey is that the Law, it was a fleshly covenant that God had with the Jews. Jesus fulfilled the Law, and took it away, nailing it to the cross. The moral aspect of the Law is still there, correct, but we aren't under the obligation of the Law, but Grace, seeing that Christ ushered it in with His death, burial, resurrction, and ascension.
Okay fellers, here's something for y'all to chew on:
Now, if it is contrary to the Law to carry their bed(couch) on the sabbath(and it was, btw), then why did Jesus command these two individuals to take it up and walk?
Jesus did not "take the law away" as you say. He took away the list of grievances against us for the many laws we have broken away. That's a very different thing.
Col. 2:10-15
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:Under the Law, you had the natural circumcision of the foreskin. Under Grace, the spiritual circumcision of the heart.
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Under the Law, there was a rememberance of their sins, therefore the need of the yearly sacrifice. Under Grace, our sins are blotted out, never to be brought up ever again.
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; The "handwriting of ordinances that were against us" was the Law. The Law is directed towards the fleshly man, and not the spiritual man. The Law was a fleshly covenant, whereas Grace is directed towards the spiritual man.
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Heb. 10:1-4
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
So how are WE under grace differently than Abraham?
How are we under grace DIFFERENTLY than Moses?
In what ways were they under the law differently than we are under it?
You are not giving straight, thorough, clear answers to these questions.
Jesus did not "take the law away" as you say. He took away the list of grievances against us for the many laws we have broken away. That's a very different thing.
So how are WE under grace differently than Abraham?
How are we under grace DIFFERENTLY than Moses?
In what ways were they under the law differently than we are under it?
You are not giving straight, thorough, clear answers to these questions.
It is bad Hermeneutics....But...it's also not Dispensationalism either. I'm dispy...so is Scofield, and no Dispensationalist I am aware of with any decent knowledge of Scripture believes that way. And as the article pretends is the case; no knowledgeably Dispy believes that there were ever TWO routes to Salvation, one for the O.T. Saint and another for the New. Even Scofield didn't believe that. If that was your experience, ky, then you were simply raised in a bad church.....but the error wasn't due to Dispensationalism....it was unknowledgeable teaching.
The writer of your article makes numerous errors about Dispensationalist teachings a few are here:
One thing I find amusing is that the disp. who claim to be champions of literalism spiritualize the 7 churches of Rev. which is actually 7 literal existing churches in that day. They make it 7 church ages with no biblical warrant.
Every Dispensationalist I know understands that those were literal existing Churches. They ALSO tend to believe that it holds a deeper prophetic meaning as well.......Even the Scofield notes show this. Having heard this taught/preached about ten different times, read the Scofield notes studied it with the writings of NUMEROUS Dispensational Theologians.........I have NEVER-EVER ONCE heard it taught that those were NOT literal churches. This guy introduced me to that stupid idea. It is not either/or for a dispy...it is both/and, and anyone who actually understands dispensationalism knows this. What I find "amusing" is the piquant irony that this guy is scoffing at a phantom belief of his own imagination.
Now if you disp. want to say that James is just making a reference to the future of the building of the temple what in the world does that have to do with the controversy that he was dealing with?
UH......we don't.......want to. We don't confuse the Tabernacle with the Temple. And strictly speaking.....it could ALSO refer to BOTH if the passage wanted to....Here's a logical hint: Unless two things contradict each other (these interpretations don't) then BOTH meanings are possible.
The [sic] he goes on to show that the promise was made made 430 years before the giving of the law. This of course destroys the disp. position that the OT saints were saved by the law.[/U]
100% agreement...OT saints weren't saved by the law, but, that's not the dispy position. It's just a bad hermeneutic that he has copy/pasted onto the back of Dispensational teaching. He tilts at wind-mills.
It's a-o.k. with me if someone doesn't wanna be a dispy........but, you should probably properly define dispensationalism before you reject it.
My two cents, because I don't mind y'all letting me know where you think I'm in error:
The law wasn't "put away." Not sure where people keep coming up with that. The law was never meant to be the way to get saved; it was our schoolmaster to let us know what God considered (and still considers) sin. Somewhere along the way, it got corrupted into "you must do this or you won't get into heaven."
But it hasn't been put away, or we wouldn't still be seeing references to it such as in Romans 13.
Let me ask this: Jesus commanded "love thy neighbor." Is that something we do to get saved, or because we're saved? The same goes for "don't murder, don't steal, don't commit adultery," and the rest.
Maybe I'm being obtuse -- but I didn't see anything there that contradicted what I wrote.The Law and the Prophets were until John, since then, the Kingdom of heaven is preached, and men press into it....Luke 16:16. Christ was born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law. Then in Galatians 4, Apostle Paul uses the allegory of Mount Sinai. Then in Hebrews 8, the writer makes mention of the Law and Grace Covenants, and that if the first(Law) had been faultless, there would have been no need of the second(Grace Covenant). The Law was a curse in that no one, even unto this day, has been able to keep it, with the exception of Christ. The Law only brought death, guilt, condemnation, knowledge of sin, etc. We who are saved, aren't under the Law whatsoever, but Grace. Romans 8:1 states "Therefore, there is no more condemnation for those who in Christ Jesus......" I'll take his word on it. Apostle Paul was a "Law basher" because he lived under it, thought it was the "cat's meow", but when Jesus opened his eyes to the Truth, he realized it only condemned him, and killed him(Romans 7).
1 John:4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
The reason why we "love thy neighbor" is because God has saved our soul and took His abode in our life. The love we share with one another is evidence of the new creature that God has created, through His Son's shed blood.
Maybe I'm being obtuse -- but I didn't see anything there that contradicted what I wrote.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
(Was that a multiple thumbs-up on me being obtuse? <grin> )
Okay, here we go again. Look at these passages again, and I will explain it to you:
The Law was what God gave Moses to Govern His people, Israel by. When Christ came, He took the Law and nailed it to the cross, so that we now live under Grace and not the Law. The only thing the Law could do was bring guilt, condemnation, death, etc. It can, at best, bring us TO Christ, but not INTO Christ. Only Grace can do that.
Abraham had a covenant with God pre-Law. God promised him that through his seed, shall all nations be blessed. He was talking about Jesus Christ.
Moses was given the Law from God directly, and this was how He was going to Govern His people. If they broke even one of them, they died. Under Grace, if we break one, we repent and are forgiven, and not killed.
The Israelites(and Moses, too) were given a fleshly covenant betwixt themselves and God. It was a fleshly covenant that had to due with their fleshly body and not their inner man. When they sinned, they died a physical death. Now that we are under the Grace Covenant, when we sinned knowingly and willingly as a child before God, we died spiritually. We are under the Law then, because breaking God's Law brough guilt, condemnation spiritual death, etc. In this condemned state, it brought me to Christ, because I was a condemned, dead, guilty sinner, who was pleading for his life. He saved me, and placed me in Him, and saved my soul, putting me in the Grace Covenant. The Law brought me to Christ as a condemned sinner, and Grace made me a free christian.
I hope this has cleared things up.
Now, I leave you with a two verse passage and one simple question:
Gal. 4:4,5
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
If we're under any semblance of the Law now, why did God send His Son to redeem us who were under the Law?