Hi there,
since some time I am following a new trail about Pauline justification in Christ, religion, and the Pauline rejection of the Law.
First off, I found some comments by Paul where he considered even Psalms to be the Law, so I am thinking now that with Law Paul means the entire bible. But not the whole of the book, just its apparent system of the Law of sin and death. This system is really bad for us because it doesn't leave room for God's love. It turns God's love into something that is earned by those who follow the Law, and which is withheld from those who do not follow the Law. If you take this theology to the extreme, then no one but very disciplined Jews were ever saved by God, until Christ came. This adds to the consideration that for example american indians were not saved by God until they were told about Jesus Christ by european missionaries in the 15th century.
That is why I am now also holding that Jesus Christ and His cross also count backwards. It's the everlasting symbol and cause of salvation which mirrors which had been going on in God's mind forever, that God loves us and makes a way with us and is bigger than sin and death. If you simply take the system of the Law of sin and death, it makes God responsible for death and hell because in the end He put every law in effect which is. But when in Christ this law is done away with, since the sacrifice and God's loving will have existed forever, then this Law never really was in effect except through sinful humans.
If you go through the Law of Moses you can glean this very easily. It considers wearing clothes of mixed fibres an abomination. Collecting sticks on the sabbath is considered worthy of death. Homosexuals and transgendereds are supposed to get stoned. It is very clearly a law of sin and death and obviously we cannot consider it a Law of Love and Mercy - even though the true word of God makes love and mercy God's foremost concern. "Mercy triumphs over judgment" - God wants to triumph always so he is always showing Mercy.
That's my 2 cents on Paul and the bible today.
Romans 7;7 " What shall we say then?
Is the law sin?
By no means!
On the contrary;
I would not have known sin except through the law;
That is I would not have know not to covet had not the law said , ' you shall not covet."
1 Tim 1;8-11 " Now we know that the law is good if someone uses it lawfully, knowing this,
that the law is not valid for a righteous person but for the lawless and rebellious,
irreligious and sinners, unholy and profane,
those who beat their fathers and mothers,
murderers, fornicators, men who practice homosexuality,
kidnappers, liars, perjurers,
and everything else that is contrary to healthy teaching, in conformity to the Gospel of the blessed God,
with which I was entrusted."
Paul does not reject the law, but states it was there to appreciate and learn the real grace and the real love that exceeds just being a legal citizen.
Quote from: anti_nietzsche on June 19, 2018, 06:00:18 PM
Hi there,
since some time I am following a new trail about Pauline justification in Christ, religion, and the Pauline rejection of the Law.
First off, I found some comments by Paul where he considered even Psalms to be the Law, so I am thinking now that with Law Paul means the entire bible. But not the whole of the book, just its apparent system of the Law of sin and death. This system is really bad for us because it doesn't leave room for God's love. It turns God's love into something that is earned by those who follow the Law, and which is withheld from those who do not follow the Law. If you take this theology to the extreme, then no one but very disciplined Jews were ever saved by God, until Christ came. This adds to the consideration that for example american indians were not saved by God until they were told about Jesus Christ by european missionaries in the 15th century.
That is why I am now also holding that Jesus Christ and His cross also count backwards. It's the everlasting symbol and cause of salvation which mirrors which had been going on in God's mind forever, that God loves us and makes a way with us and is bigger than sin and death. If you simply take the system of the Law of sin and death, it makes God responsible for death and hell because in the end He put every law in effect which is. But when in Christ this law is done away with, since the sacrifice and God's loving will have existed forever, then this Law never really was in effect except through sinful humans.
If you go through the Law of Moses you can glean this very easily. It considers wearing clothes of mixed fibres an abomination. Collecting sticks on the sabbath is considered worthy of death. Homosexuals and transgendereds are supposed to get stoned. It is very clearly a law of sin and death and obviously we cannot consider it a Law of Love and Mercy - even though the true word of God makes love and mercy God's foremost concern. "Mercy triumphs over judgment" - God wants to triumph always so he is always showing Mercy.
That's my 2 cents on Paul and the bible today.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: I enjoyed reading that anti-Nietzsche..
I think of it as a totality, and a proving of "life from death" (Deuteronomy) of "good and evil". That HE iS life and also perfection, which, cannot help but mean that imperfection is the opposite of life! What a dilemma! But not for Him.. I find it wonderful that Jesus is the fulfilling of the law.. And He is going to live in our hearts forever. Plus rule the universe. :gsmile:
And that the fulfilling of the law is love. :cloud9: And "God is love". So simple really. Not necessarily the overcoming of the imperfect, carnal character.. until we learn to rest in Him and let Him do the work in us. Though habitually submitting to Him doesn't hurt anything.. but even that, is His work in us..
"Beneath are the everlasting arms.." .."I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefor have I drawn thee with lovingkindness.." .."those who wait upon Him (rest in Him?) will rise up as eagles.." The shield of faith(trust) is a mighty covering shield which can make every dart of the enemy fall broken to the ground..
"God is love.." .."love never fails.." .."the power at work in you is the same power which rose Jesus from the grave" .."He is faithful to complete the work He has begun in us.." And He is faithful to redeem all! Perfection cannot lose anything, and certainly not any one.. That He is Father makes all the difference. Even any correction of the most evil doing characters who have lived, is correction and He surely is quite capable of carrying out successful "correction". Yes, I believe He purifies us by the 'fiery' things/trials of life, but I also believe He purifies us when we pour out our love.. from our heart, to Him.. When we love and praise (worship) Him. Until one day it is the most natural and habitual thing we will do.. So many reasons to praise Him.. and we see just the tip of the iceberg (or island/hill peaking up out of the ocean of all He is and does).. And forever, not only His glory :faint: but also His unable to number creative wonders to behold.. He is able. "Every tongue will wholeheartedly connfess Jesus is Lord" Philippians 2:11 (taking into account the Greek).
:Peace2: God bless!
Quote from: anti_nietzsche on June 19, 2018, 06:00:18 PM
That is why I am now also holding that Jesus Christ and His cross also count backwards. It's the everlasting symbol and cause of salvation which mirrors which had been going on in God's mind forever, that God loves us and makes a way with us and is bigger than sin and death. If you simply take the system of the Law of sin and death, it makes God responsible for death and hell because in the end He put every law in effect which is. But when in Christ this law is done away with, since the sacrifice and God's loving will have existed forever, then this Law never really was in effect except through sinful humans.
That is a good point about the totality of the law and grace linked for specific task of teaching us what to truly value.
We should simply acknowledge that the bible cannot be read as a specific tool and manual on how to live. It also contains bad things, which is from God to inform us about what is good and bad in spiritual life. For example, when the book has Jews saying babylonian babies should be smashed on rocks, this is not from God but from these Jews and God included this portion in the bible so we would know about failures of Jews. That's why I do not believe in a superior inerrancy of the bible. The book is simply a document, useful often but some parts of it should not be taken as showing God's will. As a prime example, the Law of Moses, we have the letters of Paul that teach us that this law is superceded by Christ's things. If it were God's Law it would not have been so illogical and cruel and moreover it wouldn't have made Christ and His cross necessary.
Quote from: anti_nietzsche on June 20, 2018, 03:34:29 PM
We should simply acknowledge that the bible cannot be read as a specific tool and manual on how to live. It also contains bad things, which is from God to inform us about what is good and bad in spiritual life. For example, when the book has Jews saying babylonian babies should be smashed on rocks, this is not from God but from these Jews and God included this portion in the bible so we would know about failures of Jews. That's why I do not believe in a superior inerrancy of the bible. The book is simply a document, useful often but some parts of it should not be taken as showing God's will. As a prime example, the Law of Moses, we have the letters of Paul that teach us that this law is superceded by Christ's things. If it were God's Law it would not have been so illogical and cruel and moreover it wouldn't have made Christ and His cross necessary.
I agree! It doesn't mean that was God's will.. It was the writer of the psalm, expressing the sentiment..
I guess that's the thing about "Law" - it has no sentiment. I read this about the verse about Babylonian babies, which I found helpful -
"The barbarous customs of Oriental warfare spared neither women nor children in a war of extermination. The stern law of retaliation demanded that Babylon should be treated as she had treated Jerusalem. (2Kings 8:12; Isaiah 13:16; Hosea 10:14)"
It doesn't mean that was God's will.. It was the writer of the psalm expressing the sentiment.. Yet I always come back to the idea that what we are learning - and must learn for our own forever safety - is that apart from God --> only death/non-life. Translations have turned death into just another form of living.. And "immortality" as inherent, rather than only in Jesus. But I strongly believe - to not know and have Him, is to end up not living. That it is simply the way it is (law/natural law) and it cannot be any other way. So allowing even the worst to occur.. is actually necessary to redeem/convince all. (Imo)
Quote from: Ross on June 20, 2018, 03:15:37 AM
Romans 7;7 " What shall we say then?
Is the law sin?
By no means!
On the contrary;
I would not have known sin except through the law;
That is I would not have know not to covet had not the law said , ' you shall not covet."
1 Tim 1;8-11 " Now we know that the law is good if someone uses it lawfully, knowing this,
that the law is not valid for a righteous person but for the lawless and rebellious,
irreligious and sinners, unholy and profane,
those who beat their fathers and mothers,
murderers, fornicators, men who practice homosexuality,
kidnappers, liars, perjurers,
and everything else that is contrary to healthy teaching, in conformity to the Gospel of the blessed God,
with which I was entrusted."
Paul does not reject the law, but states it was there to appreciate and learn the real grace and the real love that exceeds just being a legal citizen.
:thumbsup: :iagree: And I believe the law of reaping as we sow, is a natural law just as real as gravity.
so for instance, the Psalmist, that said "happy he who dashes your little ones against a stone" is
expressing that sentiment against the Babylonians and is not expressing that it is God's will that mankind behave that way..
I never really thought that all through before.. this thread was very helpful! :thumbsup:
Quote from: marie glen on June 20, 2018, 05:15:37 PM
And I believe the law of reaping as we sow, is a natural law just as real as gravity.
so for instance, the Psalmist, that said "happy he who dashes your little ones against a stone" is expressing that sentiment against the Babylonians and is not expressing that it is God's will that mankind behave that way..
Good observations Sister.
I.M.O man gets pretty casual about many things even to the point of making some big mistakes. Consequential results for personal choices do get minimised to try and cover-up those mistakes.So much taken for granted.
Trying to teach a child can be challenging at times -how to correct and discipline some actions/thoughts so that they go no further; and some just require tweaking so as to get improvement and appreciation to the higher level.
So indeed the reaping what we sow is necessary to correct our behaviour and values.
All this whilst in the flesh as preparation for the change to the higher level when we are totally new in spirit, body and soul.
I would suggest to take up Paul on this take on religion. Whenever in the bible we find the Law of Sin and Death expressed, we need to recognize it and replace it with Christ's ways, his precepts, his ideals. The Law of Sin and Death is a red false thread throughout the bible and God included it there in order to show us how bad it is. It's also in the New Testament that again is no uniform manual but instead a collection of historical theological documents. It also contains the struggles of faith with Jesus and at some places it is deep and arrives at the New Age and the enlightenment which Jesus stands for, and at other places it shrinks back into the Law. That's where also Paul made his mistakes, for example when he uses the Law to prescribe silence for women in the church. God does not recommend this to us but included it in the bible to give us an image of what went wrong back then. It's again the Law of Sin and Death cropping up where instead it would have been much better to go by Christ's law which Paul mentions elsewhere, the Law of Freedom which James mentions as well.
I do not think that the salvation in Christ is a detail of the Law. It's not that God accepts the Law as the accuser and sends Jesus to die in our stead to satisfy justice. That is not the genuine justice. Instead God entirely repeals the Law and puts us into very existential freedom where we know the need for love. Christ's salvation is then ontological, we are helped, justified freely and graciously accepted in God's kingdom where even the sparrows find their place. A sour dough that the woman kneeds until the bread dough is entirely leavened. We are led away from the false jewish system into a new one where the Jews were introduced to as the first ones by Jesus. They had been left aside for so long and their leaders had been very corrupt, harshly strict and cruel. The average Jew on the street however was as good as everyone else and also needs salvation. God has covered that in Christ's cross that was erected specifically so that men could have salvation who couldn't save themselves. The cross is not for candy stealing but for serious sins. God forgave even murderers like Paul. The Law never had this option so God couldn't stand it.
Quote from: anti_nietzsche on June 20, 2018, 03:34:29 PM
We should simply acknowledge that the bible cannot be read as a specific tool and manual on how to live. It also contains bad things, which is from God to inform us about what is good and bad in spiritual life. For example, when the book has Jews saying babylonian babies should be smashed on rocks, this is not from God but from these Jews and God included this portion in the bible so we would know about failures of Jews. That's why I do not believe in a superior inerrancy of the bible. The book is simply a document, useful often but some parts of it should not be taken as showing God's will. As a prime example, the Law of Moses, we have the letters of Paul that teach us that this law is superceded by Christ's things. If it were God's Law it would not have been so illogical and cruel and moreover it wouldn't have made Christ and His cross necessary.
What you seem to be saying here and in later posts seems to me to be incredibly dangerous. You are saying that the law wasn't given by God but invented by Moses, the man of God, or maybe just a bunch of random Israelites I don't entirely know what you think, which should never have upheld and have every right to ignore. This is not what Jesus said, Jesus said that He had come not to abolish the law and the prophets but that they should be fulfilled and that not the smallest letter of them should pass way until all had been accomplished; that is what He said.
The law points to Jesus it is given by God and given by Him for one reason, to teach that the end of sin is death and from death comes more death (like the murder of babies and I do agree that Psalms should not be read as sanctioning that). And there is no salvation in the law because God has designed it this way to show that salvation is only found in Him. The law cannot save us, only God can save us through the mechanism He chooses which is Jesus Christ. He does this to ensure that He remains the only true and proper object of worship, not the law, not the Bible, not some other person but Him. Salvation is only found in Him, this is what the law is for.
:thumbsup: amen, CST, that was a very well written post!
P.S. the thing about women not talking in church may have meant ladies were chatting during 'church' time.. And the no women teaching is a cultural thing, which if women would have begun to preach and teach i really think the gospel message could have gotten shipwrecked because of the land and time. And don't forget Paul mentioned other women as being fellow servants and workers. And I actually think men should lead, whenever possible..
God's Word is a total document. I figure we misunderstand some things about the Old Testament and Old Testament times.. And remember in the Sermon on the mount(ain) Jesus said the law actually isn't good enough! Don't murder? Don't hate! Dislike. For it is murder in the heart. So I do not worry about the Old Testament as I know "God is Love".. "God is light".. He makes no mistakes.. all is well. Extremely well.. So I don't worry about any of those misunderstandings and I don't pay any attentions to the accusations and judgments the world and non-believers make against Him. I like to simply read His word, which I believe is the programming we are supposed to go through. So to speak. An update.. big one. "Thy Word is truth" Logos, root word of logic..
:Peace2:
Galatians 5 is very, very good about the law.. all of Galatians is..
Quote from: anti_nietzsche on June 20, 2018, 03:34:29 PM
We should simply acknowledge that the bible cannot be read as a specific tool and manual on how to live. It also contains bad things, which is from God to inform us about what is good and bad in spiritual life. For example, when the book has Jews saying babylonian babies should be smashed on rocks, this is not from God but from these Jews and God included this portion in the bible so we would know about failures of Jews. That's why I do not believe in a superior inerrancy of the bible. The book is simply a document, useful often but some parts of it should not be taken as showing God's will. As a prime example, the Law of Moses, we have the letters of Paul that teach us that this law is superceded by Christ's things. If it were God's Law it would not have been so illogical and cruel and moreover it wouldn't have made Christ and His cross necessary.
Hi anti - you often make some very interesting points, and you have friends here. However, please note the following for any further posting. Any further posts anywhere similar to the above will be moderated accordingly. Thanks;
http://tentmaker.org/forum/rules-and-faq/moderatortm-expectations-regarding-the-scriptures/
Quote from: anti_nietzsche on June 20, 2018, 03:34:29 PM
We should simply acknowledge that the bible cannot be read as a specific tool and manual on how to live.
2 Tim 3;16,17 " ALL SCRIPTURE IS BREATHED OUT BY GOD,
AND IS PROFITABLE FOR TEACHING, REPROOF, FOR CORRECTING, FOR TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS,
SO THAT THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE PROFICIENT,
FULLY EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK."
Hi Jabcat,
I read the Scriptures as inspired, not as dictated to a writer. There are things in scripture like for example Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, which can't be good although God recommends Abraham for obedience. That means for me, scripture is not exhaustive and God does not in every detail write down his supreme opinion. It's the Spirit in us which with the Holy Spirit must discern God's will. Furthermore the bible only at two places seems to claim TOTAL INERRANCY status. And not one time in the old testament. That's why I would question why you confer this total inerrancy on scripture which is God-breathed but not God-dictated. If total inerrancy were true we would not have so many different bible translations. Additionally, are you familiar with the multiple meanings of the bible verses in original hebrew? A verse can have 5 or more additional meanings than the one we find in a translated bible. And the one in the bible may not even be the most important meaning actually. I don't speak against the bible being inspired, I speak against total inerrancy. Otherwise we would go to Matthew read the olivet discourse and forget about UR. Inspiration is deep and in a way it also contains inerrancy. But you must wrestle with the word and copy it into your spirit and process it right. The inspiration is true and the interpretation must be true. The word in the middle is not God and I don't worship a book as completely flawless when God doesn't ever demand that.
Thanks for your considerations.
Daniel
Quote from: anti_nietzsche on June 22, 2018, 09:29:58 AM
Hi Jabcat,
I read the Scriptures as inspired, not as dictated to a writer. There are things in scripture like for example Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, which can't be good although God recommends Abraham for obedience. That means for me, scripture is not exhaustive and God does not in every detail write down his supreme opinion. It's the Spirit in us which with the Holy Spirit must discern God's will. Furthermore the bible only at two places seems to claim TOTAL INERRANCY status. And not one time in the old testament. That's why I would question why you confer this total inerrancy on scripture which is God-breathed but not God-dictated. If total inerrancy were true we would not have so many different bible translations. Additionally, are you familiar with the multiple meanings of the bible verses in original hebrew? A verse can have 5 or more additional meanings than the one we find in a translated bible. And the one in the bible may not even be the most important meaning actually. I don't speak against the bible being inspired, I speak against total inerrancy. Otherwise we would go to Matthew read the olivet discourse and forget about UR. Inspiration is deep and in a way it also contains inerrancy. But you must wrestle with the word and copy it into your spirit and process it right. The inspiration is true and the interpretation must be true. The word in the middle is not God and I don't worship a book as completely flawless when God doesn't ever demand that.
Thanks for your considerations.
Daniel
You seem to be doubting that God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac there. He did but only to pull the rug from under Abraham's expectations of God at the end. Abraham wasn't surprised that God appeared to ask for the sacrifice of Isaac, the idols of the surrounding nations made such demands. People expected this, they expected the gods to be like them.
Up to this point God had made huge promises to Abraham and asked for basically nothing in return, circumcision was the only real challenge it would seem. But people have trouble with this, they don't expect the sort of something for nothing generosity God appeared to be offering here they expect everything to have a price. Of course, I'm oversimplifying this to the point it sounds simply like a transaction for land which Abraham should simply have said no to. When, of course, it wasn't it was a learning experience to build Abraham's character.
We call it a test, but it can't be a test in the traditional sense because God already knew the outcome.
I certainly agree scripture is not exhaustive, if it were it would be very hard to read, incredibly long and flooded with caveats. If it were like that every chapter would be as trying as Numbers 7 and no-one would read it except lawyers. The Bible isn't like that and I'm not sure such a book would even be possible because it still wouldn't properly represent God.
I do believe that the inspired Bible is only as inerrant as the person who reads it because the world contains so many fools but I really don't believe it contains anything that is, on balance, entirely deceptive and nothing that is actually 'bad' in the sense you seem to be using it. I suspect it was that sort of language that particularly disturbed Jabcat.
I'm also interested in which two parts of the Bible you think are the only ones that claim inerrancy. The quote from Ross above seems to cover the whole text and possibly more.
I don't want to discuss this further because I don't want trouble. I'm waiting until Jabcat or someone else gives me the okay. I still view the bible as inspired, but it cannot be inerrant and nothing in scripture itself demands that. Try to find out what God-breathed means. Did God write the bible or imbued the book with spirit? The bible is no manual, it is a devotional book, and that's also why we use it in divine services and make a big deal out of some verses that stabilize us and give us hope. But if you read it like you would read a manual or a lexicon you're up for trouble because the men who wrote the bible were not God himself. Do you really think Matthew or Luke were omniscient when they wrote their books?
For matters of discussion, the following is the final word. If we can discuss this OP any further without "going there", that's fine. Otherwise we can either lock it or just voluntarily move on to another topic.
"We recognize there are translational issues, as well as many different viewpoints, levels of understanding, and varying degrees of levels of Spirit-revelation within the scriptures. There is MUCH room given for those things to be explored and discussed. However, our focus is WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES. Gary Amirault has noted that there needs to be a respect for scripture in the discussion forum. Not any other members' point of view crammed down others' throats, but that the default setting is a respect for scripture. Accurately translated (as much as is currently possible), and the Spirit within the letters having been revealed to us, they are reliable.
Outright texual criticism is not an allowed topic or matter of discussion on the TM discussion forum. It is seen as a divisive tool within the body, and not helpful to others' growth in the faith of Jesus Christ. Also, repeated subtle, veiled references within posts that the scriptures are untrue, unnecessary [to whom they're available] or to be discounted in matters of belief and practice, are not only discouraged, but will be moderated based upon moderators' discretion.
Thanks, God bless.