Law Vs Grace, or Law AND Grace?

[canuckamuck]

Yes the Covenant with man is renewed, it is a new contract written on our hearts and the letter of the law is no longer appropriate. We live by the Spirit now.

Or at least we are supposed to.

Actually you do live by the law. There is not one thing commanded to the Christian in the NT that is not based on the law. The NT never rescinds or abrogates God's laws. Spirit and Law are not mutually exclusive and the NT never treats them as such.

Let me ask you this. The commandment against a man sleeping with his daughter-in-law is not repeated in the NT. Would you argue that such activity is now permitted? Of course not.

The law of God cannot be done away with because it is the standard by which we measure sin. It is the standard by which we measure things like love, holiness, and so forth. Even the fruit of the Spirit are contained in the law. The law is reflection of God's character and nature, it teaches us about who He is. It is the textbook by which the Holy Spirit instructs us. EVERY teaching in the NT pertaining the matters of Christian faith and practice are in the Law and indeed the entire OT.

The Bible is a system of progressive revelation. That means that the Bible builds on itself as it progresses from the Genesis to Revelation. The NT is built on top of was revealed in the OT. The entire NT is written in the terminology of the of the Law of Moses. If you abrogate the Law of Moses, the NT no longer makes sense because without the Law, there would be no frame of reference with which to understand the sacrifices, festivals and other parts of the law and how they point to Christ.

Yes, progressive revelation. That is why in our improved covenant, we have more clarity than when we forced to remember all the tenants of the book of the law. Because sin is a condition of the heart, it is in our hearts where we find the definition of sin, That is if we listen to what the Spirit tells us. Incest will be wrong in your heart every time, unless you have a seared conscience. But what about not giving someone some encouragement when you see the are troubled, what about driving a little slower so someone can merge. What about staying home with your kids instead of doing something for yourself. Where is Moses on all of that. We know what the law says by the days when we lived by the letter. We know that the law could still allow you to live selfishly. Now we have the Mind of Christ. it is better.

[canuckamuck]

How do you define sin if not for the law?

We define sin by the Holy Spirit who lives in us, and the law which is written on our hearts. (not Mosaic law) We know what is sin, and some things that are sin are not even covered by the law, it is about our relationship with God and neighbor. Sometimes a simple comment can be sin, even though it breaks no Mosaic law.

Simply asking this question is very telling of what people can't understand of the new covenant.

Mosaic law was (sin for dummies) Now we have the programmer of righteousness working right along with us. It is better.

The problem is that what you call "the Mosaic law" is the only law there is measuring rod by which the Holy Spirit teaches you what sin is. There is no way around it. The law of God is the Mosaic law and is what the NT uses to define sin.

Are we told in the New Testament to ignore what was learned in the old? We should meditate on the Word of God day and night. However we determine our behavior by seeking the Holy Spirit, by keeping step with the Holy Spirit. I have said way back in this thread that the law is perfect, it is man that is flawed. That is why we fail by the letter of the law. But of course we learn much about the ways of our Father through the tenants of Judaism.

[lekh l'kha]

lekh l'kha,

I am in the process of responding to one of your last post to me. I did not want you to feel I was ignoring you.

I did want to add however a brief and perhaps side note right now.

I have taught for years that there are two separate things that God requires of us that necessitate all our heart if we are to do it acceptably.

De 6:5 And thou shalt

love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might

.

6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

De 10:12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to

fear the LORD thy God

, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the LORD thy God

with all thy heart and with all thy soul

,

13 To keep the commandments of the LORD, and His statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

We are to both love and fear God with all our hearts, even though many would even debate this.

We also know from God

[Guest shiloh357]

Are we told in the New Testament to ignore what was learned in the old?

No we are not.

We should meditate on the Word of God day and night. However we determine our behavior by seeking the Holy Spirit, by keeping step with the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit does not operate in a vacuum. The OT is still just as relevant for the Christian as ever, even we do not "observe" the Law of Moses.

I have said way back in this thread that the law is perfect, it is man that is flawed.

Which is why the law was not done away with. The law is not the problem. It was man's inability to measure up to the righteoustandard the law demnanded that was the problem. So the solution is not to do away with the standard, but rather enable us to meet that standard. The solution is found in that we now have Jesus living in us in the person of the Holy Spirit fulfilling the righteousness of the law (Rom. 8:4) and thus enabling us to be pleasing to God.

That is why we fail by the letter of the law.

The "letter" in the NT refers to the old adminstration which is passing away. The law is not passing away, but rather the old administration of it is passing away. The same law is still in force but under a new and better adminstration in the New Covenant.

[Guest shiloh357]

Yes, progressive revelation. That is why in our improved covenant, we have more clarity than when we forced to remember all the tenants of the book of the law.

Actually, the New Covenant makes you MORE responsible for obedience to God's law, not less responsible. You have something most people in the OT did not have: You have the indwelling empowerment of the Holy Spirit.

Because sin is a condition of the heart, it is in our hearts where we find the definition of sin, That is if we listen to what the Spirit tells us.

No, the Bible is the final measure and arbiter of all matters of Christian faith and practice. The Bible, both OT and NT is the Holy Spirit's instruction manual for the Christian

Incest will be wrong in your heart every time, unless you have a seared conscience. But what about not giving someone some encouragement when you see the are troubled, what about driving a little slower so someone can merge. What about staying home with your kids instead of doing something for yourself. Where is Moses on all of that. We know what the law says by the days when we lived by the letter. We know that the law could still allow you to live selfishly. Now we have the Mind of Christ. it is better.

You are wrong. The law did allow people live selfishly. In fact there is not one part of the law that promotes selfishness. Just the opposite. The law was based on loving and helping others. That is in part, the essence of the Mosaic Law. Every NT has its roots in the Mosaic law.

There is not one good deed you have mentioned that does not find its origin one way or another, in the law. Any good work you can do as a Christian is based on the God's law.

[BlindSeeker]

Thanks for the input, perhaps you would like to explain what Paul was saying. We all know his words, and what they say . . . but what do they mean? Without understanding it is difficult to find right application to what can easily be just memorized and quoted.

Pr 4:5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.

6 Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.

7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and

with all thy getting get understanding.

(1.) How did Paul, "through the Law, die to the law?"

(2.) How does Paul "live to God?"

We know the setting which Paul is speaking regarding those who tried to "compel" Titus to be circumcised (ceremonial type and shadow part of the law, not moral) and also Peter "withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision" and "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel." We know these being mere prophetic "types and shadows" which were fulfilled in the body of Christ have ceased due to the fulfillment of their purpose. But have the moral guidelines which were ordain for life to guide us us in a righteous love for God and humanity, (3.) have they too fulfilled their purpose that they as well have passed away and no longer applicable?

"So, behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that it shall no more be said, As Jehovah lives, who brought up the sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt; but, As Jehovah lives, who brought up the sons of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands where He had driven them. And I will bring them again into their lands that I gave to their fathers." (Jer. 16: 14-15)

"Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah;" (Jer.31: 31-32)

It is NOT a "renewed" covenant - it is a totally NEW covenant. The covenant based on obedience to the Law God gave to Moses when He "took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt" was God's marriage-contract with Israel which they broke .

The New Covenant is a completely NEW marriage contract.

Shiloh has answered you here with better clarity than I believe I could. As it presently stands I am in agreement with all he has addressed you on . . . so I would urge your prayerful consideration of his words.

And Paul said that THE LAW IS ONLY IN EFFECT UNTIL SOMEONE DIES:

"Or are you ignorant, brothers; for I speak to those who know the Law; that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?" (Rom 7: 1)

"I have been crucified with Christ, and I live; yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me. And that life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith toward the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself on my behalf." (Gal.2: 20).

"For through the Law I died to the law, that I might live to God." (Gal.2: 19).

"I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing." (Joh.15: 5)

It is the fruit of the Spirit of Christ produced by Christ in and through us that fulfills the Law - it is NOT we who attempt to be obedient to the written and oral Law which condemns us as Law-breakers.

I know you think you answer my questions, but in fact you did not. You simply repeated yourself and gave more of the same. What I ask for was the

[lekh l'kha]

No, if God has renewed it, it is not broken. I am sorry, but you simply mistaken. Brit Hadashah is the phrase chosen by the prophet Jeremiah under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it means "renewed coveant. You can kick agasint the goads all you want, but that is what it says. The fact that God renews His covenant should be a source of encouragement.

NO. It's not a renewed covenant. It was broken by the people and needed replacing. Jesus said the only grounds for divorce is adultery, and Israel broke the marriage-contract. A NEW covenant was needed, and God graciously provided a NEW covenant. Hadashah does not mean "renewed". It means "renewal" - as in something completely new - replacing the old - like a new day and like the new heavens, new earth and new Jerusalem.

And NO. We don't STILL NEED a blood-sacrifice. IT WAS DONE ONCE FOR ALL TIME. IT IS FINISHED. And WHEN IT WAS DONE, THE LAW WAS FULFILLED. The Roman Catholic Eucharist teaches that we need a continuous blood sacrifice in the New Testament. It's not Biblical.

And speaking of Biblical, it was not me who wrote:

"In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13)

"For if that first covenant had been without fault, then no place would have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, He said to them, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will make an end on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah; a new covenant shall be," (Heb.8: 7-8)

Again, In Hebrews 8, the same theme of a covenant renewal is play so you still do not have case against it.

I think it bears pointing out since you chose to conveniently ignore the points I made earlier that the New Covenant is an improved version of the covenant already in existance. It is improved in that it is unbreakable and it is based on the sacrifice, blood and High Priesthood of Christ.

No. The theme is only renewal to you because you refuse to believe God's message about it, which is written in the Bible and which is twisted out of context and meaning by your teaching.

Renewing the Covenant does not mean a return to the Old Testament economy of animal sacrifices and such.

There is no renewal of the covenant God gave to Israel through Moses. There is a renewal - a replacing of that covenant with something completely new. God will not dishonor His own name by fixing and patching a broken covenant. The covenant of Law God gave through Moses is finished - and it was finished on the cross.

And the Mosaic Covenant did not annul the Abrahamic Covenant:

"And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it." (Gal.3:17)

I know you didn't say it did. But what you don't understand is that the Israelites themselves annulled the covenant of Law given through Moses through their disobedience (since it was a covenant based equally upon their obedience to the Law and faithfulness as it was upon God's faithfulness to His Word). And so that covenant has become old . It is finished, and it was finished on the cross.

"... This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luk.22: 20)

Think of it like this: For generations in the US, people who grew cotton had to deseed cotton by hand. It was a long laborious, time consuming process. Along comes Eli Whitney and his cotton gin. It revolutionized the deseeding process. The time in which it took to deseed cotton was cut at least in half and the manufacture of cotton was signficantly improved.

Eli Whitney's cotton gin did not abolish the need the deseed cotton; they STILL needed to deseed cotton. Rather made it faster and more efficient. It was an improvement on the prior method.

In a similar way, in the New Covenant, we STILL need blood atonement, STILL need a High Priest, STILL need a Sacrifice, etc. All of those things are met in Christ. What the writer of Hebrews is saying is that the old economy is vanishing. He is not saying our need for atonement is vanishing away, but rather the old economy where atonement was found in the blood of animals and a merely human High Priest is vanishing away and now we have a new economy that has the same essential elements as before, but now they are perfect, Divine, eternal and permanent in nature.

Your argument is EXACTLY THE SAME as the argument for the Roman Catholic teaching that the wafer becomes the actual body of Christ and the wine becomes the actual blood of Christ whenever it has been blessed by the priest.

"who does not need, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice daily, first for his own sins and then for the people's sins. For He did this once for all, when He offered up Himself." (Heb 7:27)

[canuckamuck]

Are we told in the New Testament to ignore what was learned in the old?

No we are not.

Agreement

We should meditate on the Word of God day and night. However we determine our behavior by seeking the Holy Spirit, by keeping step with the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit does not operate in a vacuum. The OT is still just as relevant for the Christian as ever, even we do not "observe" the Law of Moses.

Clearly according to Genesis the Spirit does operate in a vaccuum. But I agree with you.

I have said way back in this thread that the law is perfect, it is man that is flawed.

Which is why the law was not done away with. The law is not the problem. It was man's inability to measure up to the righteoustandard the law demnanded that was the problem. So the solution is not to do away with the standard, but rather enable us to meet that standard. The solution is found in that we now have Jesus living in us in the person of the Holy Spirit fulfilling the righteousness of the law (Rom. 8:4) and thus enabling us to be pleasing to God.

You are getting warm. Jesus is living inside of us, and He has given us the ability to process his ethics/ standards/ morality by His Holy Spirit communing with our own. Directing us even if we know very little of Moses' law (which is the case for most of the world's Christians) He also is a double surety because He has become the sacrifice for the times we fail.

That is why we fail by the letter of the law.

The "letter" in the NT refers to the old adminstration which is passing away. The law is not passing away, but rather the old administration of it is passing away. The same law is still in force but under a new and better adminstration in the New Covenant.

I have trouble imaging that yo truly do not understand the difference between interpreting law by its spirit or by its letter. The letter cannot predict all complications and interactions based on a simple decision. Gods Holy Spirit can. This is why Wigglesworth could kick a dead baby across a room. By the law he sinned, but He listened to The Holy Spirit instead and the Bay was healed.

[WolfBitn]

No, if God has renewed it, it is not broken. I am sorry, but you simply mistaken. Brit Hadashah is the phrase chosen by the prophet Jeremiah under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it means "renewed coveant. You can kick agasint the goads all you want, but that is what it says. The fact that God renews His covenant should be a source of encouragement.

NO. It's not a renewed covenant. It was broken by the people and needed replacing. Jesus said the only grounds for divorce is adultery, and Israel broke the marriage-contract. A NEW covenant was needed, and God graciously provided a NEW covenant. Hadashah does not mean "renewed". It means "renewal" - as in something completely new - replacing the old - like a new day and like the new heavens, new earth and new Jerusalem.

Isnt the new covenant of salvation broken by people every day as well? WE repent and believe, yet people lose faith and fall into sin every day... does this make the NEW covenant void to everyone?

And NO. We don't STILL NEED a blood-sacrifice. IT WAS DONE ONCE FOR ALL TIME. IT IS FINISHED. And WHEN IT WAS DONE, THE LAW WAS FULFILLED. The Roman Catholic Eucharist teaches that we need a continuous blood sacrifice in the New Testament. It's not Biblical.

So we no longer need the blood of Christ to cover us?

Also the law was ONLY fulfilled by Christ, not us, and though we are under grace we are STILL held accountable for our sins

[Guest shiloh357]

NO. It's not a renewed covenant.

Sorry, but the fact that the Bible uses "Brit Hadashah" means it is. You may not like it, but its the truth, and no amount of ranting will change it.

It was broken by the people and needed replacing. Jesus said the only grounds for divorce is adultery, and Israel broke the marriage-contract. A NEW covenant was needed, and God graciously provided a NEW covenant. Hadashah does not mean "renewed". It means "renewal" - as in something completely new - replacing the old - like a new day and like the new heavens, new earth and new Jerusalem.

Sorry, but I read and speak Hebrew. Dashah is word used to describe the recurrence of the seasons each year. It is also a word used to refer to the resharpening of the dull edge of sword. As used by Jeremiah, it means to renew the covenant that was broken. It certainly does not mean to replace or abrogate God's law.

And NO. We don't STILL NEED a blood-sacrifice. IT WAS DONE ONCE FOR ALL TIME. IT IS FINISHED. And WHEN IT WAS DONE, THE LAW WAS FULFILLED. The Roman Catholic Eucharist teaches that we need a continuous blood sacrifice in the New Testament. It's not Biblical.

No you misunderstand. I am not talking about a continuous sacrifice of Christ. What I am saying is that the New Covenant is based on the Sacrifice and shed blood of Jesus without which we could not be saved. In fact, EVERY element of the Old Covenant is found in the New but is met in Christ.

And speaking of Biblical, it was not me who wrote:

"In that He says, A new covenant, He has made the first one old. Now that which decays and becomes old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13)

"For if that first covenant had been without fault, then no place would have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, He said to them, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will make an end on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah; a new covenant shall be," (Heb.8: 7-8)

Again, this goes back to what I was saying about the difference in economies. The Old Testament economy of animals sacrifices and the Aaronic priesthood are passing away. That was a different adminstration and a different covenant economy, which has been replaced by a new administration, but not a new law. Just a new means of administering the law.

Again the law was never the problem. The law according to Paul is holy, just and good. There is no reason and possibility of doing away with it.

There is no renewal of the covenant God gave to Israel through Moses.

I am not talking about a renewal of the covenant God gave through Moses. Where did you think I talking about that?

The covenant of Law God gave through Moses is finished - and it was finished on the cross.

I have not said anything any different. Perhaps if you stop reacting and ranting at what you THINK I am saying and actually paid some attention, you would not have such a gross misunderstanding of what I am saying.

Your argument is EXACTLY THE SAME as the argument for the Roman Catholic teaching that the wafer becomes the actual body of Christ and the wine becomes the actual blood of Christ whenever it has been blessed by the priest.

Obviously, you have some issues here, as I have not advocated anything that comes close to that. I am not talking about a continuous re-sacrificing of Christ. I am saying that the New Covenant is based on a better sacrifice, better blood and better High Priest.

I have not claimed that Jesus needs to be continuously sacrificed over and over again, but if you weren't so busy assigning false values to my words that I have not expressed, maybe you might have a chance at understanding me.