 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
chainrattler |
Righteousness has always been by faith, not by law.
Noah became the heir of the "righteousness that is by faith" when He obeyed God and built the ark after being warned of things not yet seen. All the way back to Noah, righteousness was by faith.
Just because the Law was introduced, that didn't change God's promises to Abraham that were given to him BEFORE he was circumcised (thus establishing the foundation for the nation of Israel). Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness BEFORE he was circumcised as well.
Paul says that the Law is good if one uses it properly. He also says that the Law is not made for the righteous. And who are the righteous? They are those who have put their faith in Christ, they are righteous because God credits their faith as righteous, and because they are righteous by faith the Law is not made for them.
Paul tells us who the Law is made for:
"for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me."
1 Timothy 1:9-11 |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 975
11/21/12 6:31 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Not sure why the law of Moses is always being brought up, as if the law of Moses is what those who don't subscribe to Brad's view of grace are trying to proclaim. To the contrary, the New Covenant law is the law of Christ, the law of love, and far exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
11/21/12 6:38 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Through out the Torah or the Legalist? |
Mark Ledbetter |
Defining the Issue
The issue in this passage is the reoccurring theme found throughout the Apostle’s epistle. In his absence “Judaizers,” or “Legalists” (a word foreign to both the Hebrew and Greek language) from Jerusalem (see Acts 15:1, 5), sought to force the Gentile believers to become good “Pharisee Jews,” or to convert to Judaism as the Pharisees practiced in the 1st century.
Apparently some of the Gentiles bought into the doctrine and sought to become “good Jews” by observing Judaism as taught be the delegation from Jerusalem. Paul viewed such attempts as attempting to work out salvation through fleshly efforts and rejected any view that was contrary to salvation by faith. The Apostle writes in 2:16, “…knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”
Paul continues with the theme “Law” vs. “Faith” in Chapter 3, and in 3:15 he brings in God’s covenant with Abraham, a covenant that was given before the Law, and the Law doesn’t invalidate the Abrahamic Covenant (vvs 15-18). It is verse 18 that Paul establishes the issue of the legitimate status required for inheriting the “promise,” which is salvation through Abraham’s seed, Jesus the Messiah.
The Allegory
Allegory is a useful literary device that is designed, much like the Parable, to compare two things. From this comparison, or analogy, an application can be drawn and a lesson be taught. A problem arises however, when we depart from the Hebraic application of allegory and utilize the “Alexandrian School” that employed the Greek application of allegory that focused more on typology that leads away from the intended message and makes the interpretation subjective. Unfortunately, this passage is often read and interpreted from an Alexandrian point of view rather than the point of view Paul intends.
The Foundation for Paul’s Allegory
Paul draws his allegory from a familiar story – the Conflict between Sarah and Hagar (Genesis 16:1-16; 21:9-21). Recall that Sarah is unable to give Abraham children and she suggests the custom of her people that allows a handmaiden become a surrogate mother. So she suggests that Abraham have a child through Hagar. The birth of Ishmael immediately created conflict between Sarah and Hagar.
While the conflict is resolved for the moment, when Sarah gave birth to Isaac, a rivalry emerged, and was manifested during the weaning of Isaac:
| Quote: | | 9 Now Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking. 10 Therefore she said to Abraham, “Drive out this maid and her son, for the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac.” (“Genesis 21:9-10 |
)
With a prompt from God, Abraham reluctantly did as Sarah demanded.
It is important to note that in the Torah-reading cycle, the reading from the prophets related to this story is found in the passage the Apostle Paul cites in Galatians 4:27, that is Isaiah 54:1,
| Quote: | | For it is written, “Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear; Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor; For more numerous are the children of the desolate Than of the one who has a husband.” |
This reference to the restoration of Zion is significant when we discuss the “present Jerusalem” with the “Jerusalem from above.”
Here are the points of comparison found in Galatians 4:21-31
A. Hagar
B. Mount Sinai
C. Slavery
D. present Jerusalem
D.^ heavenly Jerusalem
C.^ Freedom
B.^ Mount Zion ~ implied
A.^ our mother, Sarah ~ implied
Note that although they are implied in the story, neither Sarah nor Ishmael is mentioned by name.
vv. 21-23 Defining Paul’s target and Paul’s use of Torah
Paul targets anyone who wants “to be under law.” This is a reference to the “foolish Galatians” who began their walk in Christ through the Spirit, but expected to be perfected by the “flesh,” or the self-initiative of their personal efforts to observe Torah as “Jews.” Those seeking to live “under the Law,” were seeking to live out their lives according to a set of legalistic principles that could not achieve that which the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit was designed to achieve. (3:1-5). It is Paul’s intent to show them the folly of following their fleshly pursuit to be “good Jews.”
The allegory utilized by Paul also presents the reader with the Apostles understanding of how the Torah should be used: “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully…” (1 Timothy 1:8). The Apostle asks, “…do you not listen to the Law?”
It is important, therefore, that the Apostle Paul has not set aside nor dismissed the value of Torah. It is from the Torah that he draws his lesson. The “Torah” in question therefore must be more narrowly defined as that set of legal regulations as defined by the Judaizers from Jerusalem.
Paul uses the introductory formula “it is written” to summarize the story of Hagar and Sarah. Though not identified by name, it is apparent that the “bondwoman” refers to Hagar, and the “free woman,” Sarah. Further, in similar fashion, Paul identifies the “son by the bondwoman…born according to the flesh,” who we know as Ishmael, and the “son by the free woman through the promise,” Isaac.
Prior to the story, Paul introduces the theme. He is going to contrast efforts made “in the flesh,” or the expression of “self-will” (See Romans 10:1-3) and the efforts of those that place their trust in “the promise.” “The Promise” here is an allusion to the promise God made to Abraham: “And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). To both the 1st century Jews and the early church, this is a reference to the promise of The Messiah (See Acts 3:25-26). Paul alludes to his in Chapter 3, verse 8.
Vvs. 24-29: Paul gives the Allegory
Hagar
Hagar represents Mount Sinai which corresponds to “present” or earthly/physical Jerusalem. Her “children” represent those “under law,” whether they are the “Judaizers” or the Gentiles that have come under their influence. They have become slaves to a system of legalism that insists on “works of the flesh” in order to be justified before God. Faith, or trust is not an element, but a reliance of the false notion that self-expression pleases God.
It is from Jerusalem that the Sanhedrin sits, the “legislative” body that interprets and applies the Torah, a body dominated by the Pharisees.
Sarah
Sarah is never mentioned by name but the inference is that she is the “free woman” and “our mother.” She represents “Mount Zion,” which is also “Jerusalem above.” Just as Heavenly Jerusalem is free, so are her children free.
“Jerusalem above” representing Mount Zion is based upon Paul’s citing of Isaiah 54:1. In Hebrews 12:22 we read, “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem…”
The comparisons graphically illustrate the stark difference between those who seek to be justified by “works of righteousness” versus those that are justified by faith. Anyone dependent upon the works of the flesh is in bondage. Anyone trusting in Jesus Christ is free.
Vvs. 28-31: The Lesson
“And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.” This holds a two-fold meaning. One, by faith they are products of faith in Jesus. Two, they are also disciples/children of promise, the disciples of Jesus. They are free to abide by the teachings of Jesus, seeking to emulate Him in word and in deed.
In verse 29, Paul then interjects another issue raised by the allegory: “But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh [Ishmael] persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.”
In other words, the Judaizers/Legalist are “persecuting” the Galatian believers just as Ishmael “persecuted” Isaac. We must return to the story in Genesis to fully understand what the Apostle is teaching.
An explanation to the intense manner in which Sarah reacted can be found in a word-play found in the origin of Isaac’s name and the word “mock.” Isaac is from the Hebrew Yitschaq, meaning “he laughs.” The Hebrew root for Yitzchak is taschaq, meaning “to laugh, mock, play.” The word “mock” is the Hebrew word metsacheq (derived also from taschaq) and means “to laugh repeatedly, to jest.” This suggests that the “mocking” by Ishmael was much more than poking fun, but was repeated and harassing ridicule. The Apostle Paul’s take on the issue is found in Galatians 4:28. Speaking of Isaac as the “son of promise” and Ishmael as the results of the “flesh,” Paul states that Ishmael “persecuted” Isaac.
There is another issue with the concept of “mocking” that must be considered. According to Jewish tradition, “mocking” possesses serious connotations. Mocking referred to three “Carnal Sins”: Idolatry, Adultery, and Murder. Ishmael, at least in Sarah’s eyes, had become thoroughly corrupt and would be a bad influence upon her son. Her remedy was to banish both Ishmael and his mother from Abraham’s camp.
Yet the words employed insisting upon the banishment of Hagar and her son is suggestive. The issue raised is the legal heir. The son of the “flesh” cannot be a legal heir along with the son “of promise.” As believers who have placed their trust in the merits of Jesus’ death and resurrection, we are the legal heirs of the promise and all it entails, both privileges and responsibilities (See Romans 8:14-17)
Conclusion:
Calling for the casting out of Hagar and her son is a call to cast out the legalist and their disciples. It is not a reputation of Torah, nor can it be. Paul uses the Torah properly, draws from it principles to live by. What he does reject is any legalistic effort to justify oneself before God.
In the passage before us we are able to examine one method utilized by the Apostle Paul to interpret the Scriptures. It parallels classic Rabbinic and Qumran interpretations. The key features include the use of allegory, and the introductory formulas “it is written” and “does not the Scripture say.”
In classic language, this passage represents a “midrash,” a commentary that is based primarily upon “verbal analogy,” usually using one passage of scripture to be interpreted through a second passage. Paul’s approach reflects the training he received while “sitting at the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts 22:3, see also Philippians 3:5).
_________________
God-Honoring
Christ-Centered
Bible-Based
Spirit-Led
(This is how I want to be) |
Golf Cart Mafia Associate
Posts: 2109
11/21/12 8:38 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Through out the Torah or the Legalist? |
bradfreeman |
| Mark Ledbetter wrote: | Conclusion:
Calling for the casting out of Hagar and her son is a call to cast out the legalist and their disciples. It is not a reputation of Torah, nor can it be. Paul uses the Torah properly, draws from it principles to live by. What he does reject is any legalistic effort to justify oneself before God. |
You almost had it!
You even compared the legalists to Ishmael, recognizing that the legalists persecute the message of grace like Ishmael persecuted Isaac. Hagar represents the old covenant given on Mt. Sinai.
Gal 4:24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants : one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves ; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
Ishmael represent the children of that covenant or the legalists. So, the old covenant and the legalist must be thrown out. God now writes His laws on our hearts by the Spirit, not on stones.
The old covenant (Torah, 10 commandments, circumcision, sacrifices, diet) must be thrown out with her children! Even a hint of this leaven can spoil the whole lump. We have NOT come to Mt. Sinai, but Mt. Zion! We are new creatures and have come to a new mountain, a new covenant, a new priesthood, a new sacrifice and new promises!
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
11/21/12 10:07 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bradfreeman |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Not sure why the law of Moses is always being brought up, as if the law of Moses is what those who don't subscribe to Brad's view of grace are trying to proclaim. To the contrary, the New Covenant law is the law of Christ, the law of love, and far exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. |
The new law of love is superior to the law of Moses. Paul's clear message was that no one will be justified by rule-keeping, works, circumcision or by any other human effort. He taught that our righteousness is a gift we receive by faith because Jesus fulfilled the law of love (and the Torah) and offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice for sin.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
11/21/12 10:13 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Amusing, the "Law of Love" |
Mark Ledbetter |
is firmly founded upon the Torah and is a summary of the laws that address personal relationships:
" ‘Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. ‘Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the Lord your God. ‘You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. ‘You shall not swear falsely by My name, so as to profane the name of your God; I am the Lord. ‘You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of a hired man are not to remain with you all night until morning. ‘You shall not curse a deaf man, nor place a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall revere your God; I am the Lord. ‘You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly. ‘You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor; I am the Lord. ‘You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him. ‘You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord." (Leviticus 19:9-18, NASB95)
"Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:8-10, NASB95)
summed up (ἀνακεφαλαιόω) to bring together, recapitulate
The ones "under the law" Paul describes in Romans 10:2-3.
"For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God."
They substituted their own standard of righteousness based upon their system of practice. Their chief focus was not simply upon those things in the Torah that separated Israel from the other nations, but the extreme lengths they went to in order to prevent the Jews from breaking the commandment - the Oral Tradition, or the "Fence" they build around the commandments.
Paul's position is to use the Torah properly (1 Timothy 1:8).
_________________
God-Honoring
Christ-Centered
Bible-Based
Spirit-Led
(This is how I want to be) |
Golf Cart Mafia Associate
Posts: 2109
11/21/12 10:30 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| bradfreeman wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Not sure why the law of Moses is always being brought up, as if the law of Moses is what those who don't subscribe to Brad's view of grace are trying to proclaim. To the contrary, the New Covenant law is the law of Christ, the law of love, and far exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. |
The new law of love is superior to the law of Moses. Paul's clear message was that no one will be justified by rule-keeping, works, circumcision or by any other human effort. He taught that our righteousness is a gift we receive by faith because Jesus fulfilled the law of love (and the Torah) and offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice for sin. |
And, by virtue of our living union with Christ by faith, we now live according to the law of the Spirit of LIFE in Christ Jesus, which has made us free from the law of sin and death depicted in Romans 7. The righteous requirement of the law is now fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:4). He that lives in love lives in God and God in him. (1 John 4:16b). |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
11/22/12 12:30 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Amusing, the "Law of Love" |
Quiet Wyatt |
Mark,
Not sure what is amusing about it, but of course it is true the law of love is the core of the Law of Moses. Jesus and Paul both say that the law is essentially summed up by the central command to love. The law of love is God's eternal moral law, which can never be done away with. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
11/22/12 12:37 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bradfreeman |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | bradfreeman wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Not sure why the law of Moses is always being brought up, as if the law of Moses is what those who don't subscribe to Brad's view of grace are trying to proclaim. To the contrary, the New Covenant law is the law of Christ, the law of love, and far exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. |
The new law of love is superior to the law of Moses. Paul's clear message was that no one will be justified by rule-keeping, works, circumcision or by any other human effort. He taught that our righteousness is a gift we receive by faith because Jesus fulfilled the law of love (and the Torah) and offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice for sin. |
And, by virtue of our living union with Christ by faith, we now live according to the law of the Spirit of LIFE in Christ Jesus, which has made us free from the law of sin and death depicted in Romans 7. The righteous requirement of the law is now fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:4). He that lives in love lives in God and God in him. (1 John 4:16b). |
Amen.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
11/22/12 8:03 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| A Good Book To Read.. |
renewal |
A book that will add some insight into this subject is: Paul : Jewish Law and Early Christianity. It is free to download from this site;
www.bibicialarchaeology.org
Just follow the links and download the book. Other free books are offered as well. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1021
11/22/12 2:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Tom, |
Mark Ledbetter |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | | Mark Ledbetter wrote: | Defining the Issue
|
Mark - I didn't quote/reference your entire post in order to conserve space.
Great stuff. Have always enjoyed reading your stuff.
Question: Do you have any citations for the contents? I would love to read some more on particular aspects you wrote.
Thanks |
Thank you for your kind words.
My intent for the past 20 years has to recapture the Gospels and Apostolic writings in context of 1st Century Judaism for reasons I believe should be obvious. This pursuit has been aided by a variety of history and reference works, Jewish and Christian, and numerous works addressing the subject.
My studies took me on the unexpected paths of examining the literary style of Hebrew literature, a path influenced by a class I took under Dr. Moore at the School of Theology, course on the literary analysis of The Twelve, or “Minor Prophets.”
Grammatical styles also emerged as a path of great understanding of the thought processes of the Hebraic mind.
Specific influential works include:
The works of Daniel Boyarin,
A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity,
Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity,
Dying for God: Martyrdon and The Making of Christianity and Judaism.
Kenneth E. Bailey,
Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes,
Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes.
Tim Hegg, The Letter Writer: Paul’s Background and Torah Perspective
Marvin R. Wilson, Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith
Norman H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament
D. Thomas Lancaster, The Holy Epistle to the Galatians
Hilary Le Cornu with Joseph Shulam, A Commentary or the Jewish Roots of Galatians
_________________
God-Honoring
Christ-Centered
Bible-Based
Spirit-Led
(This is how I want to be) |
Golf Cart Mafia Associate
Posts: 2109
11/22/12 7:57 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Almost had it? |
Mark Ledbetter |
The Torah was defined in a very narrow context of the Legalists that insisted that Gentiles could be accepted into the family of faith, table fellowship, if they became Jews.
Paul fought against this position but he didn't do that to the exclusion of the proper used of the Torah (1 Tim 1:8).
Paul used several citations directly and indirectly from the Torah, as well as the prophets, to support his positions.
_________________
God-Honoring
Christ-Centered
Bible-Based
Spirit-Led
(This is how I want to be) |
Golf Cart Mafia Associate
Posts: 2109
11/22/12 8:04 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Ventureforth |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | An advocate of the sin debt payment theory should change the words of the Lord's Prayer from, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors," to, "You paid for our debts, and paid for the debts of our debtors, so we now owe no one a thing, not even you, Father."
How forgiveness factors into the sin debt payment theory (and its close cousin, the penal substitution theory) is not evident. |
I guess as a side note to this discussion, your mention of the above got me asking myself what Christ meant by the verse. It seems to make a condition for God's forgiveness as forgiving others.
I found an article by Greg Herrick that I think presents a strong possible solution to the verse and those like the above verse(which also seems to be address to children of God and not sinners)
Here's an excerpt:
| Quote: | | In general Paul emphasizes forgiveness in a legal and final way that is once for all bestowed upon a believer at the time of his conversion (cf. Eph. 1:7; Col 1:14, 3:13). Jesus is not talking, however, to those who are needing initial, first time forgiveness for entry into relationship with God. As was discussed, these people were already clearly believers in Jesus' mind. These are people that possess the kingdom of heaven (5:3, 10), who hunger and thirst after righteousness (6), who are called the sons of God (9), who are the salt of the earth (13) and the light of the world (14) and who have God as their personal Father in a relational way (cf. the "your Father" 6:1, 4, 6, 8, 9 and in verses 14 and 15). From this it is clear that Carson's view is incorrect and that MacArthur's view, though incomplete, is right in so far as he and others have seen the forgiveness to relate not to salvation, but to a Father's discipline. This then is how Jesus' use of forgiveness is different from Paul's forensic use of the term elsewhere. Let us now move to a further explanation of what it means when it says, "your Father will not forgive your sins." |
http://bible.org/article/issue-forgiveness-sermon-mount |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
11/22/12 11:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Almost had it? |
bradfreeman |
| Mark Ledbetter wrote: | The Torah was defined in a very narrow context of the Legalists that insisted that Gentiles could be accepted into the family of faith, table fellowship, if they became Jews.
Paul fought against this position but he didn't do that to the exclusion of the proper used of the Torah (1 Tim 1:8).
Paul used several citations directly and indirectly from the Torah, as well as the prophets, to support his positions. |
The clear point Paul makes in Galatians 4 is that Hagar is the old covenant and we are to cast her out.
Paul clearly stated that the Law written on stones meant death and condemnation. 2 Cor. 3.
He also held to the view that the Law empowered and enabled sin in our lives. See Rom. 7; 1 Cor. 15:56.
He also held the view that the "Law of commandments" was nailed to the cross and "abolished". Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14
The writers of Hebrews made it clear that Mt. Sinai is not our mountain. Heb. 12.
God found fault with the old covenant (not the first 5 books of the old testament per se), but the Law.
Heb. 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
The "fault" with the first covenant was not that the principles weren't good and right and holy. The "fault" was that the people could not keep them.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/
Last edited by bradfreeman on 11/23/12 9:56 am; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
11/23/12 8:28 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Almost had it? |
Mark Ledbetter |
| bradfreeman wrote: | | Mark Ledbetter wrote: | The Torah was defined in a very narrow context of the Legalists that insisted that Gentiles could be accepted into the family of faith, table fellowship, if they became Jews.
Paul fought against this position but he didn't do that to the exclusion of the proper used of the Torah (1 Tim 1:8).
Paul used several citations directly and indirectly from the Torah, as well as the prophets, to support his positions. |
The clear point Paul makes in Galatians 4 is that Hagar is the old covenant and we are to cast her out.
Paul clearly stated that the Law written on stones meant death and condemnation. 2 Cor. 3.
He also held to the view that the Law empowered and enabled sin in our lives. See Rom. 7; 1 Cor. 15:56.
He also held the view that the "Law of commandments" was nailed to the cross and "abolished". Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14
The writers of Hebrews made it clear that Mt. Sinai is not our mountain. Heb. 12. |
As long as you continue to interpret the passage in its narrow context you will always arrive at your same conclusion.
So, we have two varying positions.
_________________
God-Honoring
Christ-Centered
Bible-Based
Spirit-Led
(This is how I want to be) |
Golf Cart Mafia Associate
Posts: 2109
11/23/12 9:08 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Almost had it? |
bradfreeman |
| Mark Ledbetter wrote: | As long as you continue to interpret the passage in its narrow context you will always arrive at your same conclusion.
So, we have two varying positions. |
I suppose we do. But I'm trying to understand your position. Paul seems to be clearly saying that neither law-keeping nor circumcision can justify a man. He seems also to be saying that these, as a means of justification or a system of maintaining righteousness, must be cast out.
Granted, law-keeping and circumcision are part of what it takes to be a Jew. Paul, however, never expressly makes the point anywhere in the new testament that I think you are making..."you have to become a Jew to be a Christian".
He does appear to expressly make the point I'm making...that Jewish acts or works of righteousness cannot make a person righteous, are not add-ons to the atoning work of Christ and that that whole system has been replaced and that way of thinking is dangerous (leaven).
Please correct me if I wrongly assume that, when you say Torah, you are referring to the old covenant and not the first 5 books of the old testament. I'm not saying Paul said "burn the books". I am saying that the old works/sacrifice based system of righteousness is now obsolete and has been replaced by a better covenant.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
11/23/12 10:06 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Ventureforth wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | An advocate of the sin debt payment theory should change the words of the Lord's Prayer from, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors," to, "You paid for our debts, and paid for the debts of our debtors, so we now owe no one a thing, not even you, Father."
How forgiveness factors into the sin debt payment theory (and its close cousin, the penal substitution theory) is not evident. |
I guess as a side note to this discussion, your mention of the above got me asking myself what Christ meant by the verse. It seems to make a condition for God's forgiveness as forgiving others.
I found an article by Greg Herrick that I think presents a strong possible solution to the verse and those like the above verse(which also seems to be address to children of God and not sinners)
Here's an excerpt:
| Quote: | | In general Paul emphasizes forgiveness in a legal and final way that is once for all bestowed upon a believer at the time of his conversion (cf. Eph. 1:7; Col 1:14, 3:13). Jesus is not talking, however, to those who are needing initial, first time forgiveness for entry into relationship with God. As was discussed, these people were already clearly believers in Jesus' mind. These are people that possess the kingdom of heaven (5:3, 10), who hunger and thirst after righteousness (6), who are called the sons of God (9), who are the salt of the earth (13) and the light of the world (14) and who have God as their personal Father in a relational way (cf. the "your Father" 6:1, 4, 6, 8, 9 and in verses 14 and 15). From this it is clear that Carson's view is incorrect and that MacArthur's view, though incomplete, is right in so far as he and others have seen the forgiveness to relate not to salvation, but to a Father's discipline. This then is how Jesus' use of forgiveness is different from Paul's forensic use of the term elsewhere. Let us now move to a further explanation of what it means when it says, "your Father will not forgive your sins." |
http://bible.org/article/issue-forgiveness-sermon-mount |
Sorry if my point was unclear. I was simply pointing out that the sin debt payment view, if true, is contradictory to the concept of forgiveness, that a debt cannot be both paid for and forgiven at the same time. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
11/23/12 11:14 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Ventureforth |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | bradfreeman wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | There is nothing in either Testament which says future sins are already pre-forgiven or taken away. Only past sins which have been repented of are covered/atoned/taken away. |
Jesus came to take away the sin of the world and He did just that. Jesus took away the sin of the world -- past, present and future. He dealt with all of it, one time, forever! He bore all of our sins in His body on the cross. God laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He became our sin and the Law's curse on sin. He condemned our sin.
Our faith is our present access into His finished atoning work. He is not "bearing" my sin. He "bore" my sin. My sin was taken away 2,000 years ago. I stepped into His waterfall of forgiveness by faith! |
The idea that future sins are already pre-forgiven/paid for is a theological fiction that is commonly taught but is nowhere taught by inspired Scripture itself. Scripture nowhere teaches the idea.
|
I was reading up on this topic and someone brought a passage up, How about this scripture?
| Quote: | | 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Hebrews 10:12 |
|
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
11/23/12 11:59 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| A few thoughts |
Apocalyptic Bill |
This is a powerful discussion of the Old vs New Covenant. I just wanted to give a couple of aspects. Like Doyle, I wonder which part of the law is being talked about. If I read my New Testament right it reads that in Matthew 5:17 Jesus was telling those in His Sermon on the Mount, that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. The two need each other, because the prophecies, symbolism, and theology of the Old Testament is the foundation for the New Testament. The laws of the feasts were given so we could have our Passover, Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, etc. fulfilled in Christ. The need for repentance of sin was given so Paul in Romans 6 could say "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound, God forbid." The prophecies given in the law are being fulfilled both by Christ first coming, and His soon return.
One thing Brad mentioned in his original post was something about tithing not being relevant. What do we do with Jesus teachings on giving, and Paul's statement in Corinthians? What do we do with the fact that the early church in Acts gave all their possessions (now let's be real here they couldn't have sold everything they owned) to help those in need, and in Acts 5 part of the price was kept. Most of all, in the Sermon on the mount Jesus tells us where our treasure is there our heart will also be.
Just a few thoughts.
_________________
Looking for the Blessed Hope!- Titus 2:13
Bill Coble, D.Min.
Facebook: facebook.com/apocalypticbill
Twitter: @billforjc |
Hey, DOC
Posts: 71
11/23/12 1:05 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Ventureforth wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: |
The idea that future sins are already pre-forgiven/paid for is a theological fiction that is commonly taught but is nowhere taught by inspired Scripture itself. Scripture nowhere teaches the idea.
|
I was reading up on this topic and someone brought a passage up, How about this scripture?
| Quote: | | 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Hebrews 10:12 |
|
There is no question that Jesus' sacrifice was the ultimate, final, and all-sufficient sacrifice for all sin. The sin debt payment and penalty payment theories simply assume the atonement was a quid pro quo arrangement (I call the idea "God, the CPA" ).
When we ask the question, "What does Scripture reveal Christ's death paid?" and search the Scriptures to find the answer, we find that a ransom/redemption price is what is expressly stated to be what his death 'paid.'
Last edited by Quiet Wyatt on 11/23/12 5:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
11/23/12 1:20 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
