True or False: Grace is harder than Law

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Why have all humans apart from Christ Jesus been unwilling to consistently, over the course of an entire life, keep the laws of God?

seems to me that a better Q would be 'why was Job, who did just that, tested to within an inch of his life?' but i don't think anyone is trying to say that Grace is not sufficient here, are they?

and Jito has pointed out that the rich man did break the law, else there could be no one thing you still lack for Christ to point to.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Good point.

Jesus never corrected the rich man that he couldn't keep the law.

Very good Esaiasan your Kung Fu is very good.

I believe that was the point, though. Law was made to show man that we cannot do what is required without His intervention. Why else would Jesus proceed to ask the rich man to do something that was impossible for him?

I believe the ruler was deceived. And Jesus as much as said he did not keep them all by following up on his questions by asking him to give all he had to the poor, which he knew the man could not do.

In fact, the disciples around watching the conversation got the point.

Mat 19:25....When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26....But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Jesus knew he had not kept the commandments. But rather than blatantly tell him so, he proved his point by asking him to do the impossible.

Can we enter the Kingdom by keeping law? Fully keeping Law would cause one to live, according to Moses:

Gal 3:12....And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Lev 18:5....Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

That's why Paul said the law was ordained to life, but Paul said he found it to be unto death.

Now, why would Paul say Law was ordained to life, and cited Moses' words as proof in Leviticus, and then talk about how Paul willed to do good but failed miserably, and termed it a means leading to death, if people can keep law? Paul couldn't.

It was Romans 6 through 7 that I never heard anybody hardly preach about. So, I set out to dig and pray and search it out. And seriously, I cannot see how anyone is correct in saying law can be kept perfectly so as to earn life as Moses said lawkeeping would, when Paul distinctly said no one can attain what Moses said by keeping law.

And Job lived BEFORE LAW, and Paul said sin is not imputed when there is no law. Hence, Job is upright.

[mfblume]

IS there any response to the list of scriptures that show the purpose of law, indicating man could not keep it? Opinions are fine. But we need Word.

[mfblume]

When Jesus asked the rich young ruler about keeping law, what his his intention? Why did he ask? It must be to draw the man to the same conclusion He made when proceeding to say the man lacked something. Why else would Jesus proceed to ask him to do something impossible?

I say this because of what the epistles teach about Law, especially Romans 7. I explain this more in the other thread I started about Law's impossible demands. Paul said law-keeping is like marriage to a husband who only produces children referred to as "motions of sin, and fruit unto death." This demanded deliverance take place to deliver people from Law.

Why was it required to be delivered from Law if it's all fine and dandy? Please answer, folks.

Paul called obedience to Law a servitude to God. But he indicated it is a servitude that is impossible to keep. It's not enough to say we are seeking to serve God, but Paul realized in revelation that HOW WE SERVE GOD is important and will determine our success or failure.

Rom 7:6....But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

He called law a bondage.

Gal 3:25....But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Gal 4:1-3....Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; ..(2)....But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. ..(3)....Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

[shazeep]

i think the argument fails because the rich man was not being asked to do something that was "impossible." The Apostles did it.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i think the argument fails because the rich man was not being asked to do something that was "impossible." The Apostles did it.

No one kept law perfectly, except Jesus. Show there they did.

There is none righteous. No not one.

And then explain what Jesus meant by IMPOSSIBLE, if not what I claim. Scripture, please. Explanations.

[mfblume]

Did apostles keep the Law?

Rom 7:16-21....If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. ..(17)....Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. ..(18)....For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. ..(19)....For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. ..(20)....Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. ..(21)....I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

The law is good, and Paul found when he tried to do good (do what the law said to do), he failed.

Whenever he tried to do GOOD, he did evil instead. That's why he found law to be unto death instead of being unto life.

Now, suspecting what lawkeepers might say about that statement of Paul's, he did not mean he failed a twisted version of law to be righteous, as though true lawkeeping was never meant to give righteousness.

Paul meant just law as was intended in the old covenant, and not a twisted version of it. God's intended law cannot be kept.

Now, some might appeal to this verse:

Php 3:6....Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Now, here it might seem to some that he said he was righteous as a result of keeping the law. Now even Esaias, who believes we CAN succeed in keeping law, agrees with me that lawkeeping does NOT make one righteous. This is not saying law made Paul righteous. Because the same writer said this:

Rom 3:20-21....Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. ..(21)....But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

What he meant in Philippians was that as far as doing everything within one's ability to fulfill the law, although not making one righteous, Paul did it. There's no other way to reconcile that with Romans 3:20-21. It is saying what if anyone should expect the righteousness that the law promised for keeping it, Paul is the man. But he did not say HE WAS RIGHTEOUS.

Isa 64:6....But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.


Rom 10:1-4....Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. ..(2)....For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. ..(3)....For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. ..(4)....For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

[shazeep]

i think maybe we are dealing with two separate arguments here, and the difference in "I have never sinned"--which only applies to Christ--and "Be Holy, as I am Holy," which indicates that one can in fact "sin no more" is not being kept apart.

Go, and sin no more.
but this seems to be impossible, at least for me!
My Grace is sufficient. Admit your sin to whom you have offended, and ask forgiveness, and you will be forgiven.

so we are going around a lot about the "impossibility" of not sinning--which is true for any single entire life, from birth, but not true from this moment on, or else Go and sin no more and Be Holy are just the babblings of madmen, a cosmic joke, perhaps--and disregarding that sin is atoned for, if one can just accept that they have sinned and admit it out loud, and ask forgiveness, which is the "impossible" part for many people, which imo is (at least a cousin to) why not sinning is being portrayed as "impossible" here.

If you are truly repentant and confessing every time you commit a sin, and having to humble yourself and ask forgiveness, you are going to stop committing that sin at some point; this is the essence of Grace--and if you are not doing any one of these things, you are in denial, and you can plead the blood of Christ all you like, that is not Grace, that is just some words to make you feel better about not confessing, and you are going to hear I never knew you someday, imo.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i think maybe we are dealing with two separate arguments here, and the difference in "I have never sinned"--which only applies to Christ--and "Be Holy, as I am Holy," which indicates that one can in fact "sin no more" is not being kept apart.

Go, and sin no more.
but this seems to be impossible, at least for me!

With men this is impossible. With God all things are possible:

Note the difference in these two statements:

Rom 7:19....For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Php 4:13....I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

My Grace is sufficient. Admit your sin to whom you have offended, and ask forgiveness, and you will be forgiven.

so we are going around a lot about the "impossibility" of not sinning--which is true for any single entire life, from birth, but not true from this moment on, or else Go and sin no more and Be Holy are just the babblings of madmen, a cosmic joke, perhaps--and disregarding that sin is atoned for, if one can just accept that they have sinned and admit it out loud, and ask forgiveness, which is the "impossible" part for many people, which imo is (at least a cousin to) why not sinning is being portrayed as "impossible" here.

One CAN cease from sin FROM THIS MOMENT ON.... BUT ONLY through the empowerment of the Spirit of God resident in us, and not merely just having the Spirit in us, though.

If you are truly repentant and confessing every time you commit a sin, and having to humble yourself and ask forgiveness, you are going to stop committing that sin at some point;

Not by natural power without the help of the Holy Spirit by any means.

this is the essence of Grace--and if you are not doing any one of these things, you are in denial,

No, that is not the essence of grace. That is a crossless grace, and therefore a false one.

Grace is referring to the cross. Grace is two things: Divine empowerment, and unmerited favour. Both are not possible without the cross. When the bible teaches grace, it is teaching the cross. Without the cross the bible's references to grace are emptied of all their intended meaning.

and you can plead the blood of Christ all you like, that is not Grace,

Nonsense.

It is grace indeed, if understood properly, which I think your beliefs are lacking.

Pleading the blood of Jesus is a phrase that is meant to be understood as having the faith that you can do nothing without the help of God. And God cannot help without us having been through the work of the cross. Sins separated us from God. And the only way sins can be remitted are by the blood of the cross. the blood of the cross is am encapsulating phrase that refers to the death of Jesus being vital and necessary in an absolute way to remit our sins. Without His shed blood there is no remission of sins. There goes your crossless righteousness and your crossless salvation out the window. So, when a person is appealing to God for help on the basis of one's faith in the absolute necessity of the cross for salvation and remission of sins, THAT AND THAT ALONE IS the proper understanding of GRACE. The way you espouse of grace is purely unbiblical.

that is just some words to make you feel better about not confessing, and you are going to hear I never knew you someday, imo.

It's not a phrase like abracadabra. It is a phrase that implies an understanding that one holds in one's heart, that without the death of Christ we could not get help from God for strengthening. But I suspect you did not realize that.

[shazeep]

yes, i understand that, as you keep coming back to it, so to put my reply a different way this time, i don't believe you (or them) when you say that these people understand something that they are "holding in their heart," and you have no evidence that the phrase is not being used just like abra-cadabra, because faith without works is dead, as dead as saying "I believe the Golden Rule" while asserting that "Everyone is lost who does not believe like i do." The first statement is obviously lip-service when the second statement is seen to be from the heart.

With men this is impossible. With God all things are possible:

Note the difference in these two statements:
Rom 7:19....For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Php 4:13....I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

ya, but you have once again gratuitously chopped off my quote to imply that i am saying Christ is not necessary, when what i am saying is "follow Christ." Which, according to you, cannot be done, hence this circular discussion.