Law was an impossible system to keep

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Really think about it.... someone who lives by the Ten Commandments might think that they are doing pretty good. However, the Ten Commandments are woefully incomplete. For nowhere in the Ten Commandments do we read that we are to visit the widows and/or the orphans in their affliction. Nor do the Ten Commandments command that we feed the hungry and care for the sick and needy. While the Ten Commandments are ethical, they would only keep you from being kicked out of church, arrested, divorced, or shot by a jealous spouse. Beyond that, they are really of little "moral" value. For love demands far more than Law. For example, if you saw a stranded motorist on the side of the road, nothing in the Ten Commandments commands you to stop and assist them. However, love would demand that you stop and seek how you might help, and to even give out of your own abundance to see to it that this motorist's immediate needs are met.

Love demands far more than law ever could or will.

Amen.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

amen. of course a church turns this into "we have rules to follow, to find Grace" instead of "we are willing to suffer you for your sakes, demonstrating Grace."

The only rules to follow grace are the manners to be born again and learn to walk after the Spirit. There is a Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, which is how to follow the Spirit and let it guide us.

Rules are great unless they're steps of how to earn righteousness.

[shazeep]

ah, Grace can be earned now, ok

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ah, Grace can be earned now, ok

I just said rules are great unless they are used to earn righteousness, and righteousness comes by grace through, so neither can be earned. How you ever got the idea I said grace can be earned is beyond me. But I've come to expect that.

Rules are not always steps to earning wages. It is a rule to say we cannot use fleshly life to live a spiritual life. That has nothing to do with earning.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The commandments of God are an unbearable burden.

Which ones? I disagree that the commandments of God are an unbearable burden.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression. Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
(Psalms 19:1-14 KJV)


For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
(1 John 5:3 KJV)

I agree with what John Gill said:

and his commandments are not grievous; heavy, burdensome, and disagreeable; by which are meant, not so much the precepts of the moral law, which through the weakness of the flesh are hard to be kept, and cannot be perfectly fulfilled; though believers indeed, being freed from the rigorous exaction, curse, and condemnation of the law, delight in it after the inward man, and serve it cheerfully with their spirit; and still less the commands of the ceremonial law, which were now abolished, and were grievous to be borne; but rather those of faith in Christ, and love to the saints, 1Jo_3:23; or it may be the ordinances of the Gospel, baptism, and the Lord's supper, with others, which though disagreeable to unregenerate persons, who do not care to be under the yoke of Christ, however easy and light it is, yet are not heavy and burdensome to regenerate ones; and especially when they have the love of God shed abroad in them, the presence of God with them, communion with Jesus Christ, and a supply of grace and strength from him; then are these ways ways of pleasantness, and paths of peace, and the tabernacles of the Lord are amiable and lovely.

Have you never heard of this view?

[mfblume]

Catching up in the chat with this one.

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Pharisees did not 'simply demand Sinaitic law upon the church.' I have already shown how the Pharisees did not view 'the law' as 'simply Sinaitic law' as you and I understand it.

But the issue in Acts 15 was ONLY the imposition of circumcision, which introduced the concept the entire law into which Circumcision inducted a gentile. The context does not address the pharisaical view, but simply the common view held by genuine Sinaitic covenant keepers as well as Pharisees-- that of inducting Gentiles by circumcision into lawkeeping.

Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.
(John 7:47-49 KJV)

The Pharisees claimed the people who were all amazed about Jesus' ministry did not know the law.

That's only partially a relation to Acts 15, though. Again, and I can't stress this enough, the simple context when you read Acts 15 is circumcision being demanded for gentiles to enter worship and MOSAIC Law. That is demanded by both Sinaitic law and pharisaism. Nothing distinct about Pharisaism is mentioned in Acts 15 whatsoever that was not demanded by Sinatic covenant law.

There is no question that the Jews and Galileans knew the Sinaitic covenant, and the written commandments. So how is it they did 'not know the law'? Because according to the Pharisees, 'the law' was more than just that which was written in the Pentateuch.

Sure. But again, nothing distinct about Pharisaism is mentioned in Acts 15 whatsoever, that was not demanded by Sinatic covenant law.

This was the basis of the entire division between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. It is the division that exists today between the Karaites and the Pharisees ('rabbinics', aka Orthodox Judaism). Pharisee Judaism maintains the 'law' is comprised of the written torah, the oral torah, the gemara (commentary), and the halachah and mitzvot imposed by the rabbis.

Jesus made this clear:

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
(Matthew 15:1-9 KJV)

FIne. BUt again... point noted above.

So when the Pharisees show up and demand someone 'keep the law', they are undeniably demanding that someone keep the Pharisee version.

That may be the case. But in Acts 15 all that they mentioned was circumcision. And under Sinaitic Law circumcision was demanded for people to worship with God and be counted as part of the congregation of God, the church. Whether the phraisees also demanded that or not is not an issue if sinaitic Law already demanded it as well. Had they mentioned something apart from Law that was not demanded in Pharisaical lawkeeping, the council would have had another ball of wax to deal with altogether. But so long as the issue was circumcision, which Sinaitic Law also demanded, the council only had to deal with overall Sinaitic law.

Esaias, if I am right, and it was only about Sinaitic Law, what else could Peter or the rest of the brethren stated in response to the issue of circumcision than what was actually stated?

This is indisputable. When a Pharisee says 'the law', they mean the entirety of what is now called 'the talmud'.

Agreed. That is no argument. But the context says CIRCUMCISION was the issue.

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

It was not about Phariosaism.

Acts 15:2]2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

The specific questions was circumcision as a requirement for Gentiles or else they're not saved. Where did they get that idea from? Pharisaism or Sinaitic Law? BOTH required it, or people were considered OUT of the congregation/church. I already quoted Exodus where this was stipulated under Sinaitic Law.

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

When they arrived to call together the council, the Pharisees repeated the same thing they already heard. Circumcision was all that was mentioned in verse 1. But verse 5 adds keeping the law of Moses. Whether or not Pharisees believed MORE than what the law of Moses actually stated without their distortions or additions, is of no consequence if we take exactly what they said, which is exactly what Sinaitic Law actually demanded. Sinaitic Law demanded circumcision and keeping the law of Moses.

If a pharisee believed in circumcision and keeping law of Moses, with a perversion of the law of Moses in its reference, that could be dealt with further. We cannot assume we must take into consideration the distortion the pharisees believed in and assume Peter addressed that distortion, UNLESS the context actually states something different than what Sinaitic Law INTENDED. And it doesn't. Again, what other way would council address the issue IF IT WAS MERELY CIRCUMCISION AND ACTUAL sinaitic Law than what was actually stated in response, as I propose?

And this goes back several centuries before Christ. The Pharisees essentially dominated Judea. Even the Sadducees had to acquiesce in certain doctrinal points to the Pharisees (for example, the proper method of keeping Sukkot, the timing of the wave offering of the first of the firstfruits, the payment of tithes, the halachic requirements for the ritual slaughter of offerings and sacrifices, and many other issues). So when the Pharisees in the church demanded that gentiles be circumcised and 'keep the law of Moses' they could not have been thinking of anything BUT the scribal Pharisee version of 'the law'.

But sticking strictly with what was stated in Acts 15, actual sinaitic covenant demanded exactly what the pharisees technically SAID. A DISTINCTION in THEIR ACTUAL WORDS, technically speaking, that contrasts actual Sinaitic Law, has to be there in Acts 15, or you have no grounds to state the council addressed anything other than actual Sinaitic covenant law.

Again this is where disp and your view have a common denominator. Apart from anything eschatological, you both demand something be understood that is not written in the actual context in order to properly understand the issue. Everything council concluded and responded with in Acts 15 fits with genuine Sinaitic Covenant Law.

Peter said their fathers experienced something they could not bear. We know in relation to Law, their fathers only dealt with Sinaitic covenant. They did not even know about Pharisaism since it did not exist in their time. So, if Sinaitic Law was all they experienced, and Mosaic Law was the issue in Acts 15, without assuming anything into context that's not actually stated, then it could only be Sinaitic Law that was their unbearable yoke. Paul agreed when he said Law was ordained to life but he found it to be unto death, and Paul made no stipulation that it was pharisaism when he said that either. If you respond to this and say the distinction in Acts 15 was the unbearable element of the yoke, since that can only be pharisaism, then you are making a circular argument and saying the unbearable yoke is Pharisaism just because you said so.

[shazeep]

i dunno, i think it is naive to imagine that there was no Phariseeism in their father's time, regardless of what it was called. People are people. Funny to me that you are talking about martyrs for Christ, who could not stand...the Decalogue?

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree with what John Gill said:

and his commandments are not grievous; heavy, burdensome, and disagreeable; by which are meant, not so much the precepts of the moral law, which through the weakness of the flesh are hard to be kept, and cannot be perfectly fulfilled; though believers indeed, being freed from the rigorous exaction, curse, and condemnation of the law, delight in it after the inward man, and serve it cheerfully with their spirit; and still less the commands of the ceremonial law, which were now abolished, and were grievous to be borne; but rather those of faith in Christ, and love to the saints, 1Jo_3:23; or it may be the ordinances of the Gospel, baptism, and the Lord's supper, with others, which though disagreeable to unregenerate persons, who do not care to be under the yoke of Christ, however easy and light it is, yet are not heavy and burdensome to regenerate ones; and especially when they have the love of God shed abroad in them, the presence of God with them, communion with Jesus Christ, and a supply of grace and strength from him; then are these ways ways of pleasantness, and paths of peace, and the tabernacles of the Lord are amiable and lovely.

Have you never heard of this view?

Ezekiel's pillows come to mind. At least reflect upon the contrast created by Gill here to the lives of those you say you wish to be like; if there is one, and i am not imagining things.

I just said rules are great unless they are used to earn righteousness, and righteousness comes by grace through, so neither can be earned.

Rules are not always steps to earning wages. It is a rule to say we cannot use fleshly life to live a spiritual life. That has nothing to do with earning.

i'm not sure, i may be just misunderstanding you here, plus there is the dichotomy of the wages of sin is death but "you cannot earn salvation" to deal with, so prolly all we would continue to do there is illuminate different sides of the truth, but it's funny that in clarifying

The only rules to follow grace are the manners to be born again and learn to walk after the Spirit. There is a Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, which is how to follow the Spirit and let it guide us.

Rules are great unless they're steps of how to earn righteousness.

you also brought up this Gill thing--which i'm certainly not saying is "wrong," mind you--because there at Gill, and in the bolded above, i detect maybe a compromise has been made, so i guess i would ask what the bolded means to Unregistered. 18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time... what are these sufferings, to...pretty much anyone who can read this? Who does "Can affliction or anguish or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?" resonate with, here? How? Don't get me wrong, Gill might have something cogent to say here too, dunno, might be interesting to hear it, but what i'm getting at is that

As it is written:
Because of You
we are being put to death all day long;
we are counted as sheep to be slaughtered.

sounds closer to...well, Aquila, than Gill. Closer to a characterization of some...thing, or one, else, other than us, at least right now. Prolly two different subjects, but they are kind of mixing together, it seems to me, so this should be addressed imo.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by shazeep

[I]The only rules to follow grace are the manners to be born again and learn to walk after the Spirit. There is a Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, which is how to follow the Spirit and let it guide us.

"Let me just say this in regards to the rules to follow grace are the manners to be born again."

It is my belief that the manner to be born again, is faith in Christ. Everything else is subsequent to salvation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

"Let me just say this in regards to the rules to follow grace are the manners to be born again."

It is my belief that the manner to be born again, is faith in Christ. Everything else is subsequent to salvation.

That's not what Jesus and the apostles said.

[shazeep]

(oh ya? be sure in your own mind )