The Law of Christ

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by DeadManWalkin

Paul warned constantly against 'law-keeping Jewish believers' (called Judaizers) in almost all his epistles. He was not charitable at all towards them. He even rebuked Peter in such strong terms for living like a Gentile and then pretending to live like a Jew when those from Jerusalem arrived at Antioch (Gal 2: 11-14).

When I read what aron wrote I interpreted law keeping in a cultural context and not related to justification but I will let him clarify.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. I think the Old Testament saints were actually justified by faith as well and not through law keeping.

Positive Examples of Faith:

Abraham is a famous example who “believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” (Genesis 15:6).

David is another example who murdered, lied, stole, coveted, committed adultery and ate the consecrated showbread yet he was saved through repentance and faith (allegiance) and love to God and did not worship idols. He is who I think of when the verse "love covers a multitude of sins" comes to mind.

Naaman the Syrian was justified by faith (allegiance) to Yahweh who he believed was the one true God. Elisha even gave him permission to bow down to the god of his king because his heart was in the right place. He reminds me of Joseph of Arimathea who had to keep his faith secret until he couldn't anymore.

Negative examples of Faith:

Saul confessed his sins, was anointed, made religious vows and enforced religious laws, but he was likely unsaved since he was not repentant nor obedient nor did he trust or love Yahweh. He is like the Pharisees in the NT who had an outward appearance of being religious but were inwardly evil and killed Jesus out of jealousy, feeling threatened by the people's love for Jesus as Saul felt towards David.

Balaam believed Yahweh was God and was even used by God to speak truth and prophesy but his allegiance was towards himself and money. He was disobedient and 2 Peter 2 says he was unsaved. He may be the OT version of the lawless ministry workers in Matthew 7:21-23.

The Old Testament test for faith seems consistent with this understanding of the Greek word for belief, "pistis" which this blog post says should be understood as "vow to faithful relationship":
https://thelogosofagape.wordpress.co...ek-word-study/

Also think about the saying "obedience is better than sacrifice" in 1 Samuel 15:22. It's really the OT version of "salvation by faith alone and not works". It doesn't matter how much one sacrifices, if one is not obedient, the sacrifices were in vain. See how well this matches Matthew 7:21-23. The ministry workers sacrificed so much for their ministry, but it was all in vain because they were lawless (disobedient), so they did not have saving faith.

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’"

Obedience and faith are also used interchangeably in the NT in verses like:

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Acts 5:32
And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.

Saving faith produces obedience, so the two are intertwined. I think God gave us these OT stories as examples of faith so we could get an idea of what saving faith looks like.

[DeadManWalkin]

Originally Posted by bearbear

When I read what aron wrote I interpreted law keeping in a cultural context and not related to justification but I will let him clarify.

He made himself plenty clear, bb, and I quoted him. He left no room for misinterpretation.

Here, let me quote him again...

"...he fails to distinguish Jew from non-Jew. Peter kept the WHOLE LAW, INDIVISIBLE, as did Paul, as did James"

So, where in the quote above does he imply a divide in the law between its cultural aspect and its legal aspect?

That's right, he doesn't.

Let's just say, for argument's sake, that of all three men that, perhaps, James stuck hard by the law a little bit more than he should have, because for sure he was greatly sympathetic towards it. But who, in all the Bible, ever kept the WHOLE LAW INDIVISIBLE?

The poster, 'aron', claims that these three men: Peter, Paul, and James kept the WHOLE LAW INDIVISIBLE.

What a lie! ... What a lie!

What did Paul say concerning the LAW when he addressed the Jewish worshippers in the synagogue at Antioch, while he was announcing the good news of the saviour, Jesus Christ?

Here's what he said:

"Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him ALL that believe [both Jews and Gentiles] are justified from all things, from which YOU COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW OF MOSES. Beware therefore..." (Acts 13: 38-40)

Are those the words of a man who 'kept the whole law, indivisible'? I think not.

Moreover, here, Paul was addressing both Jews and Gentiles, but this poster, 'aron', would like us to believe that the Bible teaches that there is a distinction between them, when it actually teaches the exact opposite of that.

It is a falsehood.

...there is nothing to clarify.



Ok, stepping back into the shadows.
Ciao

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by DeadManWalkin

So, where in the quote above does he imply a divide in the law between its cultural aspect and its legal aspect?

When aron said:

Originally Posted by aron

But what happened is that non- Jew church leaders became antagonistic against law-keeping Jewish believers, eventually against all law-keeping Jews (who were law-keeping by definition, it was their culture)

Thanks for sharing DeadManWalkin. I'm curious, after you left the LCs did your salvation theology change? What do you think are the consequences for the Galatian believers who may have held to the true gospel but later corrupted it with circumcision and died without repenting. Do they still get saved after suffering during the millennial kingdom or are they unsaved?

Galatians 5:7
"You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?"

Galatians 4:11
"I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain."

Galatians 5:4
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

[DeadManWalkin]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Thanks for sharing DeadManWalkin. I'm curious, after you left the LCs did your salvation theology change? What do you think are the consequences for the Galatian believers who may have held to the true gospel but later corrupted it with circumcision and died without repenting. Do they still get saved after suffering during the millennial kingdom or are they unsaved?

Galatians 5:7
"You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?"

Galatians 4:11
"I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain."

Galatians 5:4
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Thanks for replying, bb

.. ain't sure what u mean by 'salvation theology', but if you W mean in terms of teachings and doctrines, then absolutely my 'theology' has evolved. Mainly because my mind was allowed finally to 'breathe'...as opposed to the mindless acceptance of Witness Lee's ministry material.

One great benefit of this has been that I began to mine the riches hidden away in the Old Testament. There was a lot I didn't know. It's mind-blowing what God has revealed to me there. I had no idea.

The LORD's promises there are so astoundingly faith-affirming.

Back in the day, a brother from the LC once told me that the OT is like a picture-book, and the NT provides the captions. I preferred only the NT. I felt that the OT was suited for 'legalistic one's' who had not yet grasped the concept of 'grace' and still held on to the 'Law'. But now I see captions are useless without the pictures.
_______________________________

What do I think happens to the Galatian believers who got circumcised?

Well, obviously my opinion does not vary from what is written by the apostle Paul. And you've already provided the verses that reveal his thoughts on the subject. I don't think I need to add anything else. He says they are severed from Christ. They have fallen away from grace. That sounds serious enough.

______________________________


Do they still get saved after suffering in the millennial kingdom?

I don't pretend to know a whole lot about the millennial kingdom.

From what I read I see thrones of judgement with saints sitting upon them living and reigning with Christ as his priests, and priests of God. And they -we- are called blessed and holy because we're part of the 'first resurrection'.

I don't see any mention of the Outer Darkness. But there is a Bottomless Pit. Are they the same thing? Dunno. Are the circumcised Galatian believers who fell away from grace inside it? Dunno.

Here's a thought

But, if, like you said, those errant Galatians died before repenting, the question is, do they still qualify to be part of the First Resurrection? But isn't it by 'grace' that we qualify for this resurrection? But they 'fell away from grace', right?

So they're still dead, we can safely assume, at this point.

But then John reveals, "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" Rev 20:5

Are those circumcised Galatian believers among these dead? Your guess is as good as mine.

If they are, then I have to say, it doesn't look good for them.

All said, the Outer Darkness teaching is a doctrine cobbled together by Witness Lee out of some evidence in the gospels which he may have fused together with some elements from the Roman Catholic doctrine of 'purgatory'.

I don't know what to make of it, frankly.


good talk..

Ciao.