Torah vs Grace?

[IshChayil]

And please understand my genuine concern for you and others who limit themselves with old views. Like monogamy and polygamy there is another view. And another freedom.

We appreciate your concern; that's a wonderful attribute in a believer.
I want to ask though, do you really think our lives / spiritual lives are so "limited" because we keep Gd's Law?
It's not so hard actually; I find as @Nikud mentioned many church traditions are MUCH more legalistic and difficult to swallow than having certain holidays and diets. Everyone I've met who keeps Torah LOVES it; it's not a burden or limitation and in the end if we were wrong, so what? We went without shrimps for 100 years or so; but if we were right ... well heck I don't even have any idea what it means to be called "great in the kingdom of heaven" as the Messiah calls the Torah keepers but it sure can't be too bad.

 

[Cap]

Sorry brother, we don't' get to define words ourselves; especially when we are looking at a translation, then it becomes 2 steps removed from the inspired text.

Here's our verse:
νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως; μὴ γένοιτο·* ἀλλὰ νόμον ἱστάνομεν.
The word in bold is the one you you guys were discussing.
So instead of guessing what it means, let's look at the actual definition from the premier scholarly lexicon for 1st century christian literature.

ἵστημι
① to cause to be in a place or position, set, place, bring
② to propose someone for an obligation, put forward, propose
③ to set up or put into force, establish
④ to validate something that is in force or in practice, reinforce validity of, uphold, maintain, validate τὶsomething fig. ext. of 1 (1 Macc 2:27 τὴν διαθήκην) τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν validate or maintain your own tradition Mk 7:9. νόμον ἱστάνομεν we uphold (the) law Ro 3:31 (s. καταργέω 2).
⑤ to cause to be steadfast, make someone stand
⑥ to specify contractually
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 482). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Note the lexicon recommends meaning #4 for this passage as it even lists our passage in question.
So the recommended meaning is "Validate something that is in force or in practice, reinforce validity of, uphold, maintain". We don't need to wonder the sense in which "uphold" is to be understood here any more. Even if they are wrong with their recommendation, all the other listings look pretty good as well

Anyone interested in the most popular lexicon for the Greek New Testament among scholars across denominations, you can get it here on Amazon: BDAG

I know I am not as smart as you and don't have a bunch of languages, especially secret dialects that no one knows, under my belt, but I really don't see the problem with my interpretation of the word "uphold'.

 

[Cap]

I want to ask though, do you really think our lives / spiritual lives are so "limited" because we keep Gd's Law?

Only as much as you think my life is "limited" because I don't keep them the way you interpret them.

It's not so hard actually; I find as @Nikud mentioned many church traditions are MUCH more legalistic and difficult to swallow than having certain holidays and diets. Everyone I've met who keeps Torah LOVES it; it's not a burden or limitation and in the end if we were wrong, so what? We went without shrimps for 100 years or so; but if we were right ... well heck I don't even have any idea what it means to be called "great in the kingdom of heaven" as the Messiah calls the Torah keepers but it sure can't be too bad.

I agree, you do you, and I hope your life is as fulfilled as mine. Probably more people have been lost due to the manmade rules of Christianity AND Judaism than all of Satanism combined.

 

[FollowingHim]

I don't believe in the universal salvation idea based on Calvinism. But what I do question is the understanding of what hell is. The Lake of Fire is a real thing but not eternal, therefore once judgment is complete then comes restoration. It's a universal theme of God.

Ah, so you're basically seeing the lake of fire as some sort of purgatory, right? I agree with you that the traditional view of eternal torment is wrong (shock, horror!). But I think that for entirely different reasons:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

I think that Gehenna ("hell" in this verse) is very real - but it destroys. It is the "second death". It is not eternal life, in torment, but rather death (probably torment for a period, in proportion to their crimes, followed by death). Now, there are obviously texts that indicate eternal torment, but I don't think I need to go through why that's not necessarily the right interpretation of them, because you've already grappled with those it seems. If others are interested we could open a new thread on this.

So, I would say that once judgement is complete, then comes restoration of the new heavens and earth, and of the chosen, destined for eternal life on them. But those who rejected God have been destroyed in the "second death". They are not restored, but rather destroyed. So God can once again say everything is "very good", because all that is bad has been burnt up and only what is good remains.

When God restored the world after the flood, He did not resurrect all those who had done evil and fix them up to be good. He simply left them dead and gave the whole world to the good people.

 

[Cap]

Ah, so you're basically seeing the lake of fire as some sort of purgatory, right? I agree with you that the traditional view of eternal torment is wrong (shock, horror!). But I think that for entirely different reasons:


I think that Gehenna ("hell" in this verse) is very real - but it destroys. It is the "second death". It is not eternal life, in torment, but rather death (probably torment for a period, in proportion to their crimes, followed by death). Now, there are obviously texts that indicate eternal torment, but I don't think I need to go through why that's not necessarily the right interpretation of them, because you've already grappled with those it seems. If others are interested we could open a new thread on this.

So, I would say that once judgement is complete, then comes restoration of the new heavens and earth, and of the chosen, destined for eternal life on them. But those who rejected God have been destroyed in the "second death". They are not restored, but rather destroyed. So God can once again say everything is "very good", because all that is bad has been burnt up and only what is good remains.

When God restored the world after the flood, He did not resurrect all those who had done evil and fix them up to be good. He simply left them dead and gave the whole world to the good people.

I don't quite know the Catholic version of purgatory, but I guess the idea is there. Restitution requires a debt payed, so if purgatory is a place sins are accounted for before moving from the Lake of Fire then that could fit. One thing that is overlooked is the importance of the forgiveness by the victim for offenses. Suppose the Son of God forgave Judas? What then?

I do believe that there are vessels of destruction. They serve a purpose but yet may not go beyond the second death. Whether they were created to be forgiven, or created for destruction without forgiveness is hard to judge. For gold to be purified dross has to be removed. I don't believe dross has a place in a good heaven and Earth, so I'm pretty close to your understanding, I think.

 

[FollowingHim]

The punishment for sin is death. We are completely forgiven if we follow Jesus, all sin is wiped away. So there are only two classes of people:
- Those who justly deserve death. Their debt has not been paid, and they must pay it themselves. These are the 'vessels of destruction'.
- Those to whom no sin is imputed at all, who no longer are subject to punishment. The debt has been paid by Christ.
The first go to Gehenna, and are destroyed. The second do not, and receive eternal life.

The idea of temporary punishment followed by eternal life is what the Catholics term purgatory. It's basically saying that there is an intermediate class of people - those whom God sort-of accepts but hasn't actually forgiven yet, he's going to punish them for their sins in fire, but after that they will be saved. This is unscriptural.

Our works will be judged by fire, but we ourselves will not pass through it.

 

[Cap]

@IshChayil, in all seriousness, I would like to know your views on Paul's explanation of who Sarah and Hagar are and thier representation of the two houses of Israel?

 

[Cap]

The punishment for sin is death. We are completely forgiven if we follow Jesus, all sin is wiped away. So there are only two classes of people:
- Those who justly deserve death. Their debt has not been paid, and they must pay it themselves. These are the 'vessels of destruction'.
- Those to whom no sin is imputed at all, who no longer are subject to punishment. The debt has been paid by Christ.
The first go to Gehenna, and are destroyed. The second do not, and receive eternal life.

The idea of temporary punishment followed by eternal life is what the Catholics term purgatory. It's basically saying that there is an intermediate class of people - those whom God sort-of accepts but hasn't actually forgiven yet, he's going to punish them for their sins in fire, but after that they will be saved. This is unscriptural.

Our works will be judged by fire, but we ourselves will not pass through it.

But this does not take into account the Law of Forgiveness. The verses I quoted early all reference the idea 'all will be saved', and further 'all will be saved but some though fire' and no one has explained how 'all will bow thier knee to Christ' but yet some thrown into hell 'Gehenna', and then destroyed after confessing Christ at the Great White Throne judgement. The verses I also posted about the limit of 40 lashes hasn't been dealt with either.

I can agree that our works are what go through the fire and that takes time, so I'm not sure I would say the the idea of purgatory, Catholic or otherwise, is unscriptural. More like miss understood.

I say there are three classes of people, vessels of destruction, vessels unsaved at death but later through fire come to accept Christ and are saved through that fire, and saved Christians before death who immediately go to paridise. I would further divide those saved in two classes, the guests at the wedding (your mainstream Christian) and overcomes (the bride, those through faith who have forsaken all to follow Christ)

 

[frederick]

John 17:12 describes Judas as the "the son of destruction" or "the one doomed to destruction". Therefore, he was predestined to be lost, not to be saved. He was never given to Christ in order to save him, that's what the verse says. He was given to him as a companion, but for a different purpose entirely, and that was known from the start.

Yes, Judas Iscariot is the son of perdition; he is lit. one born doomed to destruction, doomed to damnation. This phrase is only used one other time in the N.T. and refers to the antichrist. (c.f. 2 Thes. 2:3) Although Jesus knew all along that Judas Iscariot was a false disciple, Judas was still responsible for the sin which he committed. Rather than the sin of Judas Iscariot catching Jesus by surprise, Judas' sinful failure occurred that the Scripture might be fulfilled. Ps. 41:9 Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me. To say Judas is an example of one who lose his salvation is to miss who Judas always was; he never had any fruit of eternal life, fruit of a good tree (cf. Matt. 7:15-20). Keep v:20 in mind as you consider who might be true sheep of the Shepherd; Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Shalom

 

[FollowingHim]

'all will be saved but some though fire'

1 Cor 3:15: If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

It does not say he is saved "through" fire, but rather "as through" fire. This is very different. Through would mean he actually went through fire. But "as through" explicitly means he did NOT go through fire - but his situation afterwards is as if he had gone through fire. In other words, imagine your house after a bushfire has gone through it, but you've been saved. You've got nothing left at all, but you're still alive. So he is saved, but as through fire, as he has nothing to show for his life except for his own self.

'all will bow thier knee to Christ'

You don't always bow your knee willingly. I expect a lot of this will be "Oh f**k, that God myth is actually real, and he's so terrifying I can't help but fall on my face." Bowing doesn't necessarily mean truly sincere repentance - and even if it did, the time for that will have passed.

'all will be saved'

As I said before, I think this appears to be the case in some proof-texts but is not the case when reading all scripture and pulling a consistent message from it. But someone else may have a clearer response to that one.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The fact that the end result of that free will is predetermined is irrelevant

I think a more accurate statement is,

The fact that the end result of that free will is foreknown is irrelevant.

Predestined and free will are oxymorons. One cancels out the other. Foreknowledge and freewill, on the other hand, are compatible.

IMO foreknowledge is too often confused with predestined. Just because He knows what you will do does not in any way mean that He makes you do it.

There’s an unprovable causative link that is further negated by one’s accountability for his or her own actions.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

John 17:12 describes Judas as the "the son of destruction" or "the one doomed to destruction". Therefore, he was predestined to be lost, not to be saved. He was never given to Christ in order to save him, that's what the verse says. He was given to him as a companion, but for a different purpose entirely, and that was known from the start.

Think about what you just posted. ^^^^^

Essentially you’re saying that Christ/God will accept /choose someone while having an ulterior nefarious motive for them.

This is far more troubling than human error (losing your salvation) or human rebellion (rejecting your salvation) causing a breach of covenant.

This also would indicate that there are some born who could never be saved no matter how submitted and loyal they were. This is difficult to reconcile with “whosoever will”. Romans 10:11,13.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

Think about what you just posted. ^^^^^

Essentially you’re saying that Christ/God will accept /choose someone while having an ulterior nefarious motive for them.

This is far more troubling than human error (losing your salvation) or human rebellion (rejecting your salvation) causing a breach of covenant.

This also would indicate that there are some born who could never be saved no matter how submitted and loyal they were. This is difficult to reconcile with “whosoever will”. Romans 10:11,13.

YES!!
Foreknowledge that there would be a traitor to Christ or that there will be in the future an antichrist does not require knowledge of knowing who that individual will be. Many could have or will qualify the choice is theirs not God choosing an individual for the task. The understanding of the heart of man and the conditions of man's nature in general still leaves room for each man to make their individual choice.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

If it hadn't been Judas we would be reading someone else's story. Christ had many enemies. and many 5000 who were friends just for the loaves and fishes.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

Acts 1:24And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen 25to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.”

Judas could not fall from something he never had.

Mark 6:7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;

It wasn't until the night of the Last Supper that Satan (a demonic spirit ) actually entered him. Judas may have been contemplating his action earlier but the commitment did not occur for him until that night. Judas could have made a different choice. Judas could have repented like Peter did. Judas is ultimately responsible his choice. he had freewill.

For God to predestine anyone from before they were born to destruction is not love but evil. God is love, but God gave and respects freewill.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Yes, Judas Iscariot is the son of perdition; he is lit. one born doomed to destruction, doomed to damnation. This phrase is only used one other time in the N.T. and refers to the antichrist. (c.f. 2 Thes. 2:3) Although Jesus knew all along that Judas Iscariot was a false disciple, Judas was still responsible for the sin which he committed. Rather than the sin of Judas Iscariot catching Jesus by surprise, Judas' sinful failure occurred that the Scripture might be fulfilled. Ps. 41:9 Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me. To say Judas is an example of one who lose his salvation is to miss who Judas always was; he never had any fruit of eternal life, fruit of a good tree (cf. Matt. 7:15-20). Keep v:20 in mind as you consider who might be true sheep of the Shepherd; Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Shalom

I’m unfamiliar with any passage stating that he was born doomed. This seems to be assuming the beginning based on his end.

Although Jesus knew all along that Judas Iscariot was a false disciple,

I totally agree that both God and Christ knew what Judas would do, this does not prove that he had no other choice or he would not be responsible for this crime as you state below. The fact that he is responsible (which I totally agree with) proves that he made a conscious choice to separate himself from the bishopric he’d been chosen for. Acts 1:17 & 20.

Judas was still responsible for the sin which he committed.

Judas was chosen by God and given to and accepted by Christ for a specific ministry, which is reported by Peter as a bishopric. Because of his status as one of the twelve, he would have also qualified as an Apostle.

But Judas chose a contrary path and as such must bear the consequences for that choice.

This position is not something that he lost, it’s something that he deliberately chose.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Or Judas was never the recipient of the gift of eternal life which Jesus gives to His sheep(?) I'll trust that Jesus Christ keeps His word otherwise there is NO assurance for anything God says.

No one is the recipient of eternal life until death or faith becomes sight. We’re only promised that if we endure/stay faithful until the end. Judas did not. It is a fallacy born of a perspective to assume that he wasn’t a candidate or a promiseholder because he didn’t receive it in the end.

Christ does keep his word. His promise, however, is not unconditional. One must abide. He will cover you as long as you remain under covering. This is not about “working” to remain under his covering, but a conscious decision to keep and be in covenant with him.

If you get “lost” he will restore, even if you’ve gotten a little toasty. If you reject the covenant, this is another matter.

It’s a distinction of being unwittingly out of the way, versus being deliberately out of the way.

 

[frederick]

No one is the recipient of eternal life until death or faith becomes sight.

Yes they are! Jesus says His sheep are.

It is a fallacy born of a perspective to assume that he wasn’t a candidate or a promiseholder because he didn’t receive it in the end.

No, a good tree bears good fruit. Judas never produced good fruit so he was never a good tree.

Christ does keep his word. His promise, however, is not unconditional.

Yes it is. Notice what He says; I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. That is an unconditional statement. The angel that appeared to Joseph told him that he was to call the Son born to Mary, Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). There is nothing conditional about that.

This is not about “working” to remain under his covering, but a conscious decision to keep and be in covenant with him.

No, those who are Jesus' sheep are kept by the Father and the Son and no one is able to take them from their hands.

Start with who God is, and not who sinners are, and you will see that it is God who is able to do as He wills. No weak ephemeral sinner can defeat the eternal omnipotent God. Shalom

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Yes they are! Jesus says His sheep are.

I understand where you’re coming from on this.
However, you are using Judas fall as evidence that he wasn’t once a “chosen” or a “sheep” because his end result doesn’t reconcile with eternal life.

It’s an error in computation, that fails to factor the condition of abiding. To compensate for this missing factor, requires that you reclassify one who apostates with those who never were quickened.

If your perspective were true, there would be no such scriptural idea as an apostate. That this exists proves that your equation can not be accurate.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

No, a good tree bears good fruit. Judas never produced good fruit so he was never a good tree.

We do not have enough information either way on this to make this projection. We only know how he finished his last days, not the preceding events of his life.