Who receives God's Grace? To law or not to law?

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I believe we know what can liberate us from what we have created. Love is the word that describes this liberation. If we find anything short of love we will never be liberated. What other concept would you be liberated under. In order to worship and pursue God he must be real. Therefore he must be love. Because there is no other concept worth worship/pursuit.

What have 'you' created? Is there a 'you' separate from this present happening?
The present happening is all there is - this is God's grace.

Seeking 'other' than this present happening is denying God's grace. God's grace is ever present so seeking in time for more divides and it is the division that hurts like hell.
The feeling is that you are separate from all that is - when in reality there is no 'you' - there is only ever what is happening and this can appear as looking for more. The looking for more just happens to hurt - the finding that this is all there is right here and right now doesn't hurt - it is delightful.

reply to post by sacgamer25


A good scripture to accompany the melody of your thoughts is this one:

Galatians 3

Children of God

23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Being baptized in Christ and clothing ourselves with Christ is taking on His name. The name is His character. The character is love. Taking the name, without the character, is taking the name in vain and remaining bound to the law. When we apply the name to our own character, we free ourselves from sin and death. The law has no hold over us. Law is designed to regulate the one that breaks it. Love covers a multitude of sins because it fulfills the law and releases us from the guardian.

'Who' can receive God?
What if there is just God?
What if 'you' are the thing that has been assumed as the only 'thing' separate from God?
Can you peel yourself away from this ever present presence?

This is timeless being (presence) but there is an idea that 'you' can become (in time).
To be or not to be?

Originally posted by sacgamer25
So you see wherever you see, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, Son of God, wisdom, knowledge, holiness, righteousness, if you substitute the word love the key to Paul’s letter will be revealed to you, there may be a few more but I think you get the point.

I know you will find the truth about Paul’s letters if you will have a little faith in a brother who’s message reflects yours. Paul did not disagree, but what has happened was prophesied so that today you may believe.

But even that exercise still does not address the fundamental difference between Paul's basic premise that man is already condemned to a life of separation from God because of his inherent sinfulness - versus Jesus' teaching, that no one is inherently separate from God, just like any child is not inherently separate from their father.

In other words, Jesus taught that one may very well feel separate from God due to their "missing the mark" but no one is inherently separate from God. This assumption in the OT that man is inherently from birth separate from God is the original sin Jesus came to release man from, whereas Paul still assumed it was inherently the case.

Nor does your exercise address the other key difference between what Paul promised relative to salvation at a future date as compared to Jesus teaching the way of being born to here from Above - in THIS life.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

Being baptized in Christ and clothing ourselves with Christ is taking on His name.

The Greek word in verse 27 is also an English word, endue, which can be used in the same way as the word endow, to invest someone with something. The context indicates that we are invested with a characteristic that transcends race, nationality, and gender. It is not saying we have Christ's character all of a sudden but is about inheriting promises, and we do so by having a special kind of relationship with Jesus that does not have a comparison.

The name is His character.

Except that is not mentioned in the passage, so you are pulling it out of thin air and inserting in as if Paul said it, which he didn't. He was talking about something else.

The character is love.

Paul is not talking about how to fulfill the law. He is saying that the law cannot provide life. If "love" could fulfill it, there is already "love" in the written law, as pointed out by Jesus in the Gospels. So if loving can bring life, then that contradicts what Paul is saying in Galatians 3.

Taking the name, without the character, is taking the name in vain and remaining bound to the law.

This is some pseudo philosophising normally used to explain the "thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain" commandment in some sort of unconventional way. It doesn't really work here because that is not the topic that Paul is discussing.

When we apply the name to our own character, we free ourselves from sin and death.

This is inventing a whole new theology of what sounds like do it yourself salvation. Paul is not talking in Galatians 3 about freeing ourselves. Paul is talking about the purpose of the law, which means the old written Law of Moses that was keeping the Jews under subjection, and keeping the gentiles from God and salvation.

The law has no hold over us. Law is designed to regulate the one that breaks it. Love covers a multitude of sins because it fulfills the law and releases us from the guardian.

Now you are going off completely from the topic and going into realms of other things that may or may not have been discussed in other parts of the New Testament.
Paul in Galatians 3 is describing a new way of justification, where in the past, if you wanted to be 'justified', you had no choice but to be a Jew and to follow all the laws of the Mosaic commandments.
That was then, before there was a such thing as being baptized into Christ, which is now the way of justification, taking on this endowment of Christ, rather than taking on Jewishness and assuming that you are now in the nation of Israel, and therefore a member in good standing in the people in God's good graces.
So now we are all in Christ, and this is the new virtual "camp of Israel" or God's people, and in this new system, what do we follow instead of The Law? It is this new paradigm Paul is introducing here, Faith. "Faith" is the "new" Law. What the Law was to Israel and Judaism, Faith is to the new camp of Christ.

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.
verse 23

When Paul said in Romans that love fulfilled the law, he was not talking about the entirety of the Mosaic Law as he is here in Galatians, he is talking about how to conduct yourself in civil society as a Christian and that if you follow Christian principles of love it will serve you well in that you won't be breaking laws, as for example all the laws you see spelled out in the Ten Commandments. He was not talking about how to be 'saved'.
Love covering sins is in Peter which is talking about how to help the upcoming clerical class and providing for them, introducing the concept of penance in the way of a sort of church tax, and obviously is a book later than when the actual Peter would have been around to write it.

reply to post by bb23108

In other words, Jesus taught that one may very well feel separate from God due to their "missing the mark" but no one is inherently separate from God. This assumption in the OT that man is inherently from birth separate from God is the original sin Jesus came to release man from, whereas Paul still assumed it was inherently the case.

The Jews were really mean when Jesus was going about healing people.
They thought that if there was something wrong with someone then it must be because of some sort of sin, so they were basically excluded from participating in what they saw was the only way to salvation.
Jesus was healing people to show that they did not have to be excluded and feel far away from God, that here he was representing God and caring about them enough to fix their physical problems, so obviously they were not that way because they were somehow evil and had to stay away from God.

Paul was dealing with another sort of people who had a big Jewish stronghold in the midst of Rome, had a very lush sort of synagogue and saw themselves as vastly superior to the lowly gentiles around them. So these were the opposite kind of people from who Jesus was dealing with. So Paul had to bring them down a notch or two, the reverse of what Jesus had to do, to lift up the outcasts within Judaism itself.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Dewey, Why when so many people are telling you the point is to love one another do you continue to say that we are against Christ. If I am teaching love I can only be for Christ. Why do wish to change what I am saying.

What we are all trying to teach you is Grace is free. Everyone of us that is debating you is saying the same thing. God loved you when you were born. I know this without any doubt because you agree with Christ. We must actually do loving things and not merely speak empty words without action.

We are not in disagreement that the road to salvation includes repentance. This is a universal truth, no one can find love until they seek it. If you are in your sin you are not seeking love, so you will not find it.

One must release all sin and believe that God has provided a path for us to become free from the chains of sin, where we can become like Christ, as we learn how to love, under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, which is the spirit of love.

Dewey stop defending your faith, you are arguing religion. We don't need religion, please do not make anyone do anything to find God's love. Because God's love is free, but only the one who repents can understand this free gift.

But the milk in the bible is God is love, stated in those exact terms twice in the NT. Unconditional love for all men is the milk. One must first believe in love, before they pursue it. Until one believes that God loves them, they will love in fear and thus never be made perfect.

What have I said that is against Christ? I am not asking what I have said that is against you? I realize we differ in opinion, but you would have the world create another religion that tells the rest of the world that God's love belongs to me. No one one's God's love. Because God loves us all.

This is about love, and loving one another. And about Christ the one who taught us how to unconditionally love. If we listen to you this becomes about Dewey. If we listen to love and obey the spirit of love we can learn to love unconditionally.

Originally posted by bb23108

Originally posted by sacgamer25
So you see wherever you see, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, Son of God, wisdom, knowledge, holiness, righteousness, if you substitute the word love the key to Paul’s letter will be revealed to you, there may be a few more but I think you get the point.

I know you will find the truth about Paul’s letters if you will have a little faith in a brother who’s message reflects yours. Paul did not disagree, but what has happened was prophesied so that today you may believe.

But even that exercise still does not address the fundamental difference between Paul's basic premise that man is already condemned to a life of separation from God because of his inherent sinfulness - versus Jesus' teaching, that no one is inherently separate from God, just like any child is not inherently separate from their father.

In other words, Jesus taught that one may very well feel separate from God due to their "missing the mark" but no one is inherently separate from God. This assumption in the OT that man is inherently from birth separate from God is the original sin Jesus came to release man from, whereas Paul still assumed it was inherently the case.

Nor does your exercise address the other key difference between what Paul promised relative to salvation at a future date as compared to Jesus teaching the way of being born to here from Above - in THIS life.

edit on 19-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)

I don't know why I didn't pick up on this before. This just is obvious to me. Let me explain.

Paul was writing to people who were condemned to die for their faith. Jesus agrees, they both talk about the time after Christ that leads to the inquisition and to Hitler. But Paul’s message is one of hope, look at what he went through, being stoned twice, 40 lashes a few times. But yet he is still boasting in Christ.

Paul was also writing, I believe to us today. Maybe his and Christ revelation is yet to come but I believe we are right on the verge. The OT talks about the messianic age. A literal time on earth where all men come together in Peace. It can be debated that the Messianic age and the 1000 year rein of Christ are merely spiritual, and after death experiences, but scripture also points to an earthly rein. This is what the Jews were waiting for and why they rejected Christ.

He basically said here I am the messiah. Love one another because God is love. Think about their disappointment. The savior was telling man it’s up to you to obey the spirit of love if you want the Messianic Age. This was not the type of savior they were looking for.

So Paul’s message is one of hope and despair. He has seen the inquisition and Hitler and he is troubled because he cannot fathom what he is seeing. He is merely warning his brothers and giving them words of encouragement to persevere. Read about the inquisition and Hitler; was he wrong to warn them?

But he also speaks of the time where all will come together in peace. A time where all the dead would be resurrected unto life as the unconditional love of the father comes into full realization of all men, thus bringing in the age of love. The OT promises love to 1000 generations who love one another. What a great gift we have to offer our children if we choose.

Paul was saying the Messianic age is yet to come. He was telling them that they were the first fruits, that the harvest would not be complete until after the time of despair. Was he wrong?

You must apply both the logic that I have just presented you and love. Then I believe you can understand him. I apologize, understanding he was talking about 2 different times was something that just seemed obvious to me. But I did free myself from the church dogma prior to studying his message.

That and I prayed to receive interpretation and believed that God wanted me to understand. So maybe you need all three pieces.

Is Paul wrong? Have any of the dead in Christ seen the Messianic age here on earth? So all died without reaching the goal. They were condemned to be martyrs so that we may finally learn that killing in the name of religion is still killing and still wrong.

reply to post by jmdewey60
Thanks for your insightful post relative to the different types of people Jesus and Paul were usually addressing.

However, Paul was a conventionally-trained Jew and was not taught by Jesus, and this is more likely the reason he continued assuming man's inherent separation from God, rather than for reasons of just bringing the elitists of the times down a few notches.

Paul really never got Jesus' direct message that there is no inherent separation by birth between God and man in this life. Regardless of whom Paul was addressing, he assumed man was inherently sinful, i.e., condemned to and by this inherent separation from God in this life. Based on his mystical experience of the ascended Jesus, Paul felt that this meant everyone was now saved who believed in Jesus' self-sacrifice, and they would eventually be re-unified with God through such belief. This is fundamentally a very different teaching than what Jesus taught in terms of living the commandments of love (Jesus' exoteric moral teachings), and being born to here from above (Jesus' esoteric teachings).

reply to post by sacgamer25

. . . you are arguing religion.

The Bible . . is that "religion"?

But the milk in the bible is God is love, stated in those exact terms twice in the NT.

I already discussed that with you, that it is not saying that any more than saying God is Light, or that God is spirit, it is an attribute of God, not a definition.

Unconditional love for all men . . .

Since it doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible, can you quote something else in there that might at least lead someone to conclude that?
You seem to hold this idea of God loving us as some special revelation that normally people just don't get.
I think most or all people who even think there is a god, get that.
To me the problem comes when a loved one dies, then it makes people not think God is so loving because they imagine God is torturing us on purpose in some grand scheme to train people or something.
I personally would be more concerned with that than spending all your energy on one or two people in the whole world where that light bulb never came on.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
So Paul’s message is one of hope and despair. He has seen the inquisition and Hitler and he is troubled because he cannot fathom what he is seeing. He is merely warning his brothers and giving them words of encouragement to persevere. Read about the inquisition and Hitler; was he wrong to warn them?

Paul re-created Christianity into more conventional religion by promising something in the future if one behaves. Being hopeful for a bright future or afterlife does not really cut it - it is just more consolation and illusion that somehow our egoic seeking is going to fulfill us.

We must go beyond all such seeking, idealism, and need for consolation to realize what Jesus actually was teaching when he said to love God fully and neighbor as oneself. He did not say to hope for such love or union in the future or even to pursue it through all sorts of ego-driven disciplines.

Rather, Jesus' teaching requires love presently, in this life, in every moment, through realizing one's inherent non-separation from God. Such self-transcending love also prepares the body-minds of his followers for Christ's esoteric gift of being born to here from Above.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You just agreed that all men that believe in God, believe that God loves them. When you go anywhere past this concept you start to create a religion. Jesus said the only religion is to love one another because God first loved you. There are no more rules, love leads to repentance. Repentance is on the path of love. You don't need to worry about this. The spirit of love will guide anyone who pursues love.

God loves us all
Gods son loves us all'
Gods spirit loves us all. '

What does he want us to do worship/desire/pursue his love. How do we do this, we do loving acts for one another. We sacrifice ourselves to show love to others. It is through faith that we believe in love but it is through works of love that one can be made perfect. The Holy Spirit will lead a man to the rest. God's love leads a man to repentance.

Originally posted by bb23108

Originally posted by sacgamer25
So Paul’s message is one of hope and despair. He has seen the inquisition and Hitler and he is troubled because he cannot fathom what he is seeing. He is merely warning his brothers and giving them words of encouragement to persevere. Read about the inquisition and Hitler; was he wrong to warn them?

Paul re-created Christianity into more conventional religion by promising something in the future if one behaves. Being hopeful for a bright future or afterlife does not really cut it - it is just more consolation and illusion that somehow our seeking is going to fulfill us.

We must go beyond all such idealism and need for consolation to realize what Jesus actually was teaching when he said to love God fully and neighbor as oneself. He did not say to hope for such love or union in the future or even to pursue it through all sorts of ego-driven disciplines, but Jesus required love presently, in this life, in every moment, through realizing one's non-separation with God.

Have you found unconditionall love here on earth? Why do you refuse to believe it possible? If it is possible than thier is something now and something future. Anyone who dies apart from the Messianic age does not realize the revelation until AFTER LIFE.

IIn your argument you are agreeing with Paul. We are not separate from God, but we are separate from unconditional love, for the mere fact that most of our brothers are in their sin living lives feeling separate from the love of God. Until all men realize the love of God and pursue it than the consolation is all we have.

Unless you only care about love for yourself. Then maybe you have realized all there is for you to realize. Myself and Paul we will continue to preach, love is for all, and until all find love there is a separation. Sin is separation, until sin is completely defeated their remains not separation from God but separation from love. So until all of us eliminate sin, we should not feel like we have achieved anything. Knowing God loves us is not an achievement.

Doing what he said so that ALL MANKIND comes to repentance is the only thing worth living for. World Peace

Until we have world peace than you have not experienced heaven, therefore it must be something to come, not something that has come. Just like Paul said. There is work that needs to be done simply because that is what God demands, works done in the name of love to spread love. He puts the seed of love in all men and for the one who he chooses to reveal himself to is commanded to feed his sheep. If even one is lost should we all not be concerned?

reply to post by bb23108

Paul felt that this meant everyone was now saved who believed in Jesus' self-sacrifice, and they would eventually be re-unified with God through such belief.

I think that is a misinterpretation influenced by pop-culture religion tainted by cults that have infiltrated all the churches.
If you want to get into that, you should come up with a couple examples where he says that because this is not my understanding of Paul's message.
I just went through this on the other thread that this one was supposed to be jumping off from.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is fundamentally a very different teaching than what Jesus taught in terms of living the commandments of love (Jesus' exoteric moral teachings), and being born to here from above (Jesus' esoteric teachings).

See the middle part of the post I just linked to.
To understand the "esoteric" teachings of Paul, I recommend everyone to read this book, which is available on Kindle, which is the version that I have, for $31.74, which is a little steep for a Kindle, but, there are no cheaper used hard copies available.
Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit, by Troels Engberg-Pedersen
It involves a phenomenal amount of research that has no comparison that I am aware of, that gets down into what exactly it is that he thinks people are saved by.
I don't think anyone can read that without coming away with an entirely new way of thinking about Paul.

reply to post by sacgamer25

. . . love leads to repentance.

You just created a religion.
I have one too, the difference between your religion and my religion is that mine follows the Bible.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I just went through this on the other thread that this one was supposed to be jumping off from.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, I read that post yesterday and also again just now. Even the way you summarize it there, Paul's way still presumes that the goal of life is to prepare oneself for being saved in the future. This is why I am saying Paul revised Jesus' message into a belief-driven and future-oriented goal of salvation.

Jesus was offering direct and present salvation by demonstrating and teaching that man is currently not separate from God, and on that basis one lives the commandments of love. Not the other way around - somehow by not sinning, one eventually achieves a promised re-union with God. This is very different, and the latter is not even possible, for how can one stop sinning if one is already assuming one is separate from God and have to do certain things in order to achieve such salvation?

Isn't one's fundamental missing of the mark (sin) assuming one is separate from God? Isn't that denying what Jesus actually taught with his commandments to love God fully and neighbor as oneself?

reply to post by bb23108

Isn't one's fundamental missing of the mark (sin) assuming one is separate from God?

You are falling into the same fallacy that NOTurTypical was on that thread, saying repentance means changing your mind, by you saying sinning is missing the mark.

Jesus was basically God in person, so of course he represented a nearness with God, for the Jews, and basically no one else.
Paul is the one who introduced the nearness of God to everyone.
Jesus could be close if your name was Peter or John or James.
Paul's God is so close that His spirit is inside of you.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

. . . love leads to repentance.

You just created a religion.
I have one too, the difference between your religion and my religion is that mine follows the Bible.

Romans 2:2-4
2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?

4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

Dewey, I wish I could give you something more. But you refuse to believe anything I say. You continue to separate yourself from others. You don’t need to do that, you don’t need to point out that man is a sinner. We all know we are, you can leave the rest up to God. Love first, repentance second, baptism third. This is the spiritual order of things. You can’t skip step one because you know that step two and three are necessary. Dewey God simply loves all men, let it be that simple. Most people don’t have any clue what this means. So keep it simple pursue love and you will find love.

If they see the love in you and they feel the love for themselves then they will want more. They will come back to learn about repentance. They will learn that we must always immediately turn back to love when we stray from love, because love is always waiting. God always loves us but we are only “in his love” when we obey his command, which is to love. If you do love you remain in love. This is logical.

John 14:26 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

It is our job to convince a man to love, because God is love, or at least God loves us. Once a man believes in our message and starts loving by doing loving actions the spirit of love will come to them and teach them all things Just like Jesus promised.

God is Spirit
God is Light
God is truth
God is wisdom
God is love

God can be all of these things, because they are all synonyms for love. God is love.

Dewey you follow only the parts in the bible that make since to you. I am here saying that I follow the whole bible and that it all makes since to me. Is there any reason to lie? Have I said anything that would cause anyone to do anything other than to love one another?

reply to post by sacgamer25

. . . forbearance and patience . . .

Have you ever listened to Rush limbaugh?
He has this saying, "Words mean things".
These two words mean something and it is not love.
It could be the result of love but they have an expiration date attached.
Your smoothing things over only puts people in danger, that is if people are so weak as to be lulled into complacency by your words.

It is our job to convince a man to love, because God is love, or at least God loves us.

That is God's "job".
Our job is to love, not get inside people's heads to convince them of one thing or another.
You could present yourself as an example of Christian Love as an influence, but going around saying "Love, love" isn't and would probably be a negative advertisement.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
You are falling into the same fallacy that NOTurTypical was on that thread, saying repentance means changing your mind, by you saying sinning is missing the mark.

So sinning is not missing the mark? Relative to repentance, I only ever said that repentance was simply recognizing that one is not separate from God - and such repentance is certainly far more than just a changing of one's mind!

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Jesus was basically God in person, so of course he represented a nearness with God, for the Jews, and basically no one else.
Paul is the one who introduced the nearness of God to everyone.
Jesus could be close if your name was Peter or John or James.
Paul's God is so close that His spirit is inside of you.

This is where I think there are further misconceptions about Jesus and Christ. They are actually one and the same - and not separate from God. Even on earth Jesus was one with God (as you are also saying) and he gifted everyone who directly recognized him as Divine with this recognition of one's own non-separation from God - and this was not meant for just a select few. Jesus loved everyone and all.

Paul created this rift between Jesus the God-Person and Christ as God elsewhere - basically because Paul did not understand that Jesus' Spirit in Person was the same as Christ Above. So Paul created yet another religion of assuming God and Christ are "other" and elsewhere, only to be unified with at some point in the future - not now, in daily life, moment to moment, as Jesus called for. Perhaps Paul allowed for a bit of spirit on occasion to keep one's hopes and dreams alive for the great and perfect Re-Union someday, but certainly not that in this lifetime. Jesus offered this Unity with God in this lifetime - being born to here from above.