What is my responsibility as a Christian?

[Michelle]

Hi dseusy,

2. The servant metaphor was a stepping stone to the friend metaphor for me... I'll try not to project this on others, although I hope everyone will become completely reconciled to God and become His friends, rather than His slaves- Love drives out fear.

You said you will try not to project this on others, so I might be asking these questions too late, but what about the men and women who are called servants, or bondservants, of Christ in the epistles? These are people who don't otherwise seem to be stuck on a stepping stone on the way to maturity. (Paul, James, Simon Peter, Jude, John, Epaphras, Tychicus, Phoebe)

If the stepping stone metaphor still works for you, why do you stop at friend? Why not go all the way to adopted son? (Galatians 4:1-5)

[steve]

Steve,

I wholeheartedly believe that there is no more law for Christians...

Then you do not agree with Jesus (Luke 6:46/John 14:15), with Paul (1 Cor.9:21/ 2 Cor.10:5) or with James (Jas.1:22-25; 2:8-9), to name only a few.

if there was [a law for Christians to obey], who would pay the penalty (under God's righteousness and justice) for breaking it? Jesus only died once.

I don't understand the problem you are having with this. "If there was a law for Christians to keep, who would die for our disobedience?" What kind of question is this? Isn't it obvious that Jesus is the one who died for our disobedience? But disobedience to what? If there is no law, then there can be no disobedience, and Christ's death covers exactly nothing.

Paul's comments about the law are not negative concerning the law... they are communicating the imperative to move past the law, but Paul upheld the law as good. He referenced universal law much more than he referenced the Torah... I've studied this specific point extensively.

I'm familiar with anthropology and cultural taboos. These are an aspect of Nomos but are certainly not encompassing. The context Paul uses this term "law" in relates even to the Torah:

Galatians 5:3 "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised , that he is a debtor to do the whole law." Circumcision is more than a Jewish custom.

I made no reference to Jewish customs. Why do you bring it up? I said that Paul was concerned that the Gentile believers should not succumb the the Jewish mentality about being special in the sight of God due to Jewish ceremonial law (i.e., being circumcised). Are you thinking of the ceremonial law given by Moses when you use the term "custom"? Are you not aware that these practices were part of the law, and not mere custom? I am not following your thought here at all.

Steve, I've got to disagree with this statement, "Paul did not recommend any form of antinomianism, but was aghast to see Christians, who had experienced the fulfillment in Christ, seeking some righteous identity in terms of becoming part of the Jewish religion."

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4 Have you suffered so much for nothing--if it really was for nothing? 5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard? 6 Consider Abraham: 'He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'" Galatians 3:1-6

I don't believe this is just about Jewish customs, but about whether they are receiving the Spirit by earning or believing.

The verses you cite in Galatians do not speak to the matter I raised. I have never said that any of Paul's references to "the law" were speaking about Jewish customs. You must be using words differently from the way I am using them, because we are speaking past each other. When Paul talks about the law, in Galatians, he gives examples of what he is talking about—e.g., circumcision (5:3) and religious festivals (4:9-10). These are not Jewish customs. They are laws given by God through Moses. They were what defined the Jews' identity in their eyes. These are the things Paul identifies as his concerns.

I agree that Paul upheld the law.

I don't believe that obedience and grace are in conflict, I believe they are partners for our salvation- but not at the same time. If we could be perfectly obedient, we wouldn't need mercy.

If we need mercy, then there must be something we have disobeyed and which has left us guilty and in need of forgiveness. If we are not responsible to obey anything, then disobedience is a non-issue, and we do not need mercy.

Jesus taught the law. The new covenant didn't kick in until the curtain was torn and then we received His Spirit.

I like your point about Christ and Paul being popular among the Pharisees... hilarious- since we both know this wasn't true, something else must be. If we make obedience to Christ cleaning the outside of the cup, then we will likely make ourselves popular among modern day Pharisees.

Why do you define "obedience to Christ" as "cleaning the outside of the cup"? Has anyone here suggested that they see it in this way? You are criticizing a mentality that is unrelated to anything advocated in this thread. It seems that one of the most central concepts in the New Testament—namely, that we recognize Jesus as our Lord and as the one we are to obey—is utterly foreign to you. Apparently, you mistake obedience for some kind of effort to make ourselves qualify for something.

I believe Acts 5:32 isn't about receiving the Spirit because of obedience (otherwise Paul wouldn't have said we receive the Spirit by believing- above), but that those who obey have the Spirit- they couldn't obey without it. It is a characteristic of obedience, that a believer has the Spirit, not a consequence- or else salvation is by obedience.

Obedience does characterize the life of a Spirit-filled Christian, but the flesh is still corrupt and it is still fruit, and not a result of earning it through law-abiding behavior.

Which is precisely what I said. This is not a point of disagreement between us.

If we are responsible for our righteousness through obedience, we will never enter God's good graces. I think it may be inevitable that we bear responsibility until the law leads us to Christ and we allow Him to bear it for us. The responsibility for a child to obey the parent is law, and all children have failed their responsibility... can they still be children? Of course...

This is the very point I made. Are you saying that this means that the children of the household do not bear responsibility to honor and obey their parents? Do you have children? If so, how do you manage your household without the assumption that this is what children are supposed to do?

God knew this command was for sin to increase (the command is law and the law was added for this purpose). I believe the fear talk (1 Peter 1) is Peter laying down the law... the Gentile believers didn't have the law (as we know Christ is foolishness to those not having the law), so perhaps he is helping the recipients of the letter who need an understanding of why they need mercy. Americans are in the same boat... we don't understand the law, so when you go witness to those who haven't been taught the law they respond, "I'm a pretty good person... why do I need Jesus?". The law was added so that sin might increase. The law was added so that lawlessness might increase- why then would lawfulness be a responsibility? (Romans 11:32)

I guess I would prefer to believe that Peter wrote what he did because he believed it and thought it an important thing for Christians to know.

Steve, I believe we should take responsibility seriously. If obedience is a responsibility we must be obedient.

Yes, this is the case, as the scripture abundantly affirms. Did you look up any of the many scriptures I listed for you on this? It seems you did not, as you appear to be pretending that they do not exist.

If we fail even once, we have fallen from righteousness.

Paul would disagree with you on this (Rom.8:1).

Jesus has covered our failure and our relationship with God is no longer about our responsibility under the law, but about His love for us.

Can you give some reason why we should see these two options as mutually exclusive? Also, what do you mean by "the law"? Did anyone here suggest that we are under the law (i.e., of Moses)? If you are arguing that we are not under the mosaic legislation, you are not arguing against anyone here, except, perhaps, the Seventh-Day Adventists. If you are addressing my points, then you should be aware that I have never recommended that we are under any law except the law that Paul said he was under: "Christ's law."

Since I fail to God's commands perfectly, I have guilt associated with my sin. Guilt makes it impossible to approach the throne with confidence. How can I be guilty and be reconciled to God? I believe the ministry of reconciliation is that Christ did away with guilt by gifting me blamelessness.

I have not introduced any discussion about guilt. We were talking about responsibility. The phrase "we are responsible to..." means only "we should..." Is it your position that there is nothing we should do, as Christians? If there is nothing we should do, then why are we commanded (in the entire New Testament) to do so many things?

You do not seem to understand grace or mercy. You seem to think that mercy denies the existence of duty, whereas, if there was no duty, and no failure to perform a duty, there would be no function for grace or mercy. It is specifically because there is failure to perform duty that grace and mercy exist. Without duty, there can be no concept of mercy. If nothing is owed, there are no debts requiring forgiveness.

"He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach" Colossians 1:22 I don't present myself Holy, Christ does.

You should read more widely in scripture. We are, in fact, to "present" our bodies "holy and acceptable" as a living sacrifice (Rom.12:1) and "present" our members as instruments of righteousness (Rom.6:13). If we are to do this, then it is what we should do—that is, we are responsible to do what we are told by God to do. If you still misunderstand, I will spend no more time trying to clarify.

[dseusy]

Steve,

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate you showing your stance as it relates to God's Word. I don't think we are seeing eye to eye partially because I haven't properly communicated when I am commenting about the "law" perspective and when I am communicating about the "fulfilled law" perspective. Additionally, I believe we have a different view of the law. My understanding of the word law is that it pertains to all that we "are to do". There are certainly different categories in which these fit into (Law of Moses, Prophets, Words of Wisdom, Jesus' teachings, epistles teachings- both exhortations and commands, etc.), but the commands are often linked, modified, and restated. I see this picture of God's righteousness across scripture and these acts we "are to" do. As long as we "are to" do them, they are a requirement (as law) and the penalty for breaking these commands (lawlessness), which is sin, is death. The law brings death.

Romans 7:10 "and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me"
Romans 8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death"
1 Corinthians 3:7 "But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was"

I view an exhortation differently. Since Jesus fulfilled the law, (and He had to have fulfilled it all, or else there would be Biblical commands left unfulfilled- by us first, and by Jesus secondly- which would result in spiritual death for us) there are many N.T. exhortations for us to be who we are. These serve as a reminder to me of who Christ made me- new, pure, and blameless.

Examples of exhortations would be:
Romans 12:1 "I urge you"
Ephesians 4:1 "I implore you"
2 Corinthians 6:1 "I urge you"
1 Thessalonians 5:14 "We urge you"
1 Peter 2:11 "I urge you"
2 Corinthians 5:20 "we beg you"
Galatians 4:12 "I beg of you"
1 Corinthians 1:10 "I exhort you"


I think it is important to distinguish between what the Bible exhorts us to do and what the Bible commands us to do. The commands are law, but the exhortations are encouragement.

When I state that I wholeheartedly believe that there is no more law for Christians, what I mean is that under a fulfilled law, there are no more applicable commands that require obedience... Christ was obedient on our behalf because we needed Him to fulfill this for us.

Concerning the verses you cited:

What do you believe the law of Christ is? If we make Christ's law another set of commands- it defeats the purpose of Christ- to fulfill commands and make us holy.

Romans 8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death."

I believe the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus is the law of Christ which you referenced.

Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

Therefore, why would Christ introduce some new set of commands or "law of Christ" which would require us to perform certain works?

James cites law. If he didn't, he would be contradicting Paul's statement: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." Romans 3:28

Christ's death covers our disobedience to the law... there is a law and it is in place (not a jot or tittle will pass from it until all is accomplished), but it is fulfilled for Christians, and that is why I state that there is no law for Christians, because we are no longer under it. Romans 3:19; Galatians 3:10, 23; 5:18

Concerning Jewish customs: You mentioned things like, "things distinctly Jewish", distinguishing factors from other societies such as "ritual practices", and "Jewish religion".

I grouped these and called it culture, so I apologize for any assumptions, mis-labelings, or miscommunications. My point was, circumcision is more than distinctly Jewish, or a ritual practice... it is required under law. Poor communication on my part.

Concerning circumcision being required by law, I think we're on the same page.

Concerning our need for mercy: This is very interesting... is our need for mercy past tense or present? I think the answer lies in separating the fleshly identity from the spiritual one. Christ died for sins once for all, so if we still need mercy, who will justly give it without compromising God's righteousness? So, spiritually, I believe mercy is past tense because now we are pure in Christ Jesus through faith, by grace. However, we continue to sin in our flesh, so His mercies are new each day

Steve, when I referred to obedience to Christ, I should have stated, "obedience to Jesus' commands". I believe obedience to Christ is placing our hope fully in Christ's atonement- it is receiving grace. I believe we as Christians turn Jesus' commands from law that He fulfilled, into law we are now under again. This is why I referred to it as cleaning the outside of the cup...

I apologize for my poor communication... this is great practice though I'm not being sarcastic- I know it is hard to tell sometimes with the written word.

Concerning children and obedience... this is a great example of the core of what's on my heart: under God's law children are responsible to obey their parents. However, they cannot fulfill this perfectly, as the law requires (James 2:10). If they are responsible they are condemned because they have disobeyed God's command. Since Jesus died for this, it becomes His responsibility. I do have children and I teach them God's laws, because I believe the applied law leads us to Christ- when the Spirit leads I explain the Gospel more eloquently to them.

Where I stated that we must be obedient and if we fail, we fall from righteousness, I was stating 2 lawful statements. We now have been credited righteousness, although we previously fell from it.

I believe the phrase, "we are responsible to" means we must- it is a responsibility and we must prove faithful. I see now how "we should" can be interpreted differently.

I get your point about mercy being obsolete if there is no debt owed... I guess what I'm trying to say is that Jesus paid the debt (past tense) and so no current debt is owed... we exist in spiritual life, in His Spirit because of mercy (and in this worldly life we continue in it), but spiritually, mercy was given (past tense) and now we run in His love.

I believe separating the perspective of flesh from the perspective of spirit is crucial to this whole discussion.

Concerning your last point: I believe this relates to my earlier comments about exhortations verses law/commands. Romans 12:1 is an exhortation and the context of Romans 6:13 is not about us making our members (flesh) presentable, but about us offering the parts of our body to God- He will use it as an instrument... let's let the Master Musician do the playing as our true lives are hidden in Him and we live this life completely by one faith, with one hope. This sounds to me like Good News. If I have to do the presentation/performance then I tackle once again a burden I already let Christ carry.

May God bless you.

[Homer]

Hi Dseusy,
I have been following this thread and have been puzzled at exactly what your concern is. It appears to me that you are confused about the meaning of the terms "law" and "the law" in the scriptures. We are, as Christians, given commands to obey, but they are not the law of Moses. We are to obey "the Law of Christ", His commands.

Perhaps the following will be of help:

When the doctrines of the reign of Heaven began to be preached, and to be contrasted in the New Testament with the Mosaic economy, the phrase "the law," became very common, and when used without any distinguishing epithet, or restrictive definition, invariably denoted the whole legal or Mosaic dispensation. In this acceptation it occurs about 150 times in the New Testament. To make myself more intelligible, I would observe that when the terms "the law," have such distinguishing properties or restrictive definitions as "the royal law," "the law of faith," "the law of liberty," "the law of Christ," "the law of the spirit of life," &c., it is most obvious the whole Mosaic law or dispensation is not intended. But when we find the phrase "the law," without any such limitations or epithets, as "the law was given by Moses," "the law and the prophets were until John," "if ye led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law," "ye are not under the law but under grace," &c., we must perceive the whole law of Moses, or legal dispensation, is intended.

The quote is from an old sermon which was of great help to me. You can read the entire sermon here:

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/ac ... 6/SOTL.HTM

When we read "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death" we are being told that we have been set free from the Law of Moses. See 2 Corinthians, chapter 3, where Paul speaks in a similar vein of the Ten Commandments.

Jesus' commands are not optional and they are not suggestions:

1 John 2:3-6
New King James Version (NKJV)

3. Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

[Paidion]

I didn't quit the Navigators, stop making disciples, or sleep more. I didn't stop spending time with the Lord or stop applying His Word to my life... I did, however, stop striving.

Too bad you have stopped striving. This is contrary to Paul's advice to Timothy:

Strive to show yourself approved to God, a workman that need not be ashamed, cutting straight the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

[mattrose]

I think it is also helpful to think of the word 'responsibility'

Without the Spirit, we are unable to keep the law
With the Spirit, we become response-able

So, you could say, our response-ability becomes far greater once we become Christians

[Troy]

Your responsibility is to walk in humility and brokenness, with your heart inclined to hear the King. Read the transfiguration of Jesus story. God said to Peter James and John "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear him! Jesus told them to wait until after the resurrection because He would then be enthroned as king. Hence, it is now the law of the kingdom the citizens of the kingdom are to obey. It is a relational orientation, and fits very well with the your understanding of grace and, say, what Mattrose and others are conveying. Ethics are important, and to say there is no place for them is damnable heresy. We are in a kingdom that contains ethics. They are the ethics of the kingdom, but in this new covenant and new creation age, the new humanity in Christ have been given the gift of the Spirit and ethics are produced from union with Christ. Its true we are sons and daughters and are to relate to the Father from that reality, but we are still slaves. It is out of our identity and sonship that we are moved in love by the Spirit, as the King dictates, to submit the commands he brings before us, therefore presenting ourselves as slaves of Christ.

[dseusy]

Homer,

Thank you for sharing part of this sermon, as I feel it addresses an important issue but please consider its application to a few verses...

Romans 2:26-27 "So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision ? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?"

A requirement of the law is circumcision.

Romans 2:14 "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves"

Would a Gentile instinctively practice or know animal sacrifice or not wearing a shirt woven of two different fabrics, etc.?


Please consider the magnitude of your stance...

Jesus, in Matthew chapter 5 states Mosaic Law and then elevates it. If the law was introduced or added that sin might increase or abound and it could never bring life (Hebrews 10:1), why do we treat it as though it could? The law leads us to Christ, so I agree that Jesus' commands are not optional or suggestions, but if we never grow into the teaching about righteousness (that which is credited, not earned) how can we live? Jesus commands very difficult things. If they are not optional, what is the consequence? If breaking Jesus' commands is a sin, and sin leads to death, who will rescue us from the just consequence for our sin under Jesus' commands?

James 1:23-25 "For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does."

I don't believe the law of liberty is defined as Mosaic, (because I don't think James was trying to get people to sacrifice animals or ensure the proper number of tassels on their garments) but it does define the work that leads us to Christ. Once we rest in Him, however, this verse reminds us of the blessing and perhaps the road that led us to it.

[dseusy]

Paidion,

Good point... I am diligent to present myself approved to God, but it no longer feels like work. I'm not striving like I used to- with a burden on my back, trying to earn God's favor because now I know He's already given it in His Son. The nature of the "striving" has completely changed just as the fruit born in my life has. I used to "can" fruit, as I would package it best I could and market it as though my life depended on it, always hoping it was enough. Now, His natural fruit accomplishes itself, as I rest under the shade of His love- He is my only hope. If I were to re-open the "fruit factory" (as if I could replicate His fruit) I would only prove myself to be a "fake fruit manufacturer".

Galatians 2:18-21 "For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. 20 "I have been crucified with Christ ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 21 "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

Although I constantly fail to obey Jesus' commands (although I've tried my hardest over and over again, and I hate wickedness) I am a workman who need not be ashamed.

[dseusy]

Mattrose,

I like your play on words...

I agree that as a believer my response is enabled, but in the flesh I still find myself broken and very unable to respond as I would like (Romans 7).