Faith fulfills the Law through Christ

Berean sent another teaching today on Romans 2. You may want to check it out here:

http://theberean.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Home.showBerean/BereanID/3690/Romans-2-12-13

Generally this is what brother John W. Ritenbaugh is saying:

- It is God's will that we live moral lives through living by the law
- That law only applies to non-Christians and Christians alike
- We will be judged according to what we know (of the law)

Next I want to emphasize on this paragraph,

"The called must realize that, because of their calling, the requirements—and thus the judgments—are much stiffer since they know so much more. This is why Paul says in Romans 3:31, "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law." Faith upholds law or makes it firm because the law points out what righteousness, love, and sin are, and guides us in how faith is to be used." The Berean Email Blash, John Ritenbaugh

Now why am I so hard on brother John on what he is trying to say here? Ok...is the law important? Yes it is....and why is it important? Because the law points to our weaknesses and thus our unholiness and to justify our need for a saviour. It is that simple.

Faith establishes the law? I think brother John got it really wrong here. The whole passage, if read carefully, point to Apostle Paul's arguments that by faith we fulfill the law. Or we can cover the law by faith. How do we know that?

Very simply, in chapter 4 verse 13 (using NLT) it says:

"It is clear, then, that God's promise to give the whole earth to Abraham and his descendents was not based on obedience to God's law, but on the new relationship with God that comes by faith."

If we are to look into chapter 3 and 4 as a whole especially these two verses and particular chapter 3 verse 31, we can deduce easily that the argument that law is important so that faith is needed to establish it does not seem to merge with Chapter 4 verse 13. Very quickly, brother John argues that law is important whereas Apostle Paul who says that "it is clear" that the new relationship with God do not come by law but by faith!

If that's the case, chapter 4 verse 13 would match exactly to the whole epistle of what Apostle Paul is teaching...that we are dead to law and alive to God by faith through the Grace of God, through the work on the cross.

Brother John is trying to establish the rule of law in the Christian life which is not what Jesus wants to do. Jesus has establish our right to be sons of God not because of our obedience to the law, but because we believe in the work on the cross. Jesus has already fulfilled the law on our behalf when He was judged on the cross. So by the act of fulfilling the law, are we saying that Jesus sacrifice is not enough?

"Now this wonderful truth - that God declared him to be righteous - wasn't just for Abraham's benefit. It was for us, too, assuring us that God will also declare us to be righteous if we believe in God, who brought Jesus our Lord back from the dead. He was handed over to die because of our sins, and he was raised from the dead to make us right with God." Romans 4:23-25

Brother John is right. God wants us to be perfect, and to be perfect means to be moral and to be moral is basically be right with God: being righteous. That's the reason why morality have standards. But has brother John realised that by knowing those standards, what is God trying to tell us? That the law just tells us that we can never be moral. As Jesus has asked, "Who is good?"

But there's another use of the law, that is guide us in our daily living IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. Now the spirit of the message in Paul's letter to the Romans is fundamentally different from message that brother John is trying to espouse here. Brother John is saying that we ought to live by the law to be justified by God or we will be judged by God.

Apostle Paul's epistle is saying the opposite. By living in faith, we are already living by the law since faith gives righteousness thus righteousness fulfills the law automatically.

The beauty of all this is that by living in faith, the Holy Spirit can work in us and through us to enable us to live out the law in our flesh. This is different because we are already saved by believing and believing will allow us to work our way to the image that God's has originally planned.

Belief/faith can never happen if we fulfill all the law. Faith is needed before we do anything. If we fulfill the law first, then there is no need for faith. For example, I believe in God in giving me a good job but if out of my own strength I found a job, do I need faith to get it? No..because I already got the job.

But work through faith is different from work through law or works. One has belief in God to give whereas the other has belief in self to gain.

We ought to live in faith since by law, we can never attain righteousness.

Islam Radicals Obsession with War

Aish.com sent something over today which is quite interesting. It is promoting a movie that talks about radical Islam trying to take over the world. This is interesting especially the fact that I am living in the midst of fellow citizens who are Muslims and have friends who are Muslims.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227393,00.html
http://www.ObsessionTheMovie.com

Now I read with interest about someone who can read Arabic in the fox news forum Q&A about the documentary. This is what he Says and the producer of the documentary replied:

I read and speak Arabic. In the Arabic Koran, there are over 300 verses that declare "jihad" — killing and conquering all infidels. A Muslim told me that the Koran is perfect and it is to be believed and followed in its entireity. If Muslims follow the Koran, aren't they bound by the Koran to carry out its instructions; or do some Muslims not believe everything in the Koran? Wouldn't this make them infidels? This confuses me after reading the Arabic Koran and then watching your show on FOX News. What do you think? Thanks, Jim in Detroit

Raphael Shore: According to Islamic scholars, the Qur'an cannot be understood without secondary sources. One of these is the Sunnah (the example of Mohammed). One form of Sunnah is known as hadith (the sayings of Mohammed). According to Professor Shahul Hameed, "It is impossible to understand the Qur'an without reference to the Hadith; and it is impossible to explain a hadith without relating it to the Qur'an… Hadith, in practical terms, explains, clarifies, and paraphrases the Qur'an. If we reject the Hadith, we may misread the Qur'an; so Hadith is central to a proper understanding of the Qur'an." Within the context of these sources, there is room for interpretation. Take, for example, the word "jihad," which means "struggle." There are those who say that jihad means a struggle with others, to force them to submit to Islam by the sword, if necessary. Others say it refers to a struggle with oneself, to become a better person (this is discussed in "Obsession"). Another example of differing interpretations is homicide bombing. Many Radicals support this, and promote it as a quick route to paradise, while other clerics interpret the texts as strongly forbidding it under the prohibition against suicide. A great resource for more information is www.IslamOnline.net.

So to get a proper understanding on the teachings of Islam via the Quran, they need the Hadith. Now I am not trying to ridicule Islam and its Holy Book but if claims to be perfect, then it has to be perfect to at least understand it without the need for external sources.

If one can read from the Old and New Testament, I think it is clear that the Bible is very clear for most parts except for some prophetic verses about the end times that need in depth studies. Even if there are prophetic dreams, the Bible included explanations to help the reader. Close to most cases, if a bible scholar is good enough and with the help of Holy Spirit, he or she is able to use the Bible to interpret the Bible verses and to come to a conclusion of what it is teaching.

Yes I am comparing these books. And I am really stepping on dangerous grounds here...however out of academic curiosity, wouldn't a perfect being able to do everything perfectly? So wouldn't a perfect book able to at least explain everything without the need for another external source?

Our finite minds can never know everything...however God will provide enough evidences about us like using nature to let us know that He is around. So in the same way, whatever the Bible teaches, it has allow us to 'compare notes' on what it claims are truths. We believe after certain things it said are true about human nature for example & the prophecy it has predicted that has come to pass. Most without the need for an external source to understand the bible.

I think that if God is of the opinion that we really need help, He would not use something we do not understand to pass the message that we need help. Christ comes amongst the Jews and spoke in the language of the day to pass His message, God then use Paul and the Apostles to preach in the language of the day to their audiences. As times went by, we now have, through God's providence, the bible in different languages. I would believe that if there isn't a way for God to reach the unsaved, He will make a way.

My belief in a all powerful God will do anything for the sake of human beings because of who He is; and that's is what Christ has done. If He needs us to do anything for Him in order for us to gain heaven, then God in a sense is not really powerful isn't it?

Is The Theory of Grace an invention of Martin Luther?

I could not believe it that I saw something in Aish that is so blinded that I think the author, Rabbi Ken Spiro, should at least look at the claims that the 'theory' of Grace is not a theory at all...it is the Character of God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

(The link: http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History__Part_50_-_The_Reformation_and_the_Jews.asp)

Here is my reply to the article:

Re: History Shows the Depravity of Men and the Need for God

To all,

I am a Christian and I understand the impact of history to how we live today. The sad part is that some people do not learn from history and thus history repeats itself, to the detriment of many.

Now I saw a comment that said Christians ought to be ashamed of themselves and stop believing in Christianity because of the atrocities that was committed. I think that is wrong and should not be imposed on people. Imagine me asking Jews to stop believing in Judaism just because someone who profess to be a practising Jew commits sins.

Fact is: we all are sinners. We are a given the status of righteousness by God purely by God's grace as what He has given to Abraham (Gen 15:6).

This is what I say. The church is by no means a perfect representation of God's goodness however due recognition should be given for the good that the church does in all times. To just showcase a person's failure and brand him as a bad person is not giving the person a chance to change for the better. If we keep hounding on a person's past, without the positive expectation of good in the form of improving, then we are condemning a person pre-maturely. That will be a sad day for all.

By the way, there's no such thing called 'theory' of Grace. On the contrary, Grace is the character of God that has shown to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and numerous Bible heros and also to me.

So did the church done evil in the name of religion? Yes I have to concede that fact. But does that mean that the church has not improve? I think the Rabbi has seen also that Christians are also supporters of Jews and the state of Israel. As with any relationship, forgiveness is the key to restore and build relationship. Let it be so while we learn about history too.